Trust and Active Learning
Updated May 28, 2026
Active learning asks students to take a risk. They have to answer questions, work with peers, expose uncertainty and sometimes struggle in public. Trust is therefore not a pleasant extra. It is one of the conditions that makes active learning possible.
The study discussed here looks at undergraduate students in an Anatomy and Physiology course. It tests whether trust in the instructor and growth mindset predict commitment to active learning, engagement and final performance.
What the study shows
The authors define trust in terms of whether students see the instructor as caring, understanding and accepting. Growth mindset refers to students' belief that ability can develop through learning.
The study included 245 undergraduate students. Participants completed questionnaires about trust, growth mindset, commitment to active learning and engagement before receiving their final grade. The results show that trust was the stronger predictor.
Trust explained 16% of the variation in commitment to active learning, while growth mindset explained 4%. For engagement, trust explained 13% and growth mindset 3%. Together, the two factors explained 7% of the variance in final class grade.
These figures should not be overread, but they do point to a clear teaching implication. Students are more likely to engage in active learning when they believe the instructor is on their side and the activity has a purpose.
That matters because growth mindset is difficult to change quickly. Trust can be influenced through everyday teaching choices: clarity, availability, responsiveness, honest explanation and alignment between activities and assessment.
What universities can do with this
Instructors should explain why active learning is being used. Students who are used to traditional lectures may interpret group work or problem-solving as less efficient unless the purpose is made explicit. A short explanation can reduce uncertainty: this activity is here because it helps you practise the kind of reasoning the assessment will require.
Availability also matters. Students need routes to ask questions before, during and after class. That does not mean staff must be constantly available, but support needs to be predictable and visible.
Alignment with assessment is another trust signal. If active learning tasks feel unrelated to grading, students may treat them as a distraction. If they clearly prepare students for the assessed work, participation feels more worthwhile.
Student feedback should be gathered during the course, not only at the end. Useful prompts include whether students understand the purpose of activities, whether they feel supported when asked to participate, and whether the teaching helps them prepare for assessment. Closing the loop on that feedback is part of trust-building too.
Limits of the evidence
The study is based on one course and self-report measures, so it does not prove that trust alone causes better performance. It does show that students' relationship with the instructor is strongly linked to whether active learning is accepted. For teaching teams, that is enough to make trust a design concern.
FAQ
Q: Is trust more important than teaching technique?
A: They work together. Strong techniques can still fail if students do not trust the purpose or support behind them.
Q: How can instructors build trust quickly?
A: Explain the purpose of activities, respond consistently, align tasks with assessment and show that student feedback is being used.
Q: Does this only apply to science courses?
A: The study was in Anatomy and Physiology, but the principle applies more widely. Any active learning task asks students to participate, and participation depends on trust.
References
[1] Chasteen, S. V., & Pollock, S. J. (2008). Transforming upper-division electricity and magnetism. In AIP conference proceedings (Vol. 1064, No. 1, pp. 91–94).
DOI:10.1063/1.3021282
[2] Dolan, E. L. (2015). Biology education research 2.0. CBE--Life Sciences Education, 14, ed1.
DOI:10.1187/cbe.15-11-0229
[3] Dweck, C. (2008). Mindsets and math/science achievement (Prepared for the Carnegie Corporation of New York–Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education). New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Available at: www.growthmindsetmaths.com
[4] Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., ... Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, 8410–8415.
DOI:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
[5] Handelsman, J., Miller, S., & Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific teaching. New York: Macmillan.
DOI:10.1126/science.1096022
[6] Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(23), 8319–8320.
DOI:10.1073/pnas.1407304111
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround