Trust and Active Learning

Updated Apr 04, 2026

Active learning asks students to participate, question, and apply ideas in real time. That only works when students trust the person asking them to do it. If collaborative tasks or problem-solving exercises feel like unsupported extra work, engagement can drop before the benefits of active learning have time to appear. Active learning covers student-centred approaches such as peer collaboration, experimentation, and problem-solving (Handelsman et al., 2007). Previous research links these approaches to stronger engagement and performance (Chasteen and Pollock, 2008; Wieman, 2014; Freeman et al., 2014). That creates a practical question for lecturers: what makes students commit to active learning in the first place? In science education especially, there is strong demand for clearer evidence on the student and classroom factors that shape engagement, persistence, and attainment (Dolan, 2015).

This paper explores two factors as possible predictors of students' commitment to active learning, engagement, and overall performance. The authors focus on:

1. Students' trust in their instructor, specifically whether the instructor seems caring, understanding, and accepting.
2. Students' attitudes towards 'growth mindset', or how far they believe intelligence and ability can develop through learning.

A group of 245 undergraduate students voluntarily participated in the study. All were enrolled in the same Anatomy and Physiology course. In return for taking part, students received credits worth less than 1% of their total class grade. Before receiving their final class grade, participants completed self-report questionnaires covering four areas:

1. Their trust in the instructor.
2. Their attitudes towards growth mindset.
3. Their commitment to active learning.
4. Their level of engagement with course activities.

The results suggest that trust is the stronger and more consistent predictor. Trust accounted for 16% of the variation in participants' commitment to active learning, while growth mindset accounted for 4%. For engagement, trust accounted for 13% of the variation and growth mindset 3%. The paper does not provide separate values for their contribution to final grades, but together the two factors explain 7% of the variance in final class grade. The practical takeaway is clear: students are more likely to commit to active learning when they believe their instructor is supportive and has their interests in mind.

That matters because trust is something educators can influence more quickly than students' underlying beliefs about intelligence and learning, which are generally more resistant to short-term change (Dweck, 2008). For lecturers, that makes trust a useful lever. Improving day-to-day interactions may raise engagement sooner than mindset interventions on their own.

Based on these findings, the authors highlight practical ways to build trust around active learning. Each one reduces uncertainty for students and makes participation feel safer and more worthwhile:

1. Explain that active learning may require more effort, but make it clear that the instructor is there to support students through it. The authors suggest statements such as 'I have your best interests in mind', 'We're all in this together', and 'I have your back'.
2. Request formative feedback on teaching methods and class activities.
3. Be available for questions before, during, and after class.
4. Be transparent about the goals and purpose of each activity.
5. Highlight the evidence behind the pedagogies being used, including active learning strategies in STEM classrooms, and the benefits they can bring to students.
6. Align in-class activities with assessments so students understand how they will be evaluated.
7. Promote a growth mindset as part of the learning culture.

In practical terms, positive student-instructor interactions do more than make classes feel more supportive. They increase students' willingness to take part in active learning, strengthen engagement, and may improve academic performance. For providers and teaching teams, the message is simple: trust is not a soft extra. It is one of the conditions that helps active learning work.

FAQ

Q: How do the effects of trust in the instructor and attitudes towards growth mindset compare across different academic disciplines?

A: The overall pattern is likely to hold across disciplines, but the way trust is built will vary. In mathematics or engineering, students may place more trust in instructors who explain difficult concepts clearly and show how they apply in practice. In the humanities, trust may depend more on whether students feel their perspectives are heard and discussion is genuinely open. Growth mindset can also land differently across subjects. In creative disciplines, for example, students may already expect to learn through iteration and feedback. The key takeaway is to keep the principle constant, trust and belief in improvement matter, while adapting the teaching approach to the norms of each discipline.

Q: What specific strategies or interventions were most effective in building trust between students and instructors?

A: The most effective strategies are usually the most visible ones: clear communication, responsive support, and evidence that student feedback changes practice. Personalised feedback, one-to-one conversations, and opportunities for students to influence activities all signal that the instructor takes their progress seriously. Asking for feedback helps, but trust grows faster when students can see what changed as a result.

Q: How do individual student characteristics, such as background, prior educational experiences, or personal beliefs, influence the effectiveness of active learning strategies and the importance of trust and growth mindset?

A: Individual characteristics shape how students interpret active learning. Students with positive prior educational experiences may engage more quickly and extend trust faster. Students who have experienced bias, exclusion, or repeated difficulty may need more reassurance before they see active learning as supportive rather than risky. Cultural expectations about authority and collaboration can matter too. That is why inclusive teaching matters: instructors need to explain why activities are being used, offer multiple ways to participate, and adapt support so different students can engage with confidence.

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.

Book a free demo Prefer email? info@studentvoice.ai

UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround

Related Entries

• Active Learning Strategies
• The Benefits for Students of Problem-Based Learning
• Reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations
• Student Response Systems in Large Active-Learning Classrooms