David Pundak, Shmaryahu Rozner Ort Braude Engineering College & Kinneret College Israel Advanced Technologies in Education Ellinogermaniki Agogi Greece,
Post on 02-Jan-2016
222 Views
Preview:
Transcript
David Pundak , Shmaryahu Rozner Ort Braude Engineering College &
Kinneret College Israel
Advanced Technologies in Education Ellinogermaniki Agogi
Greece, Jan. 26 – 27, 2007
Technology-Enabled Active Learning in the School of
Tomorrow: Empowering Teachers to
Adopt Innovative Methods
Background
There is a growing consensus that the traditional methods used in teaching the basic science courses are ineffective.
Most of the students who complete these courses: do not acquire deep knowledge about the basic scientific and
technological concepts develop a negative approach to the sciences
Variety of innovative teaching methods have been proposed and implemented, during the last decade, which focus on “active learning”
Despite research-based evidence of the success of these methods, they are often resisted by the academic staff.
Facing the Challenge of Staff Reluctance
The sources of staff reluctance A 5-stage model which describes how
instructors adopt innovative teaching methods.
How the Center for Active Learning faced this challenge by addressing each stage of the model.
Development of Active Learning in our college 2004
- 2006 SCALE-UP approach Focusing on how students
build knowledge Just in time teaching Collaborative learning Engineering of environment Short lectures and more
students’ activities Continuous assessment
Group Assignment
Problem Solving
Teacher Position During Discussion
Planning the adoption of Planning the adoption of active learning innovation active learning innovation
according Rogersaccording Rogers*
*Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th edition). The Free Press. New York.
Knowledge Persuasion Decision Implementation Confirmation
The StudyThe Study
Study Question What is the level of adoption of innovative active learning
methods by faculty?
Study Methods Lessons’ Observations
During 2005, fall semester, observations were made in 5 courses.
During 2006, fall semester – 4 courses.
Faculty interviews 7 faculty were interviewed, once at the beginning and once
at the end of the semester.
Research PopulationResearch Population
Courses: Physics 1 - Mechanics Physics 2 - Electricity and Magnetism Calculus 1 Calculus 2 Chemistry
7 faculty 4 Physics faculty 3 Math faculty 2 Chemistry
Awareness of students’ Awareness of students’ learning difficultieslearning difficultiesfaculty
Difficulty1234567
Students learn science in different ways.
Students have naïve concepts that create obstacles to new ideas
Students have low qualifications in problem solving
Difficulties in assessment – a good answer is not enough
Personal monitoring is important, but it doesn’t work in large class
Many difficulties in conceptual questions
Awareness to the difficulty
Knowledge StageKnowledge Stage
Contact with institutions that already adopted the innovative methods.
Involving faculty in planning the changes.
Involving faculty in applying the changes.
Planning and developing active learning on a long-term basis.
Persuasion StagePersuasion Stage
Supportive groups of 3-4 faculty for each course.
Facing uncertainties by collecting information and generating solutions.
Financial support for faculty for their extra efforts.
Decision StageDecision Stage Courses during fall 2005:
Physics 1 - Mechanics Physics 2 - Electricity and
Magnetism Calculus 1 Calculus 2 Chemistry
13 faculty were part of the development teams of the courses
9 faculty are teaching the courses
Implementation stageImplementation stage preparationspreparations (from interviews)
Perception Change "I have to change my teaching approach, it is not only a change in my folders but mainly in my mind. During the lessons I still change my strategies. I prepared activities, web-assignments, animations, problems for groups, and I plan precisely when and how to move from one to another".
Self Discovery "The preparations for teaching the active learning approach are much more thought demanding and planning time more consuming. It forces me to understand how the students are learning in the new environment. I discovered new things in myself as a teacher, I never was aware of.”
Implementation stageImplementation stage Collaborative WorkCollaborative Work (from interviews)
Internalization of learning material"When the students are working in groups, I stand behind them, and immediately understand what they know and where they are stuck. The assumption is that they will learn at home, but usually it never happens. Here I know what they internalize. After about half of the students finish the assignment I move on.”
Students at the Center"The round tables contribute a lot to the collaborative learning, and to the discussion and interaction between the students. Students are aware that they should solve problems by themselves. I try to manage this learning style in the ordinary class, where I am the main actor, and it doesn’t work. The students are waiting that I’ll solve the problem for them”.
Levels of Adoption-Levels of Adoption-InventionInvention *
AdoptionAdaptionInformed Invention
Informed
The instructor develops the materials or adopts it and implements it according to the SCALE-UP pedagogical approach.
Materials and
procedures are given to the instructor who changes them slightly before implementing them.
The instructor uses the original ideas but significantly alters them or develops
fundamentally new procedures based on the original ideas
The instructor
develops
materials and
procedures that
are
fundamentally
based on
his/her own
ideas.
*Henderson, Dancy (2005). Physics Faculty and Educational Researchers: Divergent Expectations as Barriers to the Diffusion of Innovations. Proceeding of AAPT meeting PER.
Example: Collaborative Example: Collaborative LearningLearning
Adoption: Collaborative learning is implemented according to the approach developed by Beichner (NCSU), Belcher (MIT)
Adaption: Only the procedures from the original approach are implemented.
Informed Invention: Only a small portion from the original approach is implemented in collaborative learning.
Informed: Almost no time devoted to collaborative learning, and no rules applied while students are working in groups.
Application of “Active Application of “Active Methods” - 2005Methods” - 2005faculty
Method1234567
Peer instruction
Animations as a tool for problem solving
Interactive demonstrations
Web assignment feedback
Collaborative problem solving
Interactive presentations
Used in high frequencyUsed in low frequency
Levels of Adoption-Invention Levels of Adoption-Invention by faculty in 2005 Studyby faculty in 2005 Study
0
1
2
Adoption Adaption InformedInvention
Informed
Physics
Math
Application of “Active Application of “Active Methods” - 2006Methods” - 2006faculty
Method1234
Peer instruction
Animations as a tool for problem solving
Interactive demonstrations
Web assignment feedback
Collaborative problem solving
Interactive presentations
Used in high frequencyUsed in low frequency
Levels of Adoption-Invention Levels of Adoption-Invention by faculty in 2006 Studyby faculty in 2006 Study
0
1
2
Adoption Adaption InformedInvention
Informed
Chemistry
Math
ConclusionsConclusions
There is dissatisfaction among all faculty regarding the traditional learning environment.
Faculty are aware of students’ difficulties in learning introductory science courses.
The preparations for teaching at active learning center are significantly greater compared with traditional methods.
Despite the preparation time and support that faculty get, there is a large diversity in application of active learning.
The is a significant difference between the physics and the math team. Part of is could explain by ready to invest high efforts in relative short time.
ConclusionsConclusions (cont.) (cont.)
The adoption of SCALE-UP pedagogy is a long procedure, at the first stage the faculty experience difficulties with the new environment – like a new immigrant.
All the faculty emphasize two aspects: Students are more active and involved compared with
previous method. The learning rate is slow, and only part of the syllabus is
covered. Faculty use only a small part of the technology they
could use in the active learning center.
Thank you
David Pundak
david@kinneret.ac.il
top related