You are here:

Instructors' Attitudes toward Active Learning
ARTICLE

, Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, Israel ; , , , ORT Braude College, Israel

IJELLO Volume 5, Number 1, ISSN 1552-2237 Publisher: Informing Science Institute

Full Text

Abstract

One of the major goals of science and technology education today is to promote students' active learning as a way to improve students' conceptual understanding and thinking skills. Although there is clear evidence for the benefits of active learning, most lecturers in higher education still adhere to traditional teaching methods. This research seeks to identify the characteristic attitudes of “active instructors” towards active learning and discerning a distinction between these attitudes and those of the remaining instructors. This study examined the attitudes of 153 lecturers in three higher education institutions in Israel. The research tool was an attitude questionnaire developed specially for this study on the basis of the experience of 7 “active instructors” exposing the process of change they had undergone moving from traditional teaching to more active instruction. An analysis of these interviews provided the basis for characterizing the attitudes of "active instructors" and subsequently for the development of the research questionnaire. On the basis of a litera- ture review and an examination of the attitudes of the “active instructors,” a content analysis was undertaken in which the attitudes were grouped into six key domains that can characterize the tendency of a lecturer to adopt active teaching. The findings reveal that in all these 6 domains there were significant differences between the attitudes of "active instructors" and their colleagues. This diagnostic tool can supply crucial information to the college and universities directors when planning supportive steps toward advancing active learning in their institutions.

Citation

Pundak, D., Herscovitz, O., Shaham, M. & Wiser-Biton, R. (2009). Instructors' Attitudes toward Active Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 215-232. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved January 27, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abbott, D.S., Saul, J.M., Parker, G.W., & Beichner, R.J. (2000). Can one lab make a difference? American Journal of Physics, 68(S1), 60-61.
  2. Ada, W.W. (2009). Computer supported collaborative learning and higher order thinking skills: A case study of textile studies. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 145-167.
  3. Barak, M., Harward, J., Kocur, G., & Lerman, S. (2007). Transforming an introductory programming course: From lectures to active learning via wireless laptops. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(4), 325-336.
  4. Beichner, R.J., Saul, J.M., Allain, R.J., Deardorff, D.L., & Abbott, D.S. (2000). Promoting collaborative groups in large enrollment courses. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers.
  5. Beichner, R., Saul, J., Abbott, D., Morse, J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R., Bonham, S., Dancy, M., & Risley, J (2007). Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) project. In E.F. Redish& P.J. Cooney (Eds.), Research-based reform of university physics. College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers.
  6. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co.
  7. Burke, P.J. (1987). Teacher development-Induction, renewal and redirection. New York: Falmer Press.
  8. Cooper, J.L., & Robinson, P. (2000). The arguments for making large classes seem small. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 81, 5-16.
  9. Dori, Y.J., Belcher, J.W., Bessette, M., Danziger, M., McKinney, A., & Hult, E. (2003). Technology for active learning. Materials Today, 6(12), 44-49.
  10. Dori, Y.J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411-430.
  11. Dori, Y.J., & Herscovitz, O. (2005). Case-based long-term professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1413-1446.
  12. Etkina, E. And Van Heuvelen, A. (2001). Investigative Science Learning Environment: Using the processes of science and cognitive strategies to learn physics, in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, 17-21.
  13. Felder, R.M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. The College Teaching, 44, 43–47.
  14. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
  15. Gavalcova, T (2008).On strategies contributing to active learning. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 27(3), 116-122.
  16. Gerlese, S., & Akerlind, G.S. (2004, July). A new dimension to understanding university teaching, Teaching in Higher Education, 9, (3), 363-375.
  17. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M.H (2008) Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76(1), 79-91.
  18. Harmin, M. (2006). Inspiring active learning: A complete handbook for today's teachers. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision& Curriculum Development.
  19. Huberman, M. (1993). Steps toward a developmental model of the teaching career. In L. Kremer-Hayon, H.C. Vonk, & R. Fessler (Eds.), Teacher professional development: A multiple perspective approach. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
  20. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R. & Smith, K.A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
  21. Jose, J.C., & Pedrosa, H. (2005). Teaching for quality learning in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education. 27(9), 1123-1137.
  22. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255–275.
  23. Kramer, L., Brewe, E., & O'Brien, G. (2008). Improving physics education through a diverse research and learning community at Florida. ASP Forum of Education. Retrieved from http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2008/kramer.cfm Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction– A user's manual. New York: Prentice-Hall.
  24. Niemi, H. (2002). Active Learning-A cultural change in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 763-780.
  25. Pundak, D., Maharshak, A., & Rozner, S. (2004). Successful pedagogy with web assignments checker. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(1), 67-80.
  26. Pundak, D., & Rozner, S. (2006). Dealing with the resistance of faculty to innovative teaching methods: A case study. Al Hagova – Journal on Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 4-7. (In Hebrew). Pundak, Hershkowitz, Shacham, & Wiser-Biton
  27. Pundak, D., & Rozner, S. (2007). Empowering engineering college staff to adopt active learning methods. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(2)152-163. Retrieved 9th May, 2009 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/h46m45057240r016/ Pundak, D., Rozner, S., Yacobson, F., & Toledano-Kitay, D. (2008). How to adopt active learning? Al Hagova – Journal on Teaching in Higher Education, 7, 18-21.
  28. Redish, E.F. (2003).Teaching physics with the Physics Suite. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  29. Resnick, L.B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  30. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon& Schuster.
  31. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J.D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299–325
  32. Scheyvens, A., Amy, L., & Griffin, B. (2008). Experimenting with active learning in geography: Dispelling the myths that perpetuate resistance. Journal Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 51-69 Slater, T.F., (2003). When is a good day teaching a bad thing? The Physics Teacher, 41(7), 437-438.
  33. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Chapter 6: Interaction between learning and development (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  34. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y.J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students-Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-182.
  35. Zoller, U. (1987). Problem solving and decision-making in Science-Technology-Environment-Society (STES) Education. In K. Riquarts (Ed.), Science Technology Education and the Quality of Life, 2, 526569.
  36. Zweck, J. (2006).Strategies to promote active learning in math/stat discussion sessions. Retrieved 7 July 2008 from http://www.math.umbc.edu/~zweck/TATrain/ActiveLearningStrategies.pdf

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links

Also Read

Related Collections