1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. Group Assignment

6. Problem Solving

7. Teacher Position During Discussion

8. Planning the adoption of active learning innovation according Rogers Planning the adoption of active learning innovation according Rogers* *Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th edition). The Free Press. New York. Knowledge PersuasionDecision Implementation Confirmation

9. The 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.

10. Research 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

11. Awareness of students ’ learning difficulties faculty 7654321Difficulty 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

12. Knowledge 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.

13. Persuasion 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.

14. Decision 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

15. Implementation stage preparations Implementation stage preparations (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.”

16. Implementation stage Collaborative Work Implementation stage Collaborative 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”.

17. Levels of Adoption-Invention Levels of Adoption-Invention * InformedInformed Invention AdaptionAdoption The instructor develops materials and procedures that are fundamentally based on his/her own ideas. The instructor uses the original ideas but significantly alters them or develops fundamentally new procedures based on the original ideas Materials and procedures are given to the instructor who changes them slightly before implementing them. The instructor develops the materials or adopts it and implements it according to the SCALE-UP pedagogical approach. *Henderson, Dancy (2005). Physics Faculty and Educational Researchers: Divergent Expectations as Barriers to the Diffusion of Innovations. Proceeding of AAPT meeting PER.

18. Example: Collaborative Learning 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.

19. Application of “ Active Methods ” - 2005 faculty 7654321Method 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

20. Levels of Adoption-Invention by faculty in 2005 Study

21. Application of “ Active Methods ” - 2006 faculty 4321Method 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

22. Levels of Adoption-Invention by faculty in 2006 Study

23. Conclusions 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.

24. Conclusions (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.

25. Thank you David Pundak david@kinneret.ac.il