Conceptualizations of active learning in departments engaged in instructional change efforts

IF 3.8 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Molly Williams, Karina Uhing, A. Bennett, Matthew Voigt, Rachel Funk, W. Smith, Allan P. Donsig
{"title":"Conceptualizations of active learning in departments engaged in instructional change efforts","authors":"Molly Williams, Karina Uhing, A. Bennett, Matthew Voigt, Rachel Funk, W. Smith, Allan P. Donsig","doi":"10.1177/14697874221131300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several academic departments have increased their use of active learning to address low student success rates. However, it is unclear whether those implementing active learning have a consistent conceptualization of it. Like other educational terms, the phrase “active learning” is in danger of becoming overused and misunderstood, which puts the utility of active learning into question. This study examines 115 conceptualizations of active learning across six institutions of higher education that are infusing more active learning into their mathematics courses. We use the four pillars of inquiry-based mathematics education as a basis for analyzing these conceptualizations and compare them in two ways: by stakeholder role and by institution. Our findings show that many participants conceptualize active learning as student engagement and activities other than lecture, yet there was limited focus on the role of the teacher and content. Only eight participants mentioned issues of equity. Comparison within individual institutions shows that faculty within departments may hold common understandings of active learning. Implications of these findings include a need to develop an understanding of active learning that attends to all four pillars and is shared across departments, institutions, and disciplines.","PeriodicalId":47411,"journal":{"name":"Active Learning in Higher Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Active Learning in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221131300","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Several academic departments have increased their use of active learning to address low student success rates. However, it is unclear whether those implementing active learning have a consistent conceptualization of it. Like other educational terms, the phrase “active learning” is in danger of becoming overused and misunderstood, which puts the utility of active learning into question. This study examines 115 conceptualizations of active learning across six institutions of higher education that are infusing more active learning into their mathematics courses. We use the four pillars of inquiry-based mathematics education as a basis for analyzing these conceptualizations and compare them in two ways: by stakeholder role and by institution. Our findings show that many participants conceptualize active learning as student engagement and activities other than lecture, yet there was limited focus on the role of the teacher and content. Only eight participants mentioned issues of equity. Comparison within individual institutions shows that faculty within departments may hold common understandings of active learning. Implications of these findings include a need to develop an understanding of active learning that attends to all four pillars and is shared across departments, institutions, and disciplines.
积极学习的概念在从事教学变革努力的部门
一些学术部门增加了主动学习的使用,以解决学生成功率低的问题。然而,目前尚不清楚那些实施主动学习的人是否有一个一致的概念。像其他教育术语一样,“主动学习”一词有被过度使用和误解的危险,这使主动学习的效用受到质疑。本研究考察了六所高等教育机构的115个主动学习概念,这些机构正在将更多的主动学习融入他们的数学课程。我们使用基于探究的数学教育的四大支柱作为分析这些概念的基础,并以两种方式进行比较:按利益相关者角色和按机构。我们的研究结果表明,许多参与者将主动学习概念化为学生参与和讲座以外的活动,但对教师角色和内容的关注有限。只有8位与会者提到了公平问题。个别机构内部的比较表明,部门内部的教师可能对主动学习有共同的理解。这些发现的含义包括需要发展对主动学习的理解,这种理解涉及所有四个支柱,并在部门、机构和学科之间共享。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Active Learning in Higher Education
Active Learning in Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Active Learning in Higher Education is an international, refereed publication for all those who teach and support learning in higher education (HE) and those who undertake or use research into effective learning, teaching and assessment in universities and colleges. The journal is devoted to publishing accounts of research covering all aspects of learning and teaching concerning adults in higher education. Non-discipline specific and non-context/country specific in nature, it comprises accounts of research across all areas of the curriculum; accounts which are relevant to faculty and others involved in learning and teaching in all disciplines, in all countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信