Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 152–163 | Cite as

Empowering Engineering College Staff to Adopt Active Learning Methods

  • David PundakEmail author
  • Shmaryahu Rozner


There is a growing consensus that traditional instruction in basic science courses, in institutions of higher learning, do not lead to the desired results. Most of the students who complete these courses do not gain deep knowledge about the basic concepts and develop a negative approach to the sciences. In order to deal with this problem, a variety of methods have been proposed and implemented, during the last decade, which focus on the “active learning” of the participating students. We found that the methods developed in MIT and NCSU were fruitful and we adopted their approach. Despite research-based evidence of the success of these methods, they are often met by the resistance of the academic staff. This article describes how one institution of higher learning organized itself to introduce significant changes into its introductory science courses, as well as the stages teachers undergo, as they adopt innovative teaching methods. In the article, we adopt the Rogers model of the innovative-decision process, which we used to evaluate the degree of innovation adoption by seven members of the academic staff. An analysis of interview and observation data showed that four factors were identified which influence the degree innovation adoption: (1) teacher readiness to seriously learn the theoretical background of “active learning”; (2) the development of an appropriate local model, customized to the beliefs of the academic staff; (3) teacher expertise in information technologies, and (4) the teachers’ design of creative solutions to problems that arose during their teaching.


Active learning teaching development adoption innovations web-technology staff report motivation 


  1. Barak M., Dori Y. J. (2005) Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education 89:117–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Allain, R. J., Deardorff, D. L. and Abbott, D. S. (2000). Introduction to SCALE UP: Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment University physics. In Proceedings of the 2000 annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering EducationGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonk, C. J. (2001). Online Teaching in an Online World. Retrieved September 10, 2003, from
  4. Braskamp L. A., Brandenburg D. C., Ory J. C. (1984). Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness: A Practical Guide. Newbury Park, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  5. Briscoe C. (1991) The dynamic interactions among beliefs, role metaphors, and teaching practices: A case study of teacher change. Science Education 75:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donald J. G., Denison D. B. (1996). Evaluating undergraduate education: The use of broad indicators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 21:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dori Y. J., Belcher J. W. (2005a) How does technology-enabled active learning affect students’ understanding of scientific concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2):243–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dori Y. J., Belcher J. W. (2005b). Learning electromagnetism with visualization and active learning. In Gilbert J. K. (Ed.), Visulization in Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dori Y. J., Belcher J., Bessette M., Danziger M., McKinney A., Hult E. (2003). Technology for active learning. Materials Today 6(12):44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellsworth J. B. (2000). Surviving Change: A Survey of Educational Change Models. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Eylon B., Ronen M., Ganiel U. (1996). Computer simulations as tools for teaching and learning: Using a simulation environment in optics. Science Education Technology 5(2):93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fullan M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Geoghegan, W. (1994). Stuck at the barricades. Can information technology really enter the mainstream of teaching and learning? AAHE Bulletin, 1994 (September), 13–16Google Scholar
  14. Goldberg F., Bendall S. (1995). Making the invisible visible: A teaching/learning environment that builds on a new view of the physics learner. American Journal of Physics 63:978–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hake R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66(1):64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heller P., Keith R., Anderson S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics 60(7):627–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson, C. (2005) The challenges of instructional change under the best of circumstances: A case study of one college physics instructor. Physics Education Research Section of the American Journal of Physics 73(8): 778–786.Google Scholar
  18. Henderson, C., and Dancy, M. (2005). Physics Faculty and Educational Researchers: Divergent Expectations as Barriers to the Diffusion of Innovations. In Proceeding of AAPT meeting PERGoogle Scholar
  19. Henkel M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. HigherEducation 49:155–176Google Scholar
  20. Laws P. W. (1991). Calculus-based physics without lectures. Physics Today 44:24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loucks-Horsley S., Hewson P., Love N., Stiles K. (1998). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Mazur E. (1997). Peer Instruction. New Jersey: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  23. McDermott L. C. (1991). Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned–closing the gap. American Journal of Physics 59:301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meltzer D. E., Manivannan K. (2002) Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. American Journal of Physics 70:639–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milliken F. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review 12(1), 133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Powell K. (2003). Science education: Spare me the lecture. Nature 425(6955):234–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pundak D., Maharshak A. (2003). Teaching physics—the marketing concept. Announcer 33(2):135Google Scholar
  28. Pundak D., Rozner S. (2002). Improving teaching physics and basic academic courses by just in time teaching. Announcer 32(2):112Google Scholar
  29. 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 5:4–7Google Scholar
  30. Rogers E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Sokoloff D. R., Thornton R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. The Physics Teacher 35:340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Heuvelen A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics 59:891–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yin R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  34. Zellweger, F. (2005). Overcoming Subcultural Barriers in Educational Technology Support. In 18th annual conference of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers. Yväskylä, FinlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ORT Braude Engineering CollegeKarmielIsrael
  2. 2.Kinneret College on the Sea of GalileeMP Jordan ValleyIsrael

Personalised recommendations