Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 72–93 | Cite as

Faculty adoption of active learning classrooms

  • Sam Van Horne
  • Cecilia Titiek Murniati
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Although post-secondary educational institutions are incorporating more active learning classrooms (ALCs) that support collaborative learning, researchers have less often examined the cultural obstacles to adoption of those environments. In this qualitative research study, we adopted the conceptual framework of activity theory to examine the entire system of mediating factors that influence the adoption of ALCs by academic units. We examined why faculty members chose to adopt such learning environments at a large university in the Midwest. In addition, we interviewed department heads to learn about the institutional factors that promoted or hindered adoption of these learning environments. We found that, while faculty members often believed that the transition had improved their classes, the department heads were unaware of the student learning outcomes and did not have enough information to promote wider adoption of these learning environments. Thus, innovations at the course level were not often supported to enact curricular change. Implications for promoting successful adoption of ALCs are discussed.

Keywords

Active learning classroom Activity theory Innovation diffusion theory Instructional design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Amanda Owen Van Horne, who provided valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All research procedures in this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board, and all participants consented to participate in the research study according to the procedures approved by the IRB.

References

  1. Austin, A. E. (1994). Understanding and assessing faculty cultures and climates. New Directions for Institutional Research, 84, 47–63. doi: 10.1002/ir.37019948406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, A. E. (1996). Institutional and departmental cultures: The relationship between teaching and research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 90, 57–66. doi: 10.1002/ir.37019969009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers and Education, 78, 227–236. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76–107. doi: 10.1207/S15327884MCA0902_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beichner, R., Saul, J., Abbott, D., Morse, J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R., et al. (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: American Association of Physics Teachers.Google Scholar
  6. Blau, I. (2011). Teachers for “Smart Classrooms”: The extent of implementation of an interactive whiteboard-based professional development program on elementary teachers’ instructional practices. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-learning and Learning Objects, 7(1), 275–289.Google Scholar
  7. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers and Education, 50(2), 475–490. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, D. C. (2010). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 719–726. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, D. C. (2012). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2). http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/285/275.
  10. Brooks, D. C., & Solheim, C. A. (2014). Pedagogy matters, too: The impact of adapting teaching approaches to formal learning environments on student learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 53–61. doi: 10.1002/tl.20085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. doi: 10.3102/00346543064001001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cotner, S., Loper, J., Walker, J. D., & Brooks, D. C. (2013). “It’s not you, it’s the room”: Are the high-tech, active learning classrooms worth it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(6), 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487. doi: 10.1006/imms.1993.1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dori, Y., Hult, E., Breslow, L., & Belcher, J. (2007). How much have they retained? Making unseen concepts seen in a freshman electromagnetism course at MIT. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(4), 299–323. doi: 10.1007/s10956-007-9051-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fahlberg, B., Rice, E., Muehrer, R., & Brey, D. (2014). Active learning environments in nursing education: The experience of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 85–94. doi: 10.1002/tl.20089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferrare, J. J., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Cultural models of teaching and learning in math and science: exploring the intersections of culture, cognition, and pedagogical situations. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 792–825. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2014.0030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fishman, B. (2005). Adapting innovations to particular contexts of use: A collaborative framework. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation (pp. 48–66). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Florman, J. (2014). TILE at Iowa: Adoption and adaptation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 77–84. doi: 10.1002/tl.20088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  25. Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science, 7(1), 50. Retrieved from http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/50.
  26. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hora, M. T., & Ferrare, J. J. (2013). Instructional systems of practice: A multidimensional analysis of math and science undergraduate course planning and classroom teaching. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 212–257. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2012.729767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hora, M., & Holden, J. (2013). Exploring the role of instructional technology in course planning and classroom teaching: Implications for pedagogical reform. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(2), 68–92. doi: 10.1007/s12528-013-9068-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. doi: 10.1007/BF02299477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228. doi: 10.3102/00346543072002177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43(6), 740–755. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kollar, I., Pilz, F., & Fischer, F. (2014). Why it is hard to make use of new learning spaces: a script perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 7–18. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2013.841615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lane, C. L., & Lyle, H. (2011). Obstacles and supports related to the use of educational technologies: The role of technological expertise, gender, and age. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(1), 38–59. doi: 10.1007/s12528-010-9034-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Langley, D., & Guzey, S. S. (2014). Conducting an introductory biology course in an active learning classroom: A case study of an experienced faculty member. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 71–76. doi: 10.1002/tl.20087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2014). Immersive simulations for smart classrooms: exploring evolutionary concepts in secondary science. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 57–80. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2013.838452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Petersen, C. I., & Gorman, K. S. (2014). Strategies to address common challenges when teaching in an active learning classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 63–70. doi: 10.1002/tl.20086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  41. Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an” urban” teacher education program: An activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 108–131. doi: 10.1207/S15327884MCA0902_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. doi: 10.3102/00346543072003387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424. doi: 10.1007/s10648-004-0007-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Horne, S., Murniati, C., Gaffney, J. D., & Jesse, M. (2012). Promoting active learning in technology-infused TILE classrooms at the University of Iowa. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/344/286.
  45. Van Horne, S., Murniati, C. T., Saichaie, K., Jesse, M., Florman, J. C., & Ingram, B. F. (2014). Using qualitative research to assess teaching and learning in technology-infused TILE classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 17–26. doi: 10.1002/tl.20082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 67. Retrieved from http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/67.
  48. Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whiteside, A., Brooks, D. C., & Walker, J. D. (2010). Making the case for space: Three years of empirical research on learning environments. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(3), 11.Google Scholar
  50. Whiteside, A. L., Jorn, L., Duin, A. H., & Fitzgerald, S. (2009). Using the PAIR-up model to evaluate active learning spaces. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32(1).Google Scholar
  51. Wieman, C., Perkins, K., & Gilbert, S. (2010). Transforming Science Education at Large Research Universities: A Case Study in Progress. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(2), 6–14. doi: 10.1080/00091380903563035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytic lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100–119. doi: 10.1207/S1532-7884MCA1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITS-Office of Teaching, Learning & Technology and The Office of AssessmentUniversity of IowaIowaUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Language and ArtsSoegijapranata Catholic UniversitySemarangIndonesia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options