Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barak M., Dori Y. J. (2005) Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education 89:117–139
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 Education
Bonk, C. J. (2001). Online Teaching in an Online World. Retrieved September 10, 2003, from http://www.courseshare.com/reports.php
Braskamp L. A., Brandenburg D. C., Ory J. C. (1984). Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness: A Practical Guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Briscoe C. (1991) The dynamic interactions among beliefs, role metaphors, and teaching practices: A case study of teacher change. Science Education 75:185–199
Donald J. G., Denison D. B. (1996). Evaluating undergraduate education: The use of broad indicators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 21:23–39
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):243–279
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. 187–216
Dori Y. J., Belcher J., Bessette M., Danziger M., McKinney A., Hult E. (2003). Technology for active learning. Materials Today 6(12):44–49
Ellsworth J. B. (2000). Surviving Change: A Survey of Educational Change Models. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC
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):93–110
Fullan M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press, New York
Geoghegan, W. (1994). Stuck at the barricades. Can information technology really enter the mainstream of teaching and learning? AAHE Bulletin, 1994 (September), 13–16
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 63:978–991
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):64–74
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):627–635
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.
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 PER
Henkel M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. HigherEducation 49:155–176
Laws P. W. (1991). Calculus-based physics without lectures. Physics Today 44:24–31
Loucks-Horsley S., Hewson P., Love N., Stiles K. (1998). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA
Mazur E. (1997). Peer Instruction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
McDermott L. C. (1991). Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned–closing the gap. American Journal of Physics 59:301–315
Meltzer D. E., Manivannan K. (2002) Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. American Journal of Physics 70:639–654
Milliken F. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review 12(1), 133–143
Powell K. (2003). Science education: Spare me the lecture. Nature 425(6955):234–236
Pundak D., Maharshak A. (2003). Teaching physics—the marketing concept. Announcer 33(2):135
Pundak D., Rozner S. (2002). Improving teaching physics and basic academic courses by just in time teaching. Announcer 32(2):112
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
Rogers E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. Simon & Schuster, New York
Sokoloff D. R., Thornton R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. The Physics Teacher 35:340–347
Van Heuvelen A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics 59:891–897
Yin R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Zellweger, F. (2005). Overcoming Subcultural Barriers in Educational Technology Support. In 18th annual conference of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers. Yväskylä, Finland
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pundak, D., Rozner, S. Empowering Engineering College Staff to Adopt Active Learning Methods. J Sci Educ Technol 17, 152–163 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9057-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9057-3