Active Learning by Innovation in Teaching (Alit)

  • Dina Izadi
  • Marina Milner-Bolotin
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 145)

Abstract

Today more than ever before, the future depends on students’ ability to apply the knowledge they learn in the classroom to solve real life problems such as global warming, climate change, air pollution, waste disposal, energy generation, world poverty and food production. In the incessantly changing world, students of the twenty-first century are very different from the students of the past. This requires educators to think continuously about how to change their teaching to empower and engage modern students, which makes educational innovations imminent. Contemporary students must be proactive in seeking relevant information and applying it to solve real life problems. However, the way we teach hasn’t changed sufficiently to reflect these changes. Like in the earlier centuries, the dominant pedagogy in many contemporary science classrooms is still teacher-centered instruction, relying on route memorization and passive learning. To help science educators make a transition from passive to active learning in order to engage students in meaningful learning process, “Active Learning by Innovation in Teaching” (ALIT) model is introduced. This model offers a way of finding different approaches to engage students in meaningful science learning and apply their knowledge to solve real life problems.

References

  1. 1.
    Angelo TK, Cross KP (1993) Classroom assessment techniques: a handbook for college teachers, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beatty ID, Feldman A, Leonard WJ, William J, Gerace, Cyr KS, Lee H et al (2008) Teacher learning of technology-enhanced formative assessment. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4924.pdf
  3. 3.
    Blumenfeld PC, Soloway E, Max RW, Krajcik J, Guzdial M, Palincsar A (1991) Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ Psychol 26(3,4):369–398Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonwell CC, Eison JA (1991) Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No1 No. Report One). The George Washington University: Washington DC , School of Education and Human DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonwell CC, Sutherland TE (1996) The active learning continuum: choosing activities to engage students in the classrooms. In: Menges RJ, Svinicki MD (eds) Using active learning in college classes: a range of options for faculty, vol 67. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buffler A, Lubben F, Ibrahim B (2009) The relationship between students’ views of the nature of science and their views of the nature of scientific measurement. Int J Sci Educ 31(9):1137–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Etkina E (2000) Weekly reports: a two-way feedback tool. Sci Educ 84(5):594–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feldman A, Capobianco BM (2008) Teacher learning of technology enhanced formative assessment. J Sci Educ Technol 17:82–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freeman S, O’Connor E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D et al (2007) Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. Life Sci Educ, 6(Summer), 132–139.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoffman C, Goodwin S (2006) A clicker for your thoughts: technology for active learning. New Libr World 107(1228/1229):422–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalman C, Antimirova T, Milner-Bolotin M (2009). Conceptual conflict collaborative group and peer instruction. Paper presented at the canadian association of physicists congress 2009 comparison of two active learning teaching methodsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalman CS (2009) Reading the book of nature: the hermeneutical circle in science. In: Gueldry M (ed) Languages mean business: integrating languages and cultures in/for the professions. The Mellen Press, WalesGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalman CS, Milner-Bolotin M, Antimirova T, Aulls M, Charles ES, Huang X et al (2012) Understanding the nature of science and nonscientific modes of thinking in gateway science courses paper presented at the national association for research in science teaching annual conferenceGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kember D, Gow L (1994) Orientations to teaching and their effects on the quality of student learning. J Highr Educ 65(1):58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krajcik J, Blumenfeld PC, Max RW, Bass KM, Fredricks J, Soloway E (1998). Inquiry in project- based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. The J Learn Sci, 7(3,4); 313–350.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McKeachie WJ(1994) Teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers Vol 1, 9th edn. D.C. Heath and Company: LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mishra P, Koehler MJ, Henriksen D (2011) The Seven Trans-Disciplinary Habits of Mind: Extending the TPACK Framework towards 21st Century Learning. [Reports - Evaluative]. Educ Technol 51(2):22–28Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Perkins K, Adams W, Dubson M, Finkelstein N, Reid S, Wieman C et al (2006) PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The phys teach, 44(January), 18–23Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramsier RD (2001) A hybrid approach to active learning. Phys Educ 36:124–128ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rodriguez AJ (1998) Strategies for counterresistance: toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. J Res Sci Teach 35(6):589–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sokoloff DR, Thornton RK (2004) Interactive lecture demonstrations: active learning in introductory physics. Wiley. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Voogt J, Tilya F, van den Akker J (2009) Science teacher learning of MBL-supported student- centered science education in the context of secondary education in tanzania. [Reports - Research]. J Sci Educ Technol 18(5):429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dina Izadi
    • 1
  • Marina Milner-Bolotin
    • 2
  1. 1.Ariaian Young Innovative Minds Institute (AYIMI)TehranIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Education, University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations