1 / 8

Active L earning in Higher Education: Concepts and research

Active L earning in Higher Education: Concepts and research. Kim J. Herrmann, Msc., PhD kh@clu.au.dk. What is active learning ?. Cognitive activity (Biggs 2012, Mayer 2004) vs. behavioral activity Two major components (Entwistle 2009): ”How much ”: Organized effort

mya
Télécharger la présentation

Active L earning in Higher Education: Concepts and research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Active Learning in Higher Education: Concepts and research Kim J. Herrmann, Msc., PhD kh@clu.au.dk

  2. What is activelearning? Cognitiveactivity (Biggs 2012, Mayer 2004) vs. behavioral activity Two major components (Entwistle 2009): • ”How much”: Organizedeffort • ”How”: learningstrategies deep and surfaceapproaches to learning Learning strategiesarenot stable  canbeinfluenced by carefullydesignedlearningenvironments (e.gteachingmethods or assessment) (Eley 1992, Prosser & Trigwell 1999)

  3. Biggs (2012:40)

  4. Research on activelearningstrategies • Overall, the empiricalevidence supports thatdeepapproaches and organizedeffortimprovesacademicperformance (Marton & Säljö 2005, Enwistle 2009, Biggs &Tang 2011). • Recent meta-analysis (Richardson et al. 2012) • Y=academic performance (GPA) • r+deep= 0.14*, N(k)=5,211(23) • r+surface=-0.18*, N(k)=4,838(22) • r+effort= 0.32*, N(k)=8,862(19)

  5. Research on teaching for activelearning • Teachers’ focus: Universityteacherswhofocus on the studentslearningactivities (ratherthanhowbest to cover the syllabus themselves) are more likely to have students applyingdeepapproaches to learning (Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse 1999) • Interactive engagement: Positiv correlationbetweendegree of interactivity in lectures (i.e. clickers) and degree of conceptualunderstanding have beenfound (Hake 1999). • Students’ perspective: Students have differentpreferences for ”good” teaching (Parpala et al. 2011) and theyperceive the contextdifferently (Prosser & Trigwell 1999) •  somesceptisismshouldbeanticipated (Kember et al. 2003, 2004)

  6. Conclusion and implications • Teachingrequiring student activity is more likely to promote deepapproaches to learning and organisedeffort ( academic performance) • However, no ‘one-size-fits-all’ (Hattie 2009) and sometimes student-centredteachingmeetssceptisism (Baeten et al. 2012) Teaching for activelearning is more likely to succeedwhen students find the activitiesmeaningful and worthwhile • Clear instructions • Teachingmethods<=> intendlearningoutcomes (”læringsmål”) • Teachingmethods<=> assessmentcritieria (mode of examination) • Introducedearly in the bachelor programme • Active learningappreciatedwithin the department

  7. References • Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5, 243-260. • Biggs, J. (2012). What the Student Does: Teaching for Enhanced Learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 31, 39-55. • Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student does. (4 ed.) Open University Press. • Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking (Universities Into the 21st Century). (1 ed.) Palgrave Macmillan. • Entwistle, N. & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169-194. • Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am.J.Phys., 66, 64-74. • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. (1 ed.) Routledge. • Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. (1 ed.) (vols. 1) London and New York: Routledge. • Kember, D., Jenkins, W., & Ng, K. C. (2003). Adult Students' Perceptions of Good Teaching as a Function of Their Conceptions of Leanring--Part 1. Influencing the Development of Self-Determination. Studies in Continuing Education, 25, 239-251.

  8. References • Kember, D., Jenkins, W., & Ng, K. C. (2004). Adult Students' Perceptions of Good Teaching as a Function of Their Conceptions of Learning--Part 2. Implications for the Evaluation of Teaching. Studies in Continuing Education, 26, 81-97. • Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (2005). The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment. • Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I - Outcome and Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning: The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. Amercian Psychologist, 59, 14-19. • Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Rytkönen, H. (2010). Students' conceptions of goodteaching in threedifferentdisciplines. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 549-563. • Prosser, M. T. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education. SRHE and Open University Press. • Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological Correlates of University Students' Academic Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 138[2], 353-387. • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.

More Related