Active L earning in Higher Education: Concepts and research

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.