TAY Journal
ISSN (Online): 2618-589X

Research article    |    Open Access
TAY Journal 2022, Vol. 6(2) 382-405

Active Learning in Higher Education from the Perspectives of Faculty Members

Elif İLHAN

pp. 382 - 405   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/tayjournal.2022.510.10

Publish Date: December 30, 2022  |   Single/Total View: 201/447   |   Single/Total Download: 267/824

PDF Download

Abstract

The changing paradigm from teaching to learning in higher education brings out university-wide reforms like active learning. Faculty members are one of essential stakeholders in designing and conducting active learning efficiently. As a result, their perspectives based on their experiences are critical in directing faculty members individually and universities willing to implement active learning, and future research on the subject. The study aims to determine the faculty members' views about active learning based on their own experiences. In the qualitative study conducting as a holistic single case study, the data were collected through online interviews and analysed by content analysis. Some of the findings show that the faculty members had mainly positive feelings about active learning. They believed active learning supported their students' enhancement of the 21st century skills and other qualifications like self-confidence, social skills. Moreover, they explained some problems related to students, faculty members, and learning environment. In relation to these, they also presented some suggestions about active learning. Finally, some suggestions based on the study findings were presented for the faculty members, universities, and future research.

Keywords: Active learning, educational quality, faculty members’ views, teaching-learning in higher education

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
ILHAN, E. (2022). Active Learning in Higher Education from the Perspectives of Faculty Members. TAY Journal, 6(2), 382-405. https://doi.org/10.29329/tayjournal.2022.510.10

Harvard
ILHAN, E. (2022). Active Learning in Higher Education from the Perspectives of Faculty Members. TAY Journal, 6(2), pp. 382-405.

Chicago 16th edition
ILHAN, Elif (2022). "Active Learning in Higher Education from the Perspectives of Faculty Members". TAY Journal 6 (2):382-405. https://doi.org/10.29329/tayjournal.2022.510.10

References
  1. Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learning: An introduction to exploratory practice. Palgrave MacMillan. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., Norman, M.K., & Mayer, R.E. (2010). How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aragaon, E., Eddy, S. L., & Graham, M. J. (2018). Beliefs about intelligence are related to the adoption of active-learning practices. CBE Life Sciences, 17, 1-9. [Google Scholar]
  4. Asarta, C. J., Chambers, R. G., & Harter, C. (2021). Teaching methods in undergraduate introductory economics courses: Results from a sixth national quinquennial survey. The American Economist, 66(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0569434520974658 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Auerbach, A. J., & Schussler, E. (2017). A vision and change reform of introductory biology shifts faculty perceptions and use of active learning. CBE Life Science Education, 16(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/ 0.1187/cbe.16-08-0258. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Avidov-Ungar, O., Leshem, B., Margaliot, A., & Grobgeld, E. (2018). Faculty use of the active learningclassroom: Barriers and facilitators. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17,495-504. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barak, M., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029- [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning — A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Bell, D., & Kahrhoff, J. (2006). Active learning handbook. Webster University. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASH#-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bradforth, S., Miller, E., Dichtel, W. et al. (2015). University learning: Improve undergraduate science education. Nature, 523, 282–284 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/523282a [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  13. Buitrago-Flórez, F., Danies, G., Restrepo, S., & Hernández, C. (2021). Fostering 21st century competences through computational thinking and active learning: a mixed method study. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 737-754. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14343a [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Chan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’ creativity-fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 69–77. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, V. (2014). There is no single answer: The potential for active learning classrooms to facilitate actively open-minded thinking. Collected essays on learning and teaching, 3, 171-180. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1069726.pdf [Google Scholar]
  16. Chi, M.T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychology, 49, 219–243. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 1987, 3-7. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chiu, P. H. P., and Cheng, S. H. (2017). Effects of active learning classrooms on student learning: a two-year empirical investigation on student perceptions and academic performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 269–279. [Google Scholar]
  19. Crisol-Moya, E., Romero-Lopez M.A., & Caurcel-Cara M.J. (2020). Active methodologies in higher education: perception and opinion as evaluated by professors and their students in the teaching-learning process. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-10. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01703 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Crossgrove, K., & Curran, K. L. (2008). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors- level biology courses: Student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7(1), 146-154. [Google Scholar]
  21. Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dewey, J. (1924). Democracy and education. Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  23. Finelli, C. J., Daly, S. R., & Richardson, K. M. (2014). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Designing an institutional change plan using local evidence. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 331–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee. 20042 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. [Google Scholar]
  25. Froyd, J., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Henderson, C., & Prince, M. (2013). Estimates of use of research-based instructional strategies in core electrical or computer engineering courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 393–399. [Google Scholar]
  26. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148– 162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.95.1.148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). Longman. [Google Scholar]
  28. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 8 (020104),1-15. [Google Scholar]
  30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.729767. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Johnson, C., & McCoy, L. P. (2011). Guided discovery learning with collaborative discourse. Studies in Teaching 2011 Research Digest. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521732.pdf [Google Scholar]
  32. Kalem, S., & Fer, S. (2003). The effects of the active learning model on students’ learning, teaching and communication. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3(2), 455-461. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee, D., Morrone, A. S., & Siering, G. (2018). From swimming pool to collaborative learning studio: Pedagogy, space, and technology in a large active learning classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(1), 95-127. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lima, R. M., Andersson, P. H., & Saalman, E. (2017). Active Learning in Engineering Education: a (re)introduction. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1254161 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347(6222), 627–633. [Google Scholar]
  36. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T. K., & Koskey, K. L. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Lund, T. J., & Stains, M. (2015). The importance of context: An exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Machemer, P. L., & Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 9– 30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787407074008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class. AIP Conference Proceedings, 399(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5319 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching, 55(2), 42–47. [Google Scholar]
  41. Miller, C. J., & Metz, M. J. (2014). A comparison of professional-level faculty and student perceptions of active learning: Its current use, effectiveness, and barriers. Advances in Physiology Education, 38(3), 246–252. [Google Scholar]
  42. Murillo-Zamorano, L.R., Sánchez, J., Ángel, L., & Godoy-Caballero, A.L. (2019). How the flipped classroom affects knowledge, skills, and engagement in higher education: Effects on students’ satisfaction. Computers and Education, 141(C),1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103608 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Nguyen, K., Husman, J., Borrego, M., Shekhar, P.,Prince, M., Demonbrun, M., & Waters, C. (2017). Students’ expectations, types of ınstruction, and ınstructor strategies predicting student response to active learning. International Journal of Engineering Education 33(1), 2–18. [Google Scholar]
  44. Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning—a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education 18, 763–780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00042-2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Research studies and active learning promoting professional competences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,43,131-142. [Google Scholar]
  46. Özer, S. (2020). The effect of active learning on achievement and attitude in vocational English course. Inquiry in education, 12 (2), 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  47. Patrick, L. E., Howell, L. A., & Wischusen, W. (2016). Perceptions of active learning between faculty and undergraduates: Differing views among departments. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 17(3), 55-63. [Google Scholar]
  48. Patton, C. M. (2015). Employing active learning strategies to become the facilitator, not the authoritarian: A literature review. Journal of Instructional Research, 4(2015),134-141. [Google Scholar]
  49. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231. [Google Scholar]
  50. Proud, S. (2022). If you build it, will they come? A review of the evidence of barriers for active learning in university education. REIRE Revista, 15(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1344/reire.38120 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Bradforth, S. E., Miller, E. R., Dichtel, W. R., Leibovich, A. K., Feig, A. L., Martin, D., … Smith, T. L. (2015). Improve undergraduate science education: It is time to use evidence-based teaching practices at all levels by providing incentives and effective evaluations. Nature, 523(7560), 282–285. [Google Scholar]
  52. Roediger, H. L. (2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1,242–248. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16, 465-479. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., & Shepard, L.A. (2011). Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science, 331, 1269–1270. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267097. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Sgambi, L., Kubiak, L., Basso, N., & Garavaglia, E. (2019). Active learning for the promotion of students’ creativity and critical thinking. Archnet-IJAR, 13(2), 386-407. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sibona, C., & Pourreza, S. (2018). The impact of teaching approaches and ordering on IT project management: Active learning vs. lecturing. Information Systems Education Journal, 16(5), 66–77. [Google Scholar]
  57. Stump, G. S., Husman, J., & Corby, M. (2014). Engineering students' intelligence beliefs and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Talbert, R. & Mor-Avi, A. (2019). A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Heliyon, 5(2019), 1-19. [Google Scholar]
  59. Tharayil, S., Borrego, M., Prince, M. et al. (2018). Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(7), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. [Google Scholar]
  61. Unal, M. & Dagistan, F. (2017). Examining the opinions of students and instructors’ self-perceptions related to pedagogical competence (Ahi Evran University Sample), TAY Journal, 1(1), 35-54. [Google Scholar]
  62. Walker, J., Cotner, S.H., Baepler, P.M., & Decker, M.D. (2008). A delicate balance: integrating active learning into a large lecture course. CBE Life Science Education,7, 361–367. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2015). Teaching engineering. Purdue University. [Google Scholar]
  64. Welsh, A.J. (2012). Exploring undergraduates’ perceptions of the use of active learning techniques in science lectures. Journal of College Science Teaching, 2012(42), 80–87. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 6 (2)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 6 Issue 2

December 2022

All Manuscript

TAY Journal

Copyright © 2025 TAY Journal.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.