EXEMPLARY TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED CONTEMPORARY ACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR STEM COURSES

Year 2016, Volume: 4 , 530 - 537, 01.09.2016

Mustafa Erol Ahmet Özcan

Abstract

Unprecedented
innovations have been experienced since the second half of the twentieth
century although there have not been fundamental changes in learning
environments throughout the history. The reasons of these changes can be
grouped mainly into two categories: 1) The development of new learning-teaching
approaches such as constructivism, active learning, lifelong learning, etc. 2)
The fast incorporation of technology into education like in every part of our
life. More developments in learning environments will not be surprising in the
near future.

 

This
study aims to present and analyze contemporary active learning classrooms
(ALCs) which are technology incorporated, large enrolled, student-centered, and
highly interactive. For this aim, literature review has been carried out about
technology incorporated ALCs, which are being innovated continually and
designed especially for STEM courses, and prominent contemporary classrooms
have been compiled. Then, some ALCs such as SCALE-UP, TEAL, TILE and Next-Gen
ALC v2.0 have been deeply analyzed in terms of their physical environment,
pedagogical approach, teaching and learning processes, etc. Moreover,
traditional classrooms and technology incorporated contemporary ALCs have been
compared. It is concluded that the use of these ALCs should be disseminated and
instructors should be prepared to guide and facilitate learning in these
classrooms.

Keywords

Active learning, contemporary classrooms, technology incorporated, STEM courses, SCALE-UP

References

• Alexander, D., Cohen, B. A., Fitzgerald, S., Honsey, P., Jorn, L., Knowles, J., ... & Whiteside, A. (2009). Active learning classrooms pilot evaluation: Fall 2007 findings and recommendations. Université du Minnesota, www. classroom. umn. edu/projects/ALC_Report_Final. pdf. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. Beichner, R. J. (1999). SCALE-UP Report, http://perusersguide.org/perug/items/detail.cfm?ID=4406 Beichner, R. J., Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. W. (2006). New physics teaching and assessment: Laboratory- and technology-enhanced active learning. In J. J. Mintzes, & W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of College Science Teaching: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 97-106). Washington DC: NSTA Press. Beichner, R. J., & Saul, J. M. (2003). Introduction to the SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project. In Proceedings of the International School of Physics, (July) (pp. 1-17). Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/Articles/Varenna_SCALEUP_Paper.pdf Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J., … Risley, J. (2007). The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 1-42. Retrieved from http://www.percentral.com/PER/per_reviews/media/volume1/SCALE-UP-2007.pdf Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Allain, R. J., Deardorff, D. L., & 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. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED459062.pdf Benson, L. C., Biggers, S. B., Moss, W., Ohland, M., Orr, M., & Schiff, S. D. (2007, December). Adapting and implementing the scale-up approach in statics, dynamics, and multivariate calculus. In 114th Annual ASEE Conference and Exposition, 2007. Benson, S. B. L., Moss, W., Ohland, M., Orr, M., & Schiff, S. (2009, June). Adapting and Implementing the SCALE‐UP Approach in Statics, Dynamics, and Multivariable Calculus. Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/5311 Benson, S. B. L., Moss, W., Schiff, S., Biggers, S., Orr, M., & Ohland, M. (2008). Special session-enhancing student learning using SCALE-UP format. In 2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. T2J-1-T2J-2). IEEE. doi:10.1109/FIE.2008.4720578. Charles, E., Whittaker, C., & Lasry, N. (2014). “Active Learning Classroom Use in College Level Physics: The impact of technology design and adaptive orchestration.” Symposium entitled: Space and Technologies for Learning in Schools, Museums and Workplaces: Recent Approaches in Design-Based Research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA): Philadelphia, PA. DeBeck, G., & Demaree, D. (2012). Teaching assistant-student interactions in a modified SCALE-UP classroom. In 2011 Physics Education research Conference (Vol. 1413, pp. 167-170). AIP Publishing. Dori, Y. J., Belcher, J., Bessette, M., Danziger, M., McKinney, A., & Hult, E. (2003). Technology for active learning. Materials Today, 6(12), 44-49. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279. Erol, M., Özcan, A., & Luft, J. A. (2016). Six Reasons to Teach Undergraduate Courses in SCALE-UP Classrooms: Suggestions for Higher Education Authorities and Instructors, Education and Science, 41(184), 27-48. Florman, J. C. (2014). TILE at Iowa: Adoption and Adaptation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 77-84. Fratt, L. (2002). Less is more: Trimming the overstuffed curriculum. District Administrator, 38(3), 56-60. 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. Gaffney, J. D. H., Richards, E., Kustusch, M. B., Ding, L., & Beichner, R. J. (2008). Scaling Up Education Reform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(5), 18-23. Godbey, S., Otieno, T. & Tofan, D. (2006). Open Laboratories. In Handbook of College Science in College Science Teaching. Editors: Joel J. Mintzes and William H. Leonard. NSTA press. Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012, August). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Gottfried, A. C., Sweeder, R. D., Bartolin, J. M., Hessler, J. A., Reynolds, B. P., Stewart, … Holl, M. M. B. (2007). Design and implementation of a studio-based general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(2), 265-270. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., … Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521-522. Johnson, D. W. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1991. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183. Kohl, P. B., & Kuo, H. V. (2012). Chronicling a successful secondary implementation of Studio Physics. American Journal of Physics, 80(9), 832-839. doi:10.1119/1.4712305 Laws, P. W. (1991). Calculus-based physics without lectures. Physics Today, 44(12), 24-31. Laws, P. W. (2004). A unit on oscillations, determinism and chaos for introductory physics students. American Journal of Physics, 72(4), 446-452. doi:10.1119/1.1649964 Lee, V. S. (2004). Teaching and learning through inquiry: A guidebook for institutions and instructors. Stylus Pub Llc. Oliver-Hoyo, M., & Beichner, R. (2004). Scale-Up: Bringing Inquiry-Guided Learning to Large Enrollment Courses. In V. S. Lee (Ed.), Teaching and learning through inquiry: A Guidebook for institutions and instructors (pp. 51-69). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Orr, D. W. (1993). Architecture as pedagogy. Conservation Biology, 7(2), 226-228. Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749-771. Parsons, C. S. (2015). Space and consequences: The influence of learning spaces on student development and communication (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA). Perkins, D. (2005). The case for a cooperative studio classroom: Teaching petrology in a different way. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 101-109. Rogers, M., Keller, L. D., Crouse, A., & Price, M. F. (2015). Implementing comprehensive reform of introductory physics at a primarily undergraduate institution: A longitudinal case study. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(3), 82-91. Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline based education research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (2004). Interactive lecture demonstrations.Interactive Lecture Demonstrations, by David R. Sokoloff, Ronald K. Thornton, pp. 374. ISBN 0-471-48774-0. Wiley-VCH, March 2004., 374.) Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Education by Design: Creating Campus Learning Environments That Work. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass, Inc., 989 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94103. Van Horne, S., Murniati, C., Gaffney, J. D., & Jesse, M. (2012). Promoting active learning in technology-infused TILE classrooms at the University of Iowa. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2). Van Horne, S., Murniati, C. T., Saichaie, K., Jesse, M., Florman, J. C., & Ingram, B. F. (2014). Using Qualitative Research to Assess Teaching and Learning in Technology‐Infused TILE Classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 17-26.