Reusable Instruments for active learning-oriented online faculty development: Design frameworks, inventories and protocols
Abstract
Active learning is widely promoted in higher education, yet research and practice often suffer from limited transparency regarding the instruments used to design, implement, and evaluate active learning–oriented faculty professional development (PD). While many studies report positive outcomes, fewer provide sufficiently detailed descriptions of the pedagogical frameworks, inventories, lesson planning tools, and data collection instruments that enable replication or adaptation across contexts. This article addresses this gap by presenting a coherent set of research and design instruments developed and applied within a doctoral study and an associated qualitative case study of an asynchronous, microlearning-based faculty PD program. Grounded in constructivism and operationalized through Fink’s Active Learning Design model, the instrument set includes: (a) Fink’s active learning lesson plan flow and rubric (2003), (b) a low–moderate–high complexity Active Learning Inventory by van Amburgh (2007), (c) a microlearning-oriented MOOC design framework, (d) an online community of practice (CoP) design, and (e) semi-structured interview, observation, and reflection protocols adapted from evidence-based studies. Rather than reporting empirical findings, this paper documents the structure, purpose, and application logic of each instrument to support reuse, adaptation, and conceptual transfer by other researchers and instructional designers.
Keywords
Active learning , community of practice , faculty development , online mooc , micro-learning
Kaynakça
- Alrawahi, N. (2012). The impact of using Fink's active learning model on grade 10th Omani female students' selfregulated learning strategies. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 293.
- Anzul, M., Ely, M., Freidman, T., Garner, D., & McCormack-Steinmetz, A. (2003). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203448502
- Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004181331049
- Brookfield, S. D. (2015). Responding to students’ resistance to learning. In The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom; Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand: San Francisco, CA.
- Buchem, I., & Hamelmann, H. (2010). Microlearning: A strategy for ongoing professional development. eLearning Papers, 21(7), 1–15.
- Bulut, M. A., Adıgüzel, T., & Kaya, M. H. (2025). Exploring views and experiences of faculty members’ participation in an asynchronous online program: Using a micro-learning format and CoP framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2025.2532056
- Butler, D. L., Novak Lauscher, H., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.003
- Cadorin, L., Bagnasco, A., Tolotti, A., Pagnucci, N., & Sasso, L. (2017). Developing an instrument to measure emotional behaviour abilities of meaningful learning through the Delphi technique. Journal of advanced nursing, 73(9), 2208-2218.
- Chi, M. T. (2009). Active‐constructive‐interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in cognitive science, 1(1), 73-105.
- Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2