Öğretim Elemanlarının Bakış Açılarına Göre Yükseköğretimde Aktif Öğrenme

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 382 - 405, 31.12.2022

Elif İlhan

Öz

Yükseköğretimde öğretimden öğrenme doğru değişen paradigma, aktif öğrenme gibi üniversite geneli reformlara neden olmaktadır. Öğretim elemanları, aktif öğrenmenin nitelikli bir şekilde tasarlanması ve yürütülmesinde temel paydaşlardan biridir. Bu nedenle onların deneyimlerine dayalı bakış açıları, aktif öğrenmeyi uygulamaya istekli olan öğretim elemanlarını, üniversiteleri ve konuyla ilgili gelecekteki araştırmaları yönlendirmede etkilidir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğretim elemanlarının yükseköğretimde aktif öğrenmeye ilişkin kendi deneyimlerine dayalı olarak görüşlerinin belirlenmesidir. Bütüncül tekil durum çalışması olarak desenlenen bu nitel araştırmada veriler çevrimiçi görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmış ve içerik analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın bazı bulguları şöyledir: Öğretim elemanları çoğunlukla aktif öğrenmeye ilişkin olumlu duygulara sahiptir. Aktif öğrenmenin öğrencilerinin 21. yüzyıl becerileri edinmelerini ve özgüven, sosyal beceriler gibi diğer nitelikleri kazanmalarını sağladığını düşünmektedir. Öğretim elemanları; öğrenciler, öğretim elemanları ve öğrenme ortamı ile ilgili bazı sorunları belirtmişlerdir. Bunlarla ilgili olarak aktif öğrenmenin etkinliğini artırmak için bazı öneriler de sunmuşlardır. Son olarak, araştırma bulgularına dayalı olarak öğretim elemanları, üniversiteler ve gelecekte yapılacak araştırmalar için bazı öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Aktif öğrenme, eğitimde kalite, öğretim elemanı görüşleri, yükseköğretimde öğrenme ve öğretme

Active Learning in Higher Education from the Perspectives of Faculty Members

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Kaynakça

• Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learning: An introduction to exploratory practice. Palgrave MacMillan.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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-
• 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
• Bell, D., & Kahrhoff, J. (2006). Active learning handbook. Webster University.
• 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.
• 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
• Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
• 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
• Chan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’ creativity-fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 69–77.
• 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
• Chi, M.T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychology, 49, 219–243.
• Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 1987, 3-7.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• Dewey, J. (1924). Democracy and education. Macmillan.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). Longman.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347(6222), 627–633.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class. AIP Conference Proceedings, 399(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5319
• Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching, 55(2), 42–47.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Research studies and active learning promoting professional competences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,43,131-142.
• Özer, S. (2020). The effect of active learning on achievement and attitude in vocational English course. Inquiry in education, 12 (2), 1-18.
• 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.
• 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.
• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16, 465-479.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• Talbert, R. & Mor-Avi, A. (2019). A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Heliyon, 5(2019), 1-19.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2015). Teaching engineering. Purdue University.
• 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.