Using active learning strategies to shift student attitudes and behaviours about learning and teaching in a research intensive educational context
Keywords:
Active Learning, Student Perception, Pharmacy Education, Attendance, EngagementAbstract
Background: Active learning strategies were used to shift student attitudes and behaviours about learning and teaching in a research intensive Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at a large Australian University. Principles and active learning strategies were developed and tested in discrete content sections during the pilot phase, and then implemented for all students in first and second year units the following two years.
Method: The impact of the approach on student perceptions of active learning, attendance in face-to-face classes and performance in exams were evaluated.
Results: The majority of students perceived that active learning improved their understanding of content, developed skills in critical thinking and communication, and corrected misconceptions. Nevertheless, 53% of students felt they “learnt better” in traditional lectures than with active learning during the pilot phase. After strategies to improve student understanding of the generic skill benefit of active learning were implemented, this proportion fell to 34% in year one of implementation and 15% in year two. Students who reported that they “learnt better in traditional lectures” valued clear content presentation, whilst students who disagreed with this statement valued communication and critical thinking skills development and problem solving. Student attendance was 73% higher in active learning units than untransformed units during the implementation phase.
Conclusion: The use of a coordinated and strategic approach to implement active learning led to positive changes in student attitudes to their learning and associated behaviours.
References
Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E. & Weiss, M. (2009). Active Learning and Student-centered Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and Performance in Introductory Biology. Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203-213.
Blicblau, A.S. & Dini, K. (2012). Students’ perceptions of an active learning approach to capstone projects. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 14(1).
Bligh, D.A. (2000). What's the use of lectures, California: Jossey Bass.
Brotherton, J.A. & Abowd, G.D. (2004). Lessons learned from eClass: Assessing automated capture and access in the classroom. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 11(2), 121-155.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperPerennial, New York.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E. & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science, 332(6031), 862-864.
Felder, R.M. (2007). Sermons for grumpy campers. Chemical Engineering Education, 41(3), 183.
Fox-Cardamone, L. & Rue, S. (2003). Students’ Response to Active Learning Strategies, An Examination of Small Group and Whole-Class Discussion. Research for Educational Reform, 8(3), 3-13.
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, 201319030.
Freeman, S., O'Connor, E., Parks, J.W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C. & Wenderoth, M.P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 132-139.
Gomis-Porqueras, P., Meinecke, J. & Rodrigues-Neto, J.A. (2011). New Technologies in Higher Education: Lower Attendance and Worse Learning Outcomes? Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 18(1), 69.
Gosper, M. (2008). The impact of web-based lecture technologies on current and future practices in learning and teaching: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
Hanna, L., Hall, M., Smyth, P. & Daly, S. (2014). “I miss being spoon-fed”. A comparison of transition from school to university education from the perspective of undergraduate pharmacy students. Pharmacy Education, 14(1), 37-43.
Loeser, H., O'Sullivan, P. & Irby, D.M. (2007). Leadership lessons from curricular change at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Academic Medicine, 82(4), 324-330.
Massingham, P., & Herrington, T. (2006). Does attendance matter? An examination of student attitudes, participation, performance and attendance. Journal of university teaching & learning practice, 3(2), 3.
Michael, J.A. & Modell, H.I. (2003). Active learning in secondary and college science classrooms: A working model for helping the learner to learn. Routledge.
Modell, H.I. (1996). Preparing students to participate in an active learning environment. American Journal of Physiology, 270(6 Pt 3), S69-77.
Sefton, A.J. (2004). New approaches to medical education: an international perspective. Medical Principles and Practice, 13(5), 239-248.
Smith, M.K., Wood, W.B., Adams, W.K., Wieman, C., Knight, J.K., Guild, N., & Su, T.T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122-124.
Welsh, A.J. (2012). Exploring Undergraduates’ Perceptions of the Use of Active Learning Techniques in Science Lectures. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 80-87.
White, P.J., Larson, I., Styles, K., Yuriev, E., Evans, D. R., Rangachari, P.K., Short, J.L., Exintaris, B., Malone, D.T., Davie, B., Eise, N. & Namara, K.M. (in print). Transforming teaching and learning with active learning strategies in a research intensive higher education context. Higher Education Research and Development.
Williams, J. & Fardon, M. (2007). Recording lectures and the impact on student attendance. ALT-C, September, 4-6.
