El problema de restaurar el Orden Económico Social

Over ten years ago, Michael (2007) queried a group of instructors regarding their per- ceived barriers to active learning. In the past decade, active learning has become one of the high- est areas of investment in the field of learning technology in pursuit of increasing student success (Brooks, 2017). The present research has broadened the range of instructors providing their in- sights on current barriers to the adoption of active learning, providing evidence that one of the highest rated and most persistent barriers over time is the lack of available learning spaces that are suitable for teaching using active learning practices.

The observed comparisons in this research support the notion that the affordances pro- vided in active learning classrooms can improve student engagement as measured by student at- tention, especially when instructors and students are engaged in group work and problems solv- ing activities. The observations and insights gained from the instructor interviews demonstrate need for additional support for student collaboration and shared problem solving. Wall-mounted and movable white boards are inexpensive options that provide affordances to fulfill these needs, and would provide remedies for lowering the barriers to adoption of active learning. The af- fordances provided by multiple digital displays offered students access to technology that facili- tated the sharing of ideas, but the instructors engaged in this research rated this classroom en- hancement lower on their list of priorities than additional group writing surfaces and movable ta- bles and chairs. As institutions consider their investments in the support of active learning, their approach should consider a balance of low- and high-tech solutions that are designed to specifi- cally support the active learning tactics preferred by their instructors.

Population and Sample Limitations

This study drew conclusions regarding barriers to the adoption of active learning tech- niques from a sample of instructors at two large research institutions, one of which also includes instructors working in a community college environment. It is likely that instructors from other institutions would perceive similar barriers, however, institutions with different cultures, mis- sions or business models might include instructors with different thoughts about active learning. For example, a large for-profit online college might mandate instructional content and methods, insisting that their instructors follow a prescribed curriculum and lesson plan. Instructors at that institution would likely have different perceptions about barriers to the adoption of active learn- ing. It is also possible that the views of those instructors who decided to participate in the survey do not accurately represent the views of all instructors, including those who decided not to par- ticipate in the survey.

The second section of this research focused on the activities of two instructors and their students in a single active learning classroom, as compared to activities in two lecture-style classrooms. To normalize for the potential variety of active learning classrooms, it was necessary to select a specific room. Participating instructors were then necessarily limited to those who were teaching the same course in this active learning classroom and also a lecture-style room during the same academic semester. With the baseline level of knowledge that this study pro- vides, future work can be less constrained, and a wider array of classroom compositions can be tested.

This study did not explore whether the specific levels of activity found with this group of instructors is necessarily representative of other instructors teaching in similar spaces at this or

other institutions. The two instructors did have different teaching styles, though, with one in- structor focusing on providing interactive lectures coupled with a small number of student group projects, contrasted with the other instructor utilizing group project work as a foundation for his course. Within these varied models, the range of instructional methods was likely representative of a large number of instructors across many institutions. Additional research in other instruc- tional environments could add additional context and further this field of study.

Recommendations for Further Research

The scope of this research included an exploration of instructors’ perceived barriers to the adoption of active learning and observations of instructor and student behavior in learning spaces designed to support active learning. There are several related areas of research that could com- plement this study and further this field of research:

Student Performance in Active Learning Classrooms. The current research provided evidence demonstrating increased student engagement, as measured by student attention levels, in active learning classrooms. There is some research, though very little, investigating the con- nection between engagement in active learning classrooms and a possible translation to increased student performance. The literature tends to treat engagement and performance separately rather than interconnected.

Instructor Training for Active Learning. A top-rated barrier to the adoption of active learning in this study was the lack of instructor knowledge regarding active learning and related techniques and strategies. Additional research could identify the reasons for this lack of

knowledge and test the effectiveness of instructor training or other methods of increasing instruc- tor knowledge.

Experimental Research on the Conversion of a Course to Active Learning. Another highly rated barrier to the adoption of active learning was the amount of time it takes to develop course content for use in active learning courses. This barrier is related to another barrier sur- faced in this research: the lack of instructional design assistance to facilitate course development. Additional research could compare models of building active learning course content with and without the assistance of instructional designers, identifying time needed for development and implementation, and overall effectiveness of the resulting courses.

Contributions to the Field

This field of study and the specific studies undertaken in this research have practical im- plications for faculty and their institutions as well as advancing knowledge on active learning im- plementation. On the practical side, the cost of designing and building classrooms specifically equipped to support active learning can be substantially higher than those designed for lecture- style course delivery, depending on the elements chosen for each classroom design. Similarly, the investment in time that instructors make in re-designing their course for active learning is substantial, potentially costing the institution additional resources through increased support staff and stipends. Further, when instructional support teams consider how to best address helping in- structors overcome barriers to the adoption of active learning, it is useful for those teams to un- derstand which barriers more substantially hinder adoption and which barriers are perceived to substantially hinder adoption.

On the academic side, the findings from this research support the notion that one of the primary barriers to the adoption of active learning is the availability of classrooms that are well suited to supporting active learning strategies and practices. However, the instructor practices and levels of student engagement observed in active learning rooms provide evidence that many

of the activities that encourage engagement can be facilitated through small changes to existing rooms, including the installation of additional wall-mounted or mobile whiteboards.

When instructional models are demonstrated to positively support student success, many institutions will strive to implement those models at scale. But as discussed in this manuscript, barriers to the promising model of active learning often get in the way of wide-scale adoption. This research adds to the body of research that assists instructors, instructional support practi- tioners, and university administrators in designing programs and the types of learning environ- ments that effectively promote and implement active learning.

References

7 things you should know about… research on active learning classrooms. (2017). EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2017/9/eli7148.pdf Aksit, F., Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2016). Why is active learning so difficult to implement: The

Turkish case. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4). http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol41/iss4/6

Al-Busaidi, K., & Al-Shihi, H. (2012). Key factors to instructors' satisfaction of learning man- agement systems in blended learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,24(1), 18-39.

Amedeo, D., Stimson, R. J., & Golledge, R. G. (2009). Person-environment-behavior research:

Investigating activities and experiences in spaces and environments. New York: Guilford

Press.

Auerbach, A. J., & Schussler, E. E. (2016). Instructor use of group active learning in an introduc- tory biology sequence. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(5), 67-74.

Awang, H., Abd Samad, N., Mohd Faiz, N., Roddin, R., & Kankia, J. (2017). Relationship be- tween the Learning Styles Preferences and Academic Achievement. IOP Conference Se-

ries. Materials Science and Engineering / Institute of Physics.,226(1), 012193.

Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., Saichaie, K., & Petersen, C., (2016). A guide to teach-

ing in the active learning classroom: history, research and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Publishing, LLC.

Barrier. (n.d.) In Macmillan dictionary. Retrieved from

Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Edu-

cational Technology, 35(1), 22–30.

Birdwell, T., Roman, T. A., Hammersmith, L., & Jerolimov, D. (2016). Active learning class- room observation tool: A practical tool for classroom observation and instructor reflec- tion in active learning classrooms. Journal on Centers for Teaching & Learning, (8)28- 50.

Brooks, D. (2017). Active learning classrooms: The top strategic technology for 2017. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2017/3/active-learning-classrooms-the-top-strategic- technology-for-2017

Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of train- ing, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity? CBE - Life Sciences Edu-

cation, 11(4), 339-346.

Bonwell, C. C., & Elson, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.

Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, George Washington Uni- versity.

Butler, A., Phillmann, K., & Smart, L. (2001). Active learning within a lecture: Assessing the impact of short, in-class writing exercises. Teaching Of Psychology, 28(4), 257-259. Carnegie classifications of institutions of higher education. (2014). Retrieved from http://carne-

gieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/lookup.php

Cattaneo, K. H. (2017). Telling active learning pedagogies apart: From theory to practice. Jour-

nal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(2), 144-152.

Chi, M. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105. doi:10.1111/j.1756- 8765.2008.01005.x

Collins, J. W., III, & O'Brien, N. P., (Eds). (2003) The Greenwood dictionary of educa-

tion. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Cotner, S., Loper, J., Walker, J. D., & Brooks, D. C. (2013). Research and Teaching: “It's not you, it's the room” – Are the high-tech, active learning classrooms worth it? Journal of

College Science Teaching, 42(6):82-88

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for tech- nology integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 47-61. Fisher, B. A., & Frey, R. F. (2015). Using documentary tools to foster the practice of scholarly

teaching. National Teaching & Learning Forum, 24(2), 4-5. doi:10.1002/ntif.20019 Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wen-

deroth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineer- ing, and mathematics. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America, 111(23), 8410-8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Frey, R. F., Fisher, B. A., Solomon, E. D., Leonard, D. A., Mutambuki, J. M., Cohen, C. A., Luo, J. & Pondugula, S. (2016). A Visual Approach to Helping Instructors Integrate, Docu- ment, and Refine Active Learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(5), 20-26.

Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2012). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies. The Internet and Higher Education,18, 24-28. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.001

Georgina, D., & Olson, M. (2008). Integration of technology in higher education: A review of faculty self-perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 1-8.

Innovative & active learning classrooms. (2017). Retrieved from http://cetl.gsu.edu/ser- vices/learning-environments-teaching-equipment/innovative-and-active-learning-class- rooms/

Hyder, I., & Bhamani, S. (2016). Bloom’s taxonomy (cognitive domain) in higher education set- tings: Reflection brief. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(2), 288- 300. doi:10.22555/joeed.v3i2.1039

Johnson, T., Wisniewski, M., Kuhlemeyer, G., Isaacs, G., & Krzykowski, J. (2012). Technology adoption in higher education: Overcoming anxiety through faculty bootcamp. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 63-72.

Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical para- digm? Educational Technology Research and Development,39(3), 5-14. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219973

Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid courses. In A. G. Picciano, & C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research Per-

spectives, (pp. 111–144). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Khan, A., Egbue, O., Palkie, B., & Madden, J. (2017). Active learning: Engaging students to maximize learning in an online course. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 15(2), 107-115.

Kirschner P. A. (2002). Can we support CCSL ? Educational, social and technological af- fordances for learning. Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL?, 7-34. The Neth- erlands: The Open Universiteit Nederland.

LaCosse, J., Ainsworth, S. E., Shepherd, M. A., Ent, M., Klein, K. M., Holland-Carter, L. A., ... Licht, B. (2017). An active-learning approach to fostering understanding of research methods in large classes. Teaching of Psychology, 44(2), 117-123.

Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2012). Numbers are not enough. Why e-learning analytics failed to inform an institutional strategic plan. Journal of Educational Technology & So- ciety, 15(3), 149-163.

Meyer, L. (2014). Tech basics for active, collaborative learning. Campus Technology Maga- zine, 28(2), 5-9.

Michael, J. (2006) Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Ed-

ucation. 30(4) 159-167. doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006

Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching, (2), 42.

Mosaic: Mosaic active learning initiative. (2017). Retrieved from https://uits.iu.edu/mosaic Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2012). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Inter-

net and Higher Education, 18, 15-23. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001

NCSU SCALE-UP. (2017) Retrieved from https://scaleupserver.phys-

ics.ncsu.edu/wiki/pages/01b5L6/North_Carolina_State_University.html

Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from fac- ulty members. Computers & Education, 56(3), 689-699.

Parker, A. (2003). Identifying incentives for faculty who teach at a distance: An analysis of the literature. College & University Media Review, 10(1), 9-15.

Perks, T., Orr, D., & Alomari, E. (2016). Classroom re-design to facilitate student learning: A case study of changes to a university classroom. Journal of The Scholarship of Teaching

and Learning, 16(1), 53-68.

Petersen, C. I., & Gorman, K. S. (2014). Strategies to address common challenges when teaching in an active learning classroom. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2014(137), 63. doi:10.1002/tl.20086

Popik, B. (2012, December 19). Tell me and I forget; teach me and I may remember; involve me and I will learn. [Blog Entry]. Retrieved from: https://www.barrypopik.com/in-

dex.php/new_york_city/entry/tell_me_and_i_forget_teach_me_and_i_may_remem- ber_involve_me_and_i_will_lear/

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering

Education, 93(3), 223-231.

Raths, D. (2017). Different learning spaces, different goals. Campus Technology Maga- zine, 30(5), 30-33.

Rossett, A. (2000). The ASTD e-learning handbook: Best practices, strategies, and case studies

for an emerging field. New York: McGraw-Hill Publisher.


SCALE-UP: Student-centered active learning environment for upside-down pedagogies. (2017) Retrieved from http://scaleup.ncsu.edu

TEAL: Technology-enabled active learning. (2005). Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.html

We proved students from all backgrounds can succeed at the same levels. (2018) Retrieved from http://success.gsu.edu

Wilkinson, T., Boohan, M., & Stevenson, M. (2014). Does learning style influence academic performance in different forms of assessment? Journal of Anatomy, 224(3), 304–308.

http://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12126

Wisdom, J. P., Chor, K. B., Hoagwood, K. E., & Horwitz, S. M. (2014). Innovation adoption: a review of theories and constructs. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Men-

tal Health Services Research, 41(4), 480-502. doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0486-4

Wolff, M., Wagner, M. J., Poznanski, S., Schiller, J., & Santen, S. (2015). Not another boring lecture: Engaging learners with active learning techniques. Journal of Emergency Medi-

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Michael’s (2007) Barriers Converted to Survey Questions 1. Active Learning requires too much preparation time.

a. The amount of time needed to prepare the course

2. The classroom in which we teach do not lend themselves to active learning a. Available classrooms do not lend themselves to active learning 3. Students do not know how to do active learning

a. Students do not know how to do active learning

4. Active learning takes too much class time and the coverage of content will suffer

a. Active learning takes too much class time and the coverage of content will suffer 5. In an active learning classroom, the teacher has less control

a. The instructor has less control in an active learning classroom

6. Active learning is compromised because students do not come to class prepared

a. Active learning is compromised because students do not come to class prepared 7. Students are unwilling to engage in active learning

a. Students are unwilling to engage in active learning

8. Active learning is difficult to do because of student heterogeneity a. Diverse student backgrounds make active learning more difficult 9. Students lack the maturity needed for active learning

a. Students lack the maturity needed for active learning 10.Student assessment is difficult in an active learning classroom

a. Student assessment is difficult in an active learning classroom 11.The perceptions of colleagues inhibit active learning

a. The perceptions of colleagues inhibit active learning 12.Class size is an impediment to active learning

a. Class size is an impediment to active learning

13.The culture of learning of both teachers and students is a barrier

a. Active learning does not fit into the established academic culture 14.Student expectations about learning

15.It is hard to predict the learning outcomes in an active learning classroom a. Learning Outcomes are hard to predict in an active learning classroom 16.Active learning runs the risk of poor student evaluations or ratings

a. Teaching with active learning techniques risks poor student evaluations or ratings. 17.It is hard to ensure “quality control” in a course with multiple sections

a. It is difficult to control course quality across multiple sections of active learning classes

18.There are not enough learning resources available

a. There are not enough learning resources available 19.Lack of teacher maturity (personal and professional) is a barrier

a. Lack of teacher maturity (personal and professional) makes active learning teach- ing more difficult

20.The faculty reward structure makes active learning unattractive

a. The faculty reward structure makes active learning unattractive 21.Standard classroom periods are a barrier

a. Standard class periods make active learning teaching more difficult 22.Teachers do not know how to do it

Appendix B: Survey Instrument Survey on Perceived Barriers to Active Learning Adoption