Session Information
99 ERC SES 03 F, Teacher Education
Paper Session
Contribution
The adoption of Active Methodologies (AM) in higher education is strongly recommended for preparing students to live and work in the 21st century (Michael, 2006). In this sense, the European University Association (2019) indicates that promoting active learning in universities is fundamental, given the role of these institutions in training critical, creative and collaborative citizens and professionals, capable of contributing to a complex and ever-changing world. Active learning should therefore be part of universities' strategies to fulfil their social mission and promote education geared towards sustainable development. In addition, various studies have shown that student-centred teaching approaches are more effective than passive, teacher-centred teaching approaches (Freeman et al., 2014; Hsieh, 2013; Michael, 2006).
Active learning consists of involving students in activities that encourage them to reflect on ideas and how they are applied when speaking, listening, writing, reading and/or reflecting (Hsieh, 2013; Michael, 2006). It also implies students being consciously involved in the process of constructing, testing and refining their mental models while dealing with problems, challenges or concepts in a particular discipline (Freeman et al., 2014; Michael, 2006). From this perspective, teachers are charged with acting as facilitators or mediators of learning and students present a participatory and central role in the pedagogical process.
This understanding has led universities to invest in the development of learning environments that support the adoption of Active Methodologies. In this sense, Flexible Learning Spaces (FLS) have emerged, i.e. innovative environments intentionally designed to promote the implementation of AM and collaborative pedagogical approaches (Van Horne & Murniati, 2016). Corroborating this definition, the authors Li et al. (2019) understand these spaces to be physical classrooms geared towards the development of active learning processes, in combination with advanced forms of educational technology and flexible furniture, to provide personalised and dialogical learning experiences.
This situation makes the implementation of FLS widely indicated and considered as one of the main trends in technological strategies to be adopted in higher education currently (European University Association, 2019). This orientation has led several Portuguese universities to invest in FLS in recent years. Given this scenario, there is a need to train university teachers to work in these spaces. This is because the structuring of Flexible Learning Spaces alone is not enough to guarantee the implementation of pedagogical practices centred on students' active learning. The teaching and learning process needs to be explicitly geared towards taking advantage of the pedagogical potential of the space (Becker et al., 2018). Furthermore, different studies have reported barriers faced by professors in the use of FLS, which may have an impact on their choice to continue using transmissive teaching methods or even choose not to adopt this type of space in their work (MacLeod et al., 2018; Van Horne & Murniati, 2016; Wetzel & Farrow, 2023).
The aim of this research is therefore to develop, implement and evaluate a training model for higher education teachers that promotes the critical and reflective adoption of Active Methodologies in Flexible Learning Spaces. To this end, the first phase of the research sought to identify and systematise the training principles that should guide this model, based on the following research questions:
Q1. What assumptions should guide the training of higher education teachers to adopt Active Methodologies in their classes?
Q2. When specifically considering the implementation of Active Methodologies in Flexible Learning Spaces, what premises should guide the training processes for higher education teachers in these spaces?
Method
In order to identify and systematise the training assumptions that should guide the training of university teachers to promote active learning in FLS, the Delphi method was chosen as the main methodological approach for this research (Marques & Freitas, 2018). The participants in this study were 13 experts in AM and FLS, working as teachers, researchers and trainers at different universities in Portugal. After the definition of the experts, the Delphi study had the following stages, in accordance with the recommendations of Marques and Freitas (2018) and Osborne et al. (2003): Round 1. Questionnaire 1 was structured by open-ended questions, asking which assumptions should guide the training of university teachers to implement AM in FLS. The data collected were analysed qualitatively using categorical content analysis with the support of MAXQDA software (Bardin, 2011). Based on the analysis of the responses, a synthesis of the emerging assumptions was structured to reflect on the essence of the statements made by the participating experts. Round 2 - The aim of Questionnaire 2 was to determine the level of agreement of the experts with the assumptions previously mentioned in Questionnaire 1. The questionnaire presented the titles and summaries of the assumptions that had emerged in Round 1, together with representative and anonymous comments from the experts. At this stage, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each assumption on a 5-point Likert scale and to justify their rating. The data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics. The mean, mode and standard deviation were calculated for the assumptions discussed. In addition to this quantitative analysis, the qualitative contributions were analysed, resulting in adjustments to some of the training assumptions. Round 3 - Given the results of Round 2, this last questionnaire asked the experts to indicate, also on a 5-point Likert scale, the degree of importance of prioritising the assumptions under analysis. At the end of Round 3, a collective view of the experts was obtained, not only in terms of the level of agreement, but also in terms of the level of prioritisation of the assumptions addressed. The mean, mode and standard deviation of the level of prioritisation of the assumptions were also calculated. To guide the design of the training model, training assumptions with a mean of 4 or more and a standard deviation of less than 1 were selected.
Expected Outcomes
In response to the question "What assumptions should guide the training of higher education teachers for the implementation of AM?", this study systematised a set of 16 assumptions with a high level of agreement and prioritisation among the experts. The highlights are: a) Promoting and mobilising pedagogical differentiation to create inclusive learning environments; b) Facilitating training focused on active learning and the development of 21st century skills; c) Prioritising evidence-based pedagogical approaches; d) Encouraging training linked to Digital Enhancement for Learning and Teaching (DELT); e) Implementing in-service training from an isomorphic perspective; f) Encouraging collaboration between teachers; and g) Addressing beliefs and barriers to the adoption of AM. For the second research question, in which the experts were asked to specifically consider teacher training for the implementation of AM in FLS, the following assumptions were defined: a) Deepening the pedagogical potential of FLS for peer learning; b) Promoting reflection on FLS, clarifying its principles and characteristics; c) Promoting experimentation with FLS and simulation of AM; d) Developing competences for the adoption of digital technologies; e) Encouraging the design, implementation and evaluation of learning scenarios in FLS; and f) Considering the "space" dimension in pedagogical planning, mediation and management. In conclusion, the results of this study show that the training model in focus needs to be in strong dialogue with the Active Teacher Training model (Rodrigues, 2020) and with the current discussions on DELT (Gaebel et al., 2021). Furthermore, the dimension of space in the training process needs to be considered, as outlined in the Technology, Pedagogy, Content and Space framework (Kali et al., 2019). Finally, we believe that the conclusions of this work make a significant contribution to the training of higher education teachers, considering the wide dissemination of FLS not only in Portugal but also in Europe.
References
Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de Conteúdo (4a ed). Edições 70. Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., & Pomerantz, J. (2018). NMC Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition. EDUCAUSE. European University Association. (2019). Learning & Teaching Paper #5: Promoting Active Learning in Universities. 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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Gaebel, M., Zhang, T., Stoeber, H., & Morrisroe, A. (2021). Digitally enhanced learning and teaching in European higher education institutions. Hsieh, C. (2013). Active Learning: Review of Evidence and Examples. In Tzyy-Yuang Shiang, Wei-Hua Ho, Peter Chenfu Huang, & Chien-Lu Tsai (Eds.), 31 International Conference on Biomechanics in Sports . International Society of Biomechanics in Sports (ISBS) . Kali, Y., Sagy, O., Benichou, M., Atias, O., & Levin‐Peled, R. (2019). Teaching expertise reconsidered: The Technology, Pedagogy, Content and Space (TPeCS) knowledge framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2162–2177. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12847 Li, Y., Yang, H. H., & MacLeod, J. (2019). Preferences toward the constructivist smart classroom learning environment: examining pre-service teachers’ connectedness. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1474232 MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & Li, Y. (2018). Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment: Development and validation of an instrument. Computers & Education, 122, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.015 Marques, J. B. V., & Freitas, D. de. (2018). Método DELPHI: caracterização e potencialidades na pesquisa em Educação. Pro-Posições, 29(2), 389–415. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-6248-2015-0140 Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006 Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ?ideas-about-science? should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105 Rodrigues, A. L. (2020). Digital technologies integration in teacher education: the active teacher training model. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(3), 24–33. Van Horne, S., & Murniati, C. T. (2016). Faculty adoption of active learning classrooms. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9107-z Wetzel, E. M., & Farrow, C. Ben. (2023). Active learning in construction management education: faculty perceptions of engagement and learning. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(8), 1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1974684 Acknowledgements: This work is financially supported by National Funds through FCT – I.P., under the projects and UIDP/00194/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDP/00194/2020) and the doctoral scholarship under reference 2021.06815.BD (https://doi.org/10.54499/2021.06815.BD).
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.