The Role of Pedagogical Tools in Active Learning: A Case for Sense-Making

Autor/inn/en	Koretsky, Milo; Keeler, Jessie; Ivanovitch, John; Cao, Ying
Titel	The Role of Pedagogical Tools in Active Learning: A Case for Sense-Making
Quelle	In: International Journal of STEM Education, 5 (2018), Artikel 18 (20 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Koretsky, Milo)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2196-7822
DOI	10.1186/s40594-018-0116-5
Schlagwörter	Active Learning; Audience Response Systems; Inquiry; Worksheets; Teaching Methods; STEM Education; Large Group Instruction; Biology; Engineering; Thinking Skills; Comprehension; Case Studies + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Aktives Lernen; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; STEM; Biologie; Maschinenbau; Denkfähigkeit; Verstehen; Verständnis; Case study; Fallstudie; Case Study
Abstract	Background: Evidence from the research literature indicates that both audience response systems (ARS) and guided inquiry worksheets (GIW) can lead to greater student engagement, learning, and equity in the STEM classroom. We compare the use of these two tools in large enrollment STEM courses delivered in different contexts, one in biology and one in engineering. Typically, the research literature contains studies that compare student performance for a group where the given active learning tool is used to a control group where it is not used. While such studies are valuable, they do not necessarily provide thick descriptions that allow instructors to understand how to effectively use the tool in their instructional practice. Investigations on the intended student thinking processes using these tools are largely missing. In the present article, we fill this gap by foregrounding the intended student thinking and sense-making processes of such active learning tools by comparing their enactment in two large-enrollment courses in different contexts. Results: The instructors studied utilized each of the active learning tools differently. In the biology course, ARS questions were used mainly to "check in" with students and assess if they were correctly interpreting and understanding worksheet questions. The engineering course presented ARS questions that afforded students the opportunity to apply learned concepts to new scenarios towards improving students' conceptual understanding. In the biology course, the GIWs were primarily used in stand-alone activities, and most of the information necessary for students to answer the questions was contained within the worksheet in a context that aligned with a disciplinary model. In the engineering course, the instructor intended for students to reference their lecture notes and rely on their conceptual knowledge of fundamental principles from the previous ARS class session in order to successfully answer the GIW questions. However, while their specific implementation structures and practices differed, both instructors used these tools to build towards the same basic disciplinary thinking and sense-making processes of conceptual reasoning, quantitative reasoning, and metacognitive thinking. Conclusions: This study led to four specific recommendations for post-secondary instructors seeking to integrate active learning tools into STEM courses. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01