Impact of Faculty Development on Increasing Residents' Active Learning in Lectures

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e9-e10
Author(s):  
Bonnie Desselle ◽  
George Hescock ◽  
Robin English ◽  
Andrea Hauser ◽  
Melissa Roy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Faculty Development

scholarly journals Board 136: Resources for Faculty Development: Implicit Bias, Deficit Thinking, and Active Learning

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Martin ◽  
Cynthia Lang ◽  
Sin-Ning Liu ◽  
Carolyn Sandoval ◽  
Mindy Bergman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Faculty Development ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Deficit Thinking

Pedagogy

2020 ◽  
pp. 60-77
Keyword(s):  
Student Engagement ◽  
Active Learning ◽  
Faculty Development ◽  
Community Of Inquiry ◽  
Learner Centered ◽  
Community Of Inquiry Framework ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Pedagogical Approaches ◽  
Teacher Centered

In Chapter 3, the authors consider pedagogy to andragogy. Readers are treated to a brief overview of the pedagogical history and find out when the change from pedagogy to andragogy occurred. Readers will also realize the definition of pedagogy and that pedagogical approaches can be placed on a spectrum from teacher-centered or teacher-directed to learner-centered or learner-directed. The term engagement and, more specifically, student engagement are presented in the chapter. Banking theory will be explored as well as false generosity, active learning, faculty development, and the community of inquiry framework.

scholarly journals Reducing Student Resistance to Active Learning: Applying Research Results to Faculty Development

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea Marlor ◽  
Cynthia Finelli ◽  
Madison Andrews ◽  
Bobbie Bermudez ◽  
Maura Borrego ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Faculty Development ◽  
Student Resistance ◽  
Research Results

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Course Design for Active Learning: Evaluation of a Blended Learning Approach to Enable Academic Faculty Development

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Olugbenga King
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Faculty Development ◽  
Blended Learning ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Research University ◽  
Course Design ◽  
Academic Development ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Learning Technology

This article describes two blended learning (technology-rich) professional development workshops on course design for active learning to enable faculty development at a research university in the Southeastern United States. Specifically, the workshops were designed to address gaps in the international academic development literature, and so this article highlights one way to address related requirements, such as the need for systematic evaluation, provision of thick descriptions of academic development practices, and evaluation of the effect of different learning environments (physical classroom spaces) on teaching and learning outcomes. Hence, the workshops model evidence-based approaches for designing faculty development, including the systematic alignment of the workshops’ goals with qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the workshops’ effectiveness.

Effectiveness of the active learning in organic chemistry faculty development workshops

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 387-398
Author(s):  
Justin B. Houseknecht ◽  
Garrin J. Bachinski ◽  
Madelyn H. Miller ◽  
Sarah A. White ◽  
Douglas M. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Organic Chemistry ◽  
Active Learning ◽  
Faculty Development ◽  
Time Allocation ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Teaching Practices ◽  
Online Community ◽  
Learning Methods ◽  
Class Time ◽  
Biennial Conference

Active learning has been shown to improve student outcomes and learning, yet organic chemistry instructors have been slow to adopt these pedagogies. The Chemistry Collaborations, Workshops, and Communities of Scholars (cCWCS) Active Learning in Organic Chemistry (ALOC) workshops have sought to facilitate the adoption of active learning methods by helping participants define active learning and understand best practices, persuading them to incorporate these practices into their teaching, and supporting their implementation efforts through an online community, Organic Educational Resources (OrganicERs.org). The effectiveness of the workshops was measured over a two-year period using teaching self-efficacy and teaching practices instruments. Comparison to pre-workshop self-efficacy surveys found significant and sustained gains for knowledge about and belief in the efficacy of active learning methods (d = 1.18 compared to pre-workshop responses) and confidence in intention to implement (d = 0.60). Belief that they were implementing more active learning in their classrooms (d = 0.85) was corroborated by the teaching practices survey and survey of class time allocation which also showed statistically significant (p < 0.001) and sustained growth in student centered teaching (d = 1.00), formative assessment (d = 1.04), student–student interactions (d = 0.96), and the amount of class time spent with students working in groups (d = 0.68) for the workshop participants. Gains for participants in the 3 hour Active Learning in Organic Chemistry workshops at the 2016 Biennial Conference on Chemical Education (BCCE) were smaller than those in the 4 day ALOC workshops, but still meaningful. These results indicate that the 2015 and 2016 Active Learning in Organic Chemistry faculty development workshops effectively increased participants’ knowledge about, belief in the efficacy of, and implementation of active learning methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document