Can 'E-Learning Instructors' stimulate 'ACTIVE Instruction'?

1. Can 'E-Learning Instructors' stimulate 'ACTIVE Instruction'? David Pundak1,2, Orit Herscovitz2 , Miri Shacham2 1. Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee 2. ORT Braude College, Israel Meital Annual Conference, Open Univeristy, Israel 30 June 2010

2. Active LearningDifficulties in Traditional Courses • Students are passive most of the time • Instructor cannot identify students’ difficulties • Guiding students in a large class is difficult • Students focus more on problem-solving techniques in the exam and less on understanding scientific principles. • Course materials are quickly forgotten and do not serve as a base for advanced courses.

3. Active Learning:confronting traditional learning difficulties • Rearranging course structure • Combining lecture, recitation and lab • Shortening lecture time to 15-20 minutes • Conducting discussions and providing feedback • Activating students in groups • Concept tests • Problem solving • Research relating to animations and simulations • Students present their solutions in front of class • Lecturer’s duties include: guiding groups of students, managing social aspects of the course, continuous evaluation, managing an active web site.

4. Active Instructors- a case study • Developing learning materials over 3 years • Ongoing experience of active learning over 4 years • Group of active instructors included: • 3 instructors in mathematics • 3 instructors in physics • 2 instructors in chemistry

5. Changes Experienced by Active Instructors Student-teacher's role “ The room structure allows much more flexibility to students. The room erases the borders between the provider of knowledge (teacher) and the receiver of knowledge (students), and creates a changeover between provider and receiver… “ Knowledge construction “ It is fascinating to see how students begin to construct knowledge, how this process develops during the course. This cannot be seen in any other mode of instruction. There is a sense that the students’ minds are transparent and we can see the way in which the knowledge is organized.”

6. Changes Experienced by Active Instructors (continued) Cooperative learning in small groups “ In regular classes it is actually impossible to provide personal guidance. In an active class, when I approach a group of students, all 3 or even 9 of them are involved. “ “ Group work contributes very much. The group is a supporting environment. “

7. Research Background • An improvement in students’ involvement and achievements following active instructors’ teaching. • Other instructors in the academyexpressed willingness to adopt elements of active learning. • E-instructors’ need to encourage communicationbetween E-learners.

8. Research Questions What are the attitudes of the 'active instructors' toward active learning? Is there any gap, and if so how large, between the attitudes of the 'active instructors' and the attitudes of the other FTF instructors in academic institutions regarding active learning? Is there any gap, and if so how large, between the attitudes of the 'FTF instructors' and the attitudes of the E-Instructors regarding active learning?

9. Research Population

10. Developing the research questionnaire Questionnaire with 35 statements, divided into 6 areas. Respondents had to choose their approach from a scale of 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree)

11. Developing the research questionnaire Part A - questionnaire with 35 statements, divided into 6 areas.

12. Research Results

13. Comparison between FTF, E and Active instructors (Kruskal-Wallis Test)

14. Comparison between the Mean of FTF and E instructors(T Test)

15. Findings and Discussion • Contrary to our assumption there are small differences between E-instructors and FTF instructors in their tendency toward active learning. • The result could be explained by the instructors' tendency to maintain their traditional FTF teaching style even when they begin to teach virtual classes. • In some cases economic constraints directed the institutions to develop e-learning courses, alongside the FTF courses.

16. Conclusions • There is a large gap between "active instructors’” experience of success and how FTF and E-Instructors relate to this teaching method. • The research tool developed can be used to locate potential active lecturers. • It is advisable to expose FTF and E instructors to the advantages of active pedagogy without creating pressure or threatening. • As a first step it is recommended to expose FTF and E- Instructors to active learning in large classes. • Promoting active learning among FTF and E-Instructors may improve students’ satisfaction regarding their learning in academic institutions.

17. Recommendations • Carefully check the uniqueness of success stories in active learning, while trying to adopt it. • Expose lecturers FTF and E-Learning to theoretical background and to practical solutions in activating a large class. • Adjust changes for each course and department and learning style.

18. Thank You Dr. David Pundak Ort Braude College Kinneret College on the See of Galille Israel david@kinneret.ac.il