Capturing the Action: Implementing the use of an Active Learning Inventory Tool

1. Capturing the Action: Implementing the use of an Active Learning Inventory Tool Jenny Van Amburgh, Pharm.D. Donna M. Qualters, Ph.D. John Devlin, Pharm.D. Jennifer Kirwin, Pharm.D. Northeastern University Boston, MA University of TEXAS at Arlington March 29, 2007

2. Goals of the Day • Discuss and share active learning techniques and ideas • Introduce the Active Learning Inventory Tool (ALIT) • Practice using the tool • Share final thoughts and implementation ideas

3. Introductions • Who we are… • Who you are…

4. Active Learning What is active learning?

5. Active Learning • What types of active learning are you familiar with? • What types do you typically see in your discipline classrooms? • Are active learning techniques discipline specific?

6. Active Learning • What are the barriers to implementing active learning? • Are there discipline or departmental culture barriers?

7. Background • Pharmacy Practice Department has a strong commitment to Active Learning (AL) • In assessing departmental outcomes, no method existed to measure the amount and type of AL that was occurring in classes other than self report • Problem was to find a tool to measure AL and determine if faculty perceptions matched the reality of AL activities

8. Solution: • Creation of the ALIT - Active Learning Inventory Tool • Qualitative measure of faculty perceptions of AL versus reality of the ALIT • Research was supported by Northeastern’s Instructional Development Fund

9. Tool Construction / Validation • Draft tool was prepared using a focused literature review • The ALIT was evaluated by three national experts regarding: • Wording • Format • Ease of use • Descriptors • Categories • Overall generalizability

10. ALIT Tool • Researchers trained by using the tool to independently review three recorded 1 hour Pharmacy lectures • The tool was then modified to clarify meaning, and ease of use • Trained observers evaluated 6 one hour lectures with further modification • Agreement among observers was calculated for each ALIT outcome – differences were resolved by consensus

11. Results: • Overall 8 drafts resulted in a total of 17 modifications – with the frequency decreasing over the course of the process • Modifications included: • Clarification of coding schemes and descriptions of AL techniques • Complexity was evaluated rather than risk • Qualitative comment section added • Clarity for the Q & A section

12. Results cont.

13. Perceptions – To do or not to do? • Objective – compare faculty perceptions of the amount and type of AL with the documented results • Method • Constructed an interview script • Definitions • Merits • Types / amount • Rationale • Time devoted in class to AL • Prep time • Perceived impact of AL on learning in the course • Single interviewer • Multiple coders / meet to discuss any disagreements

14. Agreement Between Observers and Lecturers:

15. Results: Themes highlighted by faculty interviews included (n=7) • Definitions of AL were ‘non-standard,’ but all included elements of ‘doing’ and ‘processing’; • Merits of using AL included: 1) better retention of material (57%) and 2) improved application and critical thinking (29%); • Most frequently reported types of AL used were cases (100%), think / pair / share (66%), and use of a computer-based personal response system (33%); • Past exposure / familiarity with a particular AL technique was the most common reason for its use;

16. Results: Themes (con’t) • Faculty reported a wide range of the total class time they spent on AL [25 (10-50)%] [median (range)]; • Most faculty (71%) reported that the use of AL required more preparation time if… • Technique was new to them • They were unfamiliar with AL overall, or T • This was a new lecture that was being prepared • Barriers to the use of AL were: lack of time (86%), need to remove content (43%), lack of technology in classroom (14%) and the large class size (14%); • Most faculty believed that any increase in the time devoted to AL came at the expense of lecture content (86%).

17. Preliminary Conclusions • Faculty beliefs are somewhat contradictory: • While they believe that AL increases retention and involvement they feel that it is too time intensive for complex materials • Faculty perceptions about the types and quantity of AL used in lectures was generally similar to that observed using the ALIT. *exception faculty under reporting their use of student questioning • Areas for future ALIT evaluation include: • Measure its effectiveness as a change agent in faculty pedagogyand • Test its usefulness in other allied health disciplines.

18. Welcome to ALIT! • Introduction to tool • Explanation of the various elements in the tool • Introducing the use to faculty colleagues

19. The Tool • Appendix in handout

20. Descriptor Page

21. Question Page

22. Question Page (completed)

23. Recorder / Summary Page

24. Recorder / Summary Page

25. Reviewer Response • Faculty skill • Appropriate match of activity to learning objective • Integration into the class atmosphere • Debrief ability / feedback loop

26. Reviewer Response • Quality of Classroom Environment • Physical set up • Well structured activity • Evidence of student engagement • Rapport between faculty and students • Peer rapport during activity

27. Reviewer Response • Overall atmosphere • Learning environment • Activity feedback loop

28. Engaging Colleagues in ALIT • Voluntary / formative beginning • Information for the teacher • Constructive feedback to improve student learning • Records gap between perception and reality of the classroom

29. Live Role Play

30. BREAK!!

31. Video Practice!

32. Take Home Points • Voluntary / non-threatening system to begin • Focused on student learning • Self-development as a teacher • Trained observers We would appreciate data collection for continual validation of the tool!

33. Question / Wrap-up • Thoughts! • Ideas!! • Feedback!!!