<%BANNER%>

Preparing Faculty to Teach in an Active Learning Classroom

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044675/00001

Material Information

Title: Preparing Faculty to Teach in an Active Learning Classroom
Physical Description: 1 online resource (70 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Monteiro, Alecia B
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: active -- development -- faculty -- learning
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (CUI) thesis, M.A.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Active learning, an instructional method that engages students in the learning process, is becoming more common in higher education (Prince, 2004). This method can be implemented in a traditional lecture hall or a room designed specifically for active learning, but these teaching strategies are a shift for most faculty members away from sage-on-the-stage lectures and exams.  As a result, faculty development has become a new challenge for some, as active learning teaching strategies are becoming more popular in some schools. The purpose of this research was to explore what other universities are doing to help prepare their faculty for teaching in an active learning classroom. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with six universities about their experiences with faculty training on pedagogy and technology for active learning.  The goal was to discover what commonalities might exist, along with any outliers, and to develop recommendations for schools developing active learning training.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Alecia B Monteiro.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.E.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Kumar, Swapna.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044675:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044675/00001

Material Information

Title: Preparing Faculty to Teach in an Active Learning Classroom
Physical Description: 1 online resource (70 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Monteiro, Alecia B
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: active -- development -- faculty -- learning
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (CUI) thesis, M.A.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Active learning, an instructional method that engages students in the learning process, is becoming more common in higher education (Prince, 2004). This method can be implemented in a traditional lecture hall or a room designed specifically for active learning, but these teaching strategies are a shift for most faculty members away from sage-on-the-stage lectures and exams.  As a result, faculty development has become a new challenge for some, as active learning teaching strategies are becoming more popular in some schools. The purpose of this research was to explore what other universities are doing to help prepare their faculty for teaching in an active learning classroom. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with six universities about their experiences with faculty training on pedagogy and technology for active learning.  The goal was to discover what commonalities might exist, along with any outliers, and to develop recommendations for schools developing active learning training.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Alecia B Monteiro.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.E.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Kumar, Swapna.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044675:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 PREPARING FACULTY TO TEACH IN AN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOM By ALECIA B. MONTIERO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DE GREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Alecia B. Monteiro

PAGE 3

3 To my amazing son, husband, and mom

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank my loving husband and best friend, Cory, who has always been my greatest motivator and supporter ; and also my amazing son, Coda, who inspires me every day to do better. I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Swapna Kumar, for all of her reassurance and encouragement. I want to also thank my graduate advisor, Dr. Cathy Cavanaugh, for all of her support over the past 3 years and Dr. Eric Black for his positive encouragement. Each of you has helped in creating a piece of this puzzle.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURE S .......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 10 Background ............................................................................................................. 14 Active Learning at the College of Business ............................................................. 16 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 19 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 20 What Is Active Learning? ........................................................................................ 20 How Active Learning and Active Learning Spaces Affect Student Learning ........... 24 Current Trends in Learning Space Design .............................................................. 25 Active Learning in Action ........................................................................................ 27 Exercises for Individual Students ..................................................................... 28 Discussion (Q &A) Exercises ............................................................................ 28 Share/Pair ........................................................................................................ 29 CooperativeLearning Strategies ...................................................................... 29 Faculty Investment and Teaching Success ............................................................. 30 Faculty Development for Active Learning ............................................................... 31 Summary and Gaps in Research ............................................................................ 33 3 METHODS ................................................................................................................. 34 The Participants ...................................................................................................... 34 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 35 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 36 Subjectivity Statement ............................................................................................ 37 Validity .................................................................................................................... 38 4 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 39 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 39 Participant Interview Data Findings ........................................................................ 40 Data Explained ....................................................................................................... 42

PAGE 6

6 RQ1: What are Other Universities Doing to Prepare their Faculty to Teach in an Active Learning Classroom ? ................................................................. 42 T1: Multiple development opportunities for f aculty ..................................... 42 T2: Support for Faculty Members ............................................................... 46 RQa: What lessons can we learn from them, technologically and p edagogically? .............................................................................................. 47 T3: Technology is important, but pedagogy is more i mportant. .................. 48 T4: Evaluation and c ommunity ................................................................... 51 RQb: How do we best prepare our faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? .................................................................................................... 54 5 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 56 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 58 Awareness and Knowledge .............................................................................. 59 Workshops/Seminars ....................................................................................... 59 One onOne Support ........................................................................................ 60 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX A : E M AIL INVITATION .................................................................................................. 63 B: INFORMED CONSENT ............................................................................................ 64 C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 66 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 67 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 70

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Support .................................................................................................................. 46 4 2 Tools for Active Learning ....................................................................................... 49 4 3 Evaluations for Active Teaching and Learning ....................................................... 51 5 1 Faculty Development Opportunities ....................................................................... 59

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 The Experience Cone. ........................................................................................... 11 1 2 MIT Active Learning Classroom .............................................................................. 13 1 3 Active Learning Classroom Layout for Large Enrollment MIT ................................. 13 1 4 Classroom Design ................................................................................................... 16 1 5 Herma n Miller Caper Chair ..................................................................................... 17 1 6 Bretford SCALE UP Table Purpose of Study .......................................................... 17 2 1 Universit y of Minne sota, Active Learning Classroom .............................................. 27

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education PREPARING FACULTY TO TEACH IN AN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOM By Alecia B Monteiro August 2012 Chair: Swapna Kumar Major: Curriculum and Instruction Active learning an instructional method that engages students in the learning process, is becomi ng more common in higher education (Prince, 2004) This method can be implemented in a traditional lecture hall or a room designed specifically for active learning, but these teaching strategies are a shift for most faculty members away from sage onthe stage lectures and exams. As a result, faculty development has become a new challenge for some, as active learning teaching strategies are becoming more popular in some schools. The purpose of this research was to explore what other universities are doing to help prepare their faculty for teaching in an active learning classroom. Data were collected through semi structured interviews with six universities about their experiences with faculty training on pedagogy and t echnology for active learning. The goal was to discover what commonalities might exist along with any outliers, and to develop recommendations for schools developing active learning training.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Learning does not just happen in a classroom, but everywhere and potentially at any time. This means that an entire campus could be considered a learning space (Brown & Long, 2006). Some environments are more suited than others to the type of student ce ntered reflection and participation embodied in active learning. As a result, it is becoming increasingly common for universities to make the transition towards more flexible, engaging classrooms, both newly constructed and newly renovated (Lippincott, 2009), as well as considering not just formal classrooms, but all potential learning spaces including study spaces, libraries, student commons, dorms, coffee shops and the like during space planning. Renovations and remodeling are not likely to occur freque ntly; consequently, careful planning and implementation are required to ensure that the results of these projects are lasting and beneficial (Bickford & Wright, 2001). Bickford and Wright (2001) state the need for team learning to help guide the design cho ices made with active learning in mind. We need a community of faculty, administrators, fac ilities managers, architects, students, student development professional s, technologists, and other stakeholders to participate in a process of dialogue and discovery, creating spaces to engage faculty and students in the pursuit of learning. (Bickford & Long, 2001, p. 5) But w hy i s active learning important ? Active learning, also called student centered learning, describes the process whereby stude nts participate in some activity that allows them to reflect upon ideas and how they are using them, while also assessing their own understanding and skill (Michael, 2006). Thes e methods yield a variety of benefits: they are student centered, they maximize participation; they are highly motivational; and they give life and immediac y to the subject matter by encouraging students to move beyond

PAGE 11

1 1 a superficial, f act based approach to materials (McCarthy & Anderson, 2000; Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Ladousse, 1987; M cKeachie, 1999; Schaftel & Schaftel, 1976; Van Ments 1994). M ore specific active learning teaching techniques will be explained in a following section For now, Figure 11 shows what is called the cone of experience and reflects the order in which learning activities move from passive to active. This helps to shape our understanding of those activities that are considered more active. Figure 11. The Experience Cone. Source : J. Huang, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, personal communication. Adapted from Edgar Dale, Audiovisual Methods in Teaching, 3d ed. (New York: Dryden Press, 1969). Our growing understanding of how people learn affects the configuration of learning spaces and the technologies supporting them (Brown & Long, 2006, p. 9). Thi s study will focus on formal classroom spaces, more specifically active learning classrooms, wherein formal teaching occurs. The goal of this research is to help inform decisions about the resources and preparation needed to create and encourage a more effective active learning atmosphere for meaningful learning to occur.

PAGE 12

12 These environments are designed to support a constructivist view of learning, where meaning is personally rather than universally defined (Land et al., 2012, p. 4) As new teaching strategies emerge to enable learning, many are rethinking the use, design, and location of such learning spaces (Brown & Long, 2006, p.1) In the Future of the Learning Space, Long and Ehrman (2005) share four ideas which can help shape our understanding of active learning classrooms and how they might be designed: 1. Learning by doing matters. 2. Context matters. 3. Interaction matters. 4. Location of learning matters (Long & Ehrmann, 2005, p. 46) What does an active learning classroom look like t oday? An online search for todays universities with active learning classrooms will yield a variety of visuals. Common features include round or moveable tables, chairs with wheels or ones that can stack to accommodate the dual needs for added seating or alternatively for ample floor space. T he instructor podium might not be in the front of a room or even in the corner, but is instead c ommonly in the center of a room, removing the front of a classroom This encourages instructor motion and facilitates col laboration (Leiboff, 2010). Figure 12 shows an active learning classroom at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that illustrates other common features which include projection screens in addition to an abundance of white board space.

PAGE 13

13 Figure 12 MIT Active Learning Class room (source: TEAL) As a further example, Figure 13 shows what a large enrollment active learning classroom might look like; essentially multiplying the number of tables, chairs, projection screens and whiteboards but still allo wing the space for active learning activities to take place. Figure 13 Active Learning Classroom Layout for Large Enrollment MIT Source: TEAL

PAGE 14

14 Active learning architectural design today attempts to transform the classroom experience beyond a traditional box environment and actually helps to provide several dim ensions of support for learning (Long & Ehrman, 2005). Active learning in the classroom requires a change in how instructors view their role; from a presenter, to a choreographer, desi gner, or man a ger of learning experiences (Meyers, 1993). An active learning classroom is n ot one that is best utilized by traditional lecture methods, but rather one where faculty help contribute to their students growth through more engaged learning activities (Meyers, 1993). Background The College of Business at the University of Florida was founded in 1926, with just thre e faculty members teaching all 22 courses offered at the time (University of Florida, Warrington College of Business Administrati on Office of Publications, 2012) Not unexpectedly, the last 86 years have resulted in great changes, and the school now offers hundreds of courses, with both small and large enrollments, as well as widerange of degrees with oncampus, blended and fully online programs. Recently, the college received private funding to renov ate a traditional classroom to create a teaching environ ment more conducive to active learning In 2010, the Director of Teaching Excellence and Assessment, Dr. Tawnya Means, presented a concept to potential donors to design a classroom using state of the art technology that would help facilitate active learni ng experiences through interactive and engaging experiences for both local and distant student s (Means, 2011, p.1) The proposal was accepted along with some suggested guidelines for the space, one being that the space should be used to conduct future educational research.

PAGE 15

15 Although a final account of the technologies and tools the College of Business plans to provide in this new classroom were not available at that time of this study the plans reportedly include an assortment of new technology, ranging from projectors and display walls, interactive whiteboards, document cameras, f our sevenfoot round tables to facilitate two teams of four at each table, video production capabilities and collaborative software to facilitate three types of potential tea m or collaborative models: a remote team, a hybrid team, and an oncampus team (Means, 2011) Partnering up with Herman Miller, a furniture company that offers a Learning Space Research Design Program and Longitudinal Study (Herman Miller, 2012), has hel ped to provide a starting place for making active learning design choices related to space and furniture design. Beyond design, the College of Business will also use Herman Millers provided evaluation rubrics and assistance t o conduct research for two con secutive terms once the room goes live, in the f all 2012 semester. The research goal is to help provide a way to measure the impact of the new space and to yield results that can help the college make adjustments, if necessary. Such research has the abilit y to not only benefit the college, but the active learning community in understanding the new role these spaces play in supporting effective teaching and learning (Means, 2011) M onths of planning have gone into the design choices for the space and into selecting the appropriate furniture, h ardware and software. Although the College of Business design team of directors, administrators, and IT managers have had to make some educated guesses about what faculty will want to do in the space, their plans

PAGE 16

16 seem in line with common active learning classroom features tod ay. These plans are discussed in the following section. While continued research in the new classroom is expected and is a long term objective, preparing faculty to teach in the new space is going to be an initial challenge. I nvesting time in developing new teaching strategies will help to ensure that the new space is not just an improvement in space design, but leads to changes in pedagogy and student learning (Lippincott, 2009, p. 17 ). Faculty development will be covered in greater detail in a following section. Active Learning at the College of Business As mentioned above, t he active learning classroom at College of Business is currently under renovation and will open in the f all of 2012, giv ing designers, faculty and staff the summer to prepare. Figure 1.4 shows an overhead view of what the space and team tables will look like in Matherly Hall, Room 120 (Means, 2011). Figure 14 Classroom Design ( sou rce: Means 2011)

PAGE 17

17 The round tables and move able chairs have been selected and are shown in Figures 15 and 16. This core furniture along with writing surfaces and projection screens group desktop computers, laptop connections, and software for sharing and collaboration, are all in line with c ommon technology enabled, flexible learning environments seen on campuses today (Brown & Lippincott, 2003) Figure 15 Herman Miller Caper Chair source: http://www.hermanmiller.com/design resources/images.html?text=Caper%20Chairs Figure 16. Bretford SCALE UP Table Purpose of Study source: http://bretford.com/products/scaleup/?638

PAGE 18

18 The summers short training window is going to be an impor tant time for this project. The faculty list for the rooms first semester has been finalized, and the support team has had some initial meetings with the faculty to explain the new possibilities this r oom will offer, as well as answer any questions. However, there is a limited window of opportunity for designers, faculty, and staff to become acquainted with the technology and any new active learning teaching pedagogies they decide to include in their course design. As an instructional designer for the College of Business I am involved with faculty development and course design processes for our department F or this project I will be working with f aculty members to help them prepare to teach in the new active learning environment Hence, this research will provide resources to identify and evaluate what other universities have implemented in regards to active learning classroom training. The goal is to evaluate what has worked for the research participants and what did not so that I can propose a plan for this summers faculty development s essions, as well as for future active learning faculty development. Additionally, my hope is that this collection and analysis of data might also be benefici al to any school, faculty member, or support staff member seeking a better understanding of faculty development for active learning At the time this research was conducted, there were a handful of other colleges and departments on this campus building act ive learning spaces, computer labs, and cafs. This research study could potentially help guide those and additional departments in their process for continued development, inspire faculty members to try active learning, or perhaps educate a soonto be ins tructor on techniques for teaching more effectively with active learning strategies.

PAGE 19

19 Research Questions The following research questions guided my research about other universities experiences with active learning faculty development and training: 1. How d o we best prepare our faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? a) What are other universities doing to prepare their faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? b) What lessons can we learn from them, technologically and pedagogically? I approach ed this research from two perspectives a) I con ducted an extensive search of prior research published about active learning faculty development, active learning teaching methodologies and active learning teaching case studies and then b) I conducted an online search for any universities reporting their work with active learning classroom projects or active learning faculty development. I narrowed down the list to seven schools who were implementing active learning classroom projects and/or faculty development sessions related to active learning. The next chapter details my research based on the literature in this field as it relates to faculty development for active learning active learning environments and active learning principles My research design is described in Chapter 3 and the findings of my research and its implications are discussed in Chapter s 4 & 5.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTE R 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This study has been guided by the literature on active learning, active learning spaces, constructivist theories and related trends. Understanding the impact that learning spaces, along with active learning teaching strategies, can have on student learning outcomes is the basis for understanding how to best prepare faculty to teach in active learning classrooms. What Is Active Learning? The phrase active learning typically refers to any instructional method that engages students in the lear ning process (Prince, 2004). More importantly they must be engaged in their own learning process with such thinking tasks as ana lysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). The active learning umbrella term refers to an array of instructional methods that transfer the responsibility of learning back to the learner. This student centered model helps learner s to see them selves and their peers as sources of knowledge, rather than passive listeners (Hammer & Giordano, 2012). Several other terms such as collaborative learning, problem based learning, team based learning, and meaningful learning are also associated with a ctiv e learning and are reviewed in this section. Charles Bonwell and James Eison ( 1991) popularized the concept of active learning in the 90s by promoting various student centered approaches. They proposed that traditional lecture methods where faculty stand at the front of the room and students listen and take notes, is not an active process and that students must do more by r eading, writing and being engaged in the learning process (Bonwell & Eison, 1991) New theories also suggest that the quality of learning depends on the learners ability to

PAGE 21

21 steer their own learning orientation, developing inquiry skills and the ability to reflect on and cont rol the process (Niemi, 2002). Additionally, a learners metacognition, the conscious selection and assessment of strategies in learning, helps to direct these choic es individually (Niemi, 2002). Most importantly students need to be actively involved in thinking and problem solv ing to gain the m ost long term benefits from learning experiences (Bonwell & Eison, 1991 ). Purdue Universitys Center for Instructional Excellence offers a useful list summarizing some of the most common characteristics associated with active learning strategies (Bonwell, 2010) : Students are involved in more than passive listening Students are engaged in activities (e.g., reading, discussing, writing) There is less emphasis placed on information transmission and greater emphasis pl aced on developing student skills/knowledge There is greater emphasis placed on the exploration of attitudes and values Student motivation is increased (especially for adult learners) Students can receive immediate feedback from their instructor Students are involved in higher order thinking (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) As noted earlier o ther terms associa ted with active learning are collaborative learning, cooperative learning problem based and team based learning The phrase collaborative learning has a few varying definitions, but is essential ly any learning situation where two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together (Dillenbourg, 1999).Cooperative learning is very similar yet slightly different in that students still work together in pairs or groups but are assessed as individuals (Prince, 2004). This term helps to describe learning in a more social context, and is based on

PAGE 22

22 the premise that cooperation is more effective than competition among students for producing positive learning outcomes (Prince, 2004, p. 5). The success of this approach relies more heavily on equal learner part icipation and partnership. P roblem based learning describes a scenario where a teacher presents a problem at the beginning of a lesson or class and uses it in context as motivation for learning This strategy is very often combined with collaborative and cooperative arrangements. The basis of problem based learning is rooted in Deweys learning by doing and experiencing principle (Dewey, 1938; Akinoglu & Tandogan, 2007, p. 72). P roblem based learning enables students to become aware of and determine their problem solving ability a nd learning needs (Akinoglu & Tandogan, 2007) Lastly, team based learning is a collection of these various practices. Larry Michaelson, a professor from Central Missouri, trains faculty members about the importance of team b ased learning His four essential elements for successful team based learning are: Groups: Groups must be properly formed and managed. Accountability: Students must be accountable for the quality of their individual and group work. Feedback: Student must r eceive frequent and timely feedback. Assignment Design: Group assignments must promote both learning and team development (Michaelson, 2008, p.8 ). A strong connection has been made between active learning and constructivist learning theories. Constructivis m is a learning theory that focuses more on the roles that our mental schemes play in cognitive growth (Brooks & Brooks, 19 99). Essentially the theories outline how student experiences make up their own personal understanding of the world, and how this con tributes to their learning and in this case, how students can

PAGE 23

23 learn from each other. Meaningful learning another pedagogical term, refers to knowledge that is a cquired in a way that allows students to do something with it; integrating new learning with everything else they already know (Michael, 2001). For example, when students are able to apply what they know about a subject to novel situations, we can say they understand and that meaningful learning has occurred. This is more likely to happen when m eaningful learning is a clearly defined objective for a course and when students believe the teacher values understanding over memorization. A prime example of meaningful learning is provided by Dr. Joel Michael (2001), a molecular biophysics and physiol ogy professor at the Rush Medical College in Chicago Illinois He was able to show how active learning methods along with technology helped his students to achieve genuine understanding and meaningful learning. Dr. Michael wanted his students to understa nd the connections and changes occurring with the numbers, not just the absolute values themselves. After struggling for years to achieve the same student learning outcomes in the classroom as in the laboratory he devised a computer based problem solving application that encouraged his students to move beyond basic memorization. In the end, the program required students to think more deeply mak ing predictions about changes that might occur and the relationships between those changes (Michael, 2001) The program also provided immediate evidence that the students were learning. U pon reflection, Dr. Michael concluded that in addition to problem based computer software and technology, two additional strategies helped his students achieve meaningful learning: 1 ) providing opportunities peer to peer teaching and 2) facilitating student to student discussion (Michael, 2001, p.2 ).

PAGE 24

24 All of these concepts p oint us in the same direction: Working together, sharing our knowledge and personal experiences with one another can lead to more rich and valuable learning experiences. How Active L earn ing and Active Learning Spaces Af fect Student Learning Literature reveals that active learning methods result in more meaningful learning than traditional methods ( McKeachie et al ., 1986) Students also report greater satisfaction with an acti ve learning course over the traditional (McCarthy & Anderson, 2000). A dvocates of learning space design express that benefits of teaching and learning practices outweigh the short term costs by promoting constructivist forms of active learning, encouraging pedagogical innovation, improving conceptual, theoretical and applied forms of learning and increasing overall student engagement (Brooks, 2010). One recent study, conducted by the Office o f Information Technology (OIT) at the University of Minnesota, indicates that the formal physical environment where students learn has a significant impact on student learning outcomes (Brooks, 2010). In the study, a faculty member taught the same course, Principles of Biological Science (PsTL 1131), in both a traditional lecture hall and in an active learning classroom (ALC). He used the same course materials, assignments and exams for both. These two groups of first year students (n= unknown) although randomly assigned to a section, were evenly distributed in terms of demographical characteristics. The only difference at the outset was that the group in the traditional course had significantly higher ACT scores. In their report on the study, the resear chers explain that higher ACT scores are generally an indicator used to predict higher grades.

PAGE 25

25 The results of the study showed that there were no significant differences in the final grades for the two groups (Brooks, 2010) Therefore, the researchers concluded that the students who took PsTL 1131 in the ALC, who had significantly lower ACT scores, learned at a higher rate than those in the traditional classroom. This study provided the first piece of empirically derived data demonstrating that space, an d space alone can affect learning (Brooks, 2010, p. 6 ). The researchers concluded that more research is needed to see what types of activities shape the future relationships of teachers, students and learning spaces (Brooks, 2010) Another powerful concept sometimes hidden within active learning practices and space design is the formation of community. Th e concept of community refers to a group of people with a common purpose, shared values, and agreement on goals (Bickford & Wright, 2006). In a learning s ituation, the presence of community can be a great motiv ator to its members for achieving exceptional performance. Furthermore, because physical and virtual learning spaces have been shown to play a critical role in enabling or deterring community, it is i mportant to evaluate the role of space and its design as a means to improving student learning and engagement in community (Bickford & Wright, 2006). Current Trends in Learning Space Design Brown and Long (2006) in their book Learning Spaces, devote a chapter to Trends in Learning Space Design in which they describe three current trends to help inform learning space design decisions. Their first principle is Design Based on Learning Principles, resulting in intentional support for social and acti ve learning strategies (Brown & Long, 2006, p. 9.1) Despite our being used to a onesize fits all learning environment, striving to design a space that allows for more interaction

PAGE 26

26 between students and their peers, and students and their teacher s, is a sh ift in space design that supports how people actually learn (Brown & Long, 2006). Second, Brown and Long (2006) assert the need for An Emphasis on Humancentered Design (Brown & Long, 2006, p. 9.1). The trend toward more humancentered design is embodied in the shift from the information commons to a learning commons (Brown & Long, 2006, p. 4). In the past, providing access to information digitally via computers was generally their top priority due to cost and space restraints. Now that technology has caught up with and in some cases surpassed what universities can offer, the current trend is to design spaces that help facilitate the learning process. Ideally, these environments include space for individual and team work, easy access to technical and instructional support (i.e. faculty offices), whiteboards and monitors for group collaboration, and basic access and technological services. Even the incorporation of food and beverages shows a trend towards more humancentered design considerations (Brown and Long, 2006). Finally, Brown and Long identify Devices that Enrich Learning. Technology is improving and changing at an alarming rate (Brown & Long, 2006, p. 9.1) And at the same time, different technological needs from faculty make choosing such devices for both formal and informal spaces even more complicated. Students are now coming to college with their own laptops, software and other tech devices (such as smart phones, mp3 players, and other mobile devices). This shift in focus allows uni versities to concentrate less on providing standard technology and instead to focus more on ways to successfully incorporate, explore and encourage the use of such devices and software into teaching and learning practices (Brown and Long, 2006). For exampl e,

PAGE 27

27 Figure 2 1 is an active learning classroom at the University of Minnesota and shows the tables, chairs, and display monitors, along with the instructor sta tion in the center of the room. Figure 2 1 University of Minnesota Active Learning Classroom 2009 Regents of the University of Minnesota. Photo used with permission. Investing in hightech, state of the art spaces is showing more promise and is perhaps the key to getting highest return in the form of increased student learning outcomes ( Whitesid e et al 2010). Nonetheless, because these new spaces and technologies function around the lessons faculty choose to teach, providing professional development and seeking faculty input is an important factor contributing to student success in active learn ing classrooms (Whiteside et al 2010). Active Learning in Action What are different active learning activities ? Faust and Paulson (1998) provide a few of the many active learning strategies ranging from those completed as individuals to those done in g roups or teams. Their analysis also reflects the amount of effort and time required, from the least to most. Ultimately, faculty mu st decide which activities are

PAGE 28

28 the right fit for the amount of time they have to invest, along with what strategies make the most sense for their content (Faust & Paulson, 1998). Exercises for Individual Students These require less time, and can work well in any type of classroom environment, especially large enrollment classes where rapport and team work might not be feasible (Faust & Paulson, 1998). Clarification Pauses when the instructor simply pauses in lecture, after covering an important point, and then asks if anyone needs clarification One Minute Paper when the instructor pauses during or at the end of a class, asks a question (such as what was the main point of todays class?) and allows students to write their response in one mi nute. This is a highly effective exercise for checking student progress. Muddy/Clear Point a variation of the one minute paper, when the faculty asks specifically about what the muddiest or clearest point was from that days lecture. Daily/Weekly journal an effective tool for motivating students to apply course concepts to their daily lives. Although feedback is not instant. Reading Quiz helps to measure student comprehension of reading assignments ( Faust & Paulson, 1998) Discussion (Q &A) Exercises Traditionally faculty assess student understanding by asking questions during class. This Socratic Method has many drawbacks such as favoring a small number of students, students not listening to their peers opinions, and students not listening to the instructor if they have just answered. The following techniques help questioning effectiveness and enable students to own the question (Faust & Paulson, 1998): Student Summary of Another Student A nswer this encourages students to listen to not just their instructor, but their peers. The Fis h Bowl students put questions on index cards into a bowl; instructor reads some and the class answers them.

PAGE 29

29 Quiz/Test Questions the instructor encourages students to create assessment questions, allowing them to think more deeply and critically about the material. Share/Pair Pairing students together provides some of the same benefits as group work: greater understanding, satisfaction, and increased retention (Faust & Paulson, 1998). Discussion student s pair off and work together to respond to a question. Note Sharing he lps to develop better note taking skills while helping each other to fill in any gaps. Cooperative Learning Strategies These are activities for groups of three to five st udents. Whether the groups are a short term or long term arrangement will depend on t he activity, amount of time, and learning objectives (Faust & Paulson, 1998). Work at the b lackboard groups solve a problem together at the blackboard or whiteboard. Concept Mapping students work together to establish connections between ideas. Role Playing students act out situations to gain a better understanding. Debates helps with mastery of content as well as argumentation skills. Games can take many forms, but offer a great opportunity to review material bef ore moving on to another t opic (Faust & Paulson, 1998). Each of the above activities use one or more of what are often called the basic elements of active learning. Talking and listening, writing, reading and reflecting are the four actions that can be combined to create a vari ety of more complex learning activities (Meyer, 1993). These actions ar e very simple in nature, but when used effectively, can add great value to any class room activity (Faust & Paulson, 1998)

PAGE 30

30 Faculty Investment and Teaching S uccess Ideally, technology requirements and student needs are taken into consideration during the design process for any course and learning environment, but in an active learning classroom, this becomes imperative. Furthermore, from the perspective of an instructional designer, it is essential to understand a faculty members pedagogical style, preferences and potential use of technology in assisting the faculty member with training, development, and course design (Lippincott, 2009, p.18). The College of Business has taken a baseline of inputs from current faculty into consideration when designing their active learning classroom. Nonetheless, o ften times there can be a disconnection between what is perceived as valuable to designers and administrators and what a faculty member actually intends to do in a learning space. E ven though renovations and new construction of active learning environments may improve overall satisfaction with the facilities, there is no guarantee that these investments will lead to changes in pedagogy or stud ent learning (Lippincott, 2009, p.17 ). It is also conceivable that while some faculty cannot envision a new way of teaching yet, the new environment might spark a gradual change in their teaching pedagogy (Lippincott, 2009) Faculty need to understand the new dynamic in order to help facilitate such changes in teaching pedagogy. I t is the role of the instructional designer to help the learner, in this case the faculty members, make sense of the new information. Lippincott (2009) points out that the goal of faculty development in this case should not just focus on teaching a technology, but rather strive to understand what the faculty member is trying to achieve and then to suggest innovative strategies for reaching those learning objectives (Lippincott, 2009 p. 20 ). A professors motivation and interests also play an important role in designing a

PAGE 31

31 curriculum for an ALC, which can change drastically from individual to individual. For these reasons, again, faculty member inpu t in the design process is imperative (Lippincott, 2009). Faculty Development for Active Learning Niemi notes: in most cases, teachers are still steering and guiding the learning process, a situation which does not invite students to use or develop their cognitive or motivational self regu latory skills (2002, p. 764). According to qualitative data found in a study released in Teaching and Teacher Education, active learning effectiveness has a clear connection with the teachers professional development (Niemi, 2002 ) Teachers and teaching education are considered key factors in promoti ng active learning (Niemi, 2002, p. 763) b ut what can we do to prepare our faculty to teach in these new spaces? After all, most teach how they were taught, and this can be a difficult cycle to break One strategy might be to start by looking at what barriers or fears faculty have about this new style of teaching. Joel Michael (2007) in College Teaching describes barriers identified by faculty interviewed at Niagara University and surrounding colleges. The most common concern among the participants was that active learning in the classroom takes too much preparation time (Michael, 2007, p. 45 ). Another concern was that faculty members might have less control of the environment, or that they might not be able to cover all of the material. Once discussed further, the group revealed that these perceived barriers were more a result of a lack of experience than a reality (Michael, 2007). While it is true that changing the way one teaches can initially take more time, active learning does not necessarily have to take more time than any other t eaching method (Michael, 2007). The second concern about control seems valid in that active

PAGE 32

32 learning spaces are not linear A ny given question could create a number of others, resulting in situations where the teacher might not know the answer. Through development activities faculty must be shown that these situations might seem u ncomfortable at first, but they do not mean control has been lost, just dispensed differently. The faculty must come to understand that the key to managing an active learning environment is setting expectations. Students should know where they are starting have an understanding of where the instructor envisions that they will be at the end of the course, and have some concept of a point or two they will encounter along the way (Michael, 2007). Michaels (2007) article addressed a very important question: What needs to be done to help assist faculty in implementing more active learning techniques? One possible answer could be faculty development via workshops, seminars, and oncampus sessions. These are golden opportunities for faculty members to participate in and experience active learning techniques in action. Once these seeds have been planted, faculty need to discuss and share their success with their peers, as al l too often teaching is kept a private affair resulting in little change in teaching me thods or superfluous reinventing of the wheel (Michael, 2007). The positive results of well planned active learning workshops make a case for careful planning, modest goals, and building a support network to sustain classroom change (Michael, 2007, p. 46). Seeler et al. (1994) confirm these strategies and point out that faculty preparation for in the shift to active teaching methods is important, stating, the faculty member must take the time to examine the principles and concepts upon which active learning techniques are based, and reflect upon his or her role as a teacher (p. 1). With the help

PAGE 33

33 of an instructional designer or teaching support center this shift in teaching strategies is within reach (Seeler et al, 1994) Preparation will help to ensur e the proper learning objectives; content presentation, questions, and inclass timing are all taken into account well before a course begins. Summary and Gaps in Research The literature available on active learning teaching methods, preparation, barriers, and current trends all reveal that there are more areas to explore. Research related to faculty development for active learning was sparse and lacking. There are a handful of articles that touch on the importance of faculty development for active learning but few had research stating what development practices work best. Constructivist learning theory and literature on collaborative and cooperative learning all reiterate how valuable active learning and active learning classrooms, can be to student learning (Land et al., 2012; Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Prince, 2004; and Dillenbourg, 1999) However, further research is required to make clear when and how active learning strategies should be integrated into faculty practice and initiated in our own classrooms. The intent of this research is to present a baseline of information on experiences from those already in the process of developing or implementing faculty development for active learning, and provide a call for further research that can h elp others make the choices best suited to their departments and faculty members.

PAGE 34

34 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Semi structured, qualitative interviews with universities that had implemented active learning were used to help answer the following research questions: 1. How do we best prepare our faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? a) What are other universities doing to prepare their faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? b) What lessons can we learn from them, technologically and pedagogically? The in terview s, although loosely structured, consisted of ten openended questions, along with follow up questions used when appropriate to clarify understanding They were semi structured in the sense that university participants were asked the same questions. The purposes of choosing an interview to gather the data was to encourage a natural conversation with the participants, so they could feel free to express what their experiences have been with active learning classrooms and faculty development. Thus the in terviews were structured to capture data r elated to the major questions: What worked for the participants ? What did not work? How did their faculty learn best? Although the answers to these questions were explored through review of the university websites and other online resources, the promotional and/or limited nature of these information sources reinforced the need for interviews to gather the level of in depth, direct data required to the research questions. The Participants The participants were select ed after conducting an online search for universities in the United States with active learning classrooms and/or faculty development programs which promoted active learning teaching strategies. The online search for schools using the terms faculty development for active learning, active learning universities, and

PAGE 35

35 active learning in higher education resulted in a list of publications from various schools along with teaching center s and university websites After a process of elimination, seven schools were identified and I then se nt out an email (Appendix A) to a university participant at each of the seven schools explaining my research and inviting them to participate in an interview to discuss their experiences with active learning and faculty development. Of the seven schools contacted, six responded and were willing to discuss their experiences with me. Once each participant agreed, they were contacted again via email, with an attached informed consent (Appendix B) and the interview questions (Appe ndix C) With their signed consent forms returned, the interview day and time was confirmed. For the purposes of this study, the participants and their university names and locations are kept anonymous. Participants are identified only as University A, B, C, D, E, or F. The interviews all range in length from 16 to 60 minutes. For the purposes of operationalizing the variable in this study, faculty members are educators who work at a university or college, that develop a curriculum, learning objectives, and provide guidance to their students on topics related to those in their field of mastery. Preparation is what they do prior to teaching a course, either online, faceto face, or in a blended environment. Finally, a n active learning environment is any l earning space, in this case a classroom, where collaboration, open communication, and learning take place. Data Collection Each interview was conducting using a landli ne telephone, on speakerphone. The interviews were conducted in a private office at the College of B usiness on UF Campus To help ensure a better experience for the participants and higher quality recording, I

PAGE 36

36 kept a warning sign taped to my office door to help prevent any unexpected interruptions. Because the participating universities were from various time zones, the interview times where scheduled during their normal working business hours. To facilitate an exploratory convers ation with each participant, ten openended interview questions were used (Appendix C ). The interview s were record ed using an iPad application called, sound note. After the completion of each interview, the sound note recording (.mv4) was sent to my secure email inbox. Then, the audio recordings of the interview s were played back and transcribed. Each interview was listened to a second time to check for any errors. Finally, the transcriptions were member checked, which is the process of sending each participant a text copy via email and asking them to review the content for accuracy (Shenton, 2004) In addition to th e audio recordings and transcript data, notes were taken to record any initial thoughts during the interview. Data Analysis The data collected from each interview was analyzed using narrative analysis. Narratives are useful data because individuals often make sense of the world and their place in it through narrative form (Feldman, et al 2004, p.2 ). Narrative analysis also allows researchers to make stories more available and allows the formation of structural links among concepts (Feldman, et al 2004 p. 3 ). During the analysis, t he interview transcripts were reviewed and, when necessary, the original audio transcripts were listened to again for clarification. As I read through each interview, I highlighted key points and strong quotes that I felt dir ectly answered particular questions in a straightforward way. After an initial review, I reread the data looking for commonalities amongst the participants experiences in addition to any outlying experiences. Then, where applicable, I created a chart using Microsoft Excel to

PAGE 37

37 help me organize each main point from each participant to each question. This helped me to identify similarities and differences amongst the participant data, including common themes in experiences. My findings were then reported in a narrative format, using quotes and extractions from the data. Lastly, the summary of the findings, along with my final recommendations are presented in Chapter 4 & 5. Subjectivity Statement I have worked in a teaching excellence center providing various t ypes of instructional support for more than four years; s tarting in 2008, as our sol e online instructional support specialist and eventually promoted to instructional designer. Over time, I have gained valuable experience working with both faculty and student development. I have conducted previous training sessions which included hardware training, software trai ning, and pedagogical training. As an instructional designer, my primary tasks today relate to course design and online faculty support. However, ov er the past four years, I have worked closely wi th our faculty in training them on how to use our course management system, which has recently changed from Blackboard Vista to an opensourced course management system (CMS) known as Sakai. I also train facu lty to use other online teaching tools, including Elluminate, Adobe Connect, Camtasia, and iTunes. Because of my experience with training, and working with faculty, I understand the target audience for the professional development has varying skill sets and levels of willingness to learn new tools and processes. Some faculty members are always eager and excited to hear a new technology or process is available for them to use as a teaching tool, while others are upset at any change that might add to their already busy

PAGE 38

38 workload. These experiences have all shaped how I see faculty development. I understand that not all faculty members are comfortable with change. Additionally, my undergraduate degrees in anthropology and public relations have helped shape my understanding of the importance of communication, genuine rapport, and stewardship. Validity The qualitative research conducted in this study seeks to identify and explore similar situations amongst participants, in this case, six diff erent universities. A sound qualitative study is one of good quality and one that should be able to help explain an otherwise confusing situation (Golafshani, 2003). By explaining my processes, methods for data collection and how I analyze the data, my hop e is that I have achieved a credible, dependable, and confir mable study, one that might be transferable to others in a similar situation (Shenton, 2004). Additionally, by explaining my previous and personal experiences and therefore revealing any predis positions, I hope to have achieved trustworthiness. The results described here are based on the experiences of the participants. In an ideal situation, I would have like d to have the data coded by another r esearcher simultaneously, and to have calculated i nter rater reliability (Armstrong et al., 1997) for the qualitative codes, but scarcity of time prevented such a step in this project.

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction Active learning as a concept is becoming increasingly popular in higher education. Although this topic is not new, it is a dramatic shift from traditional teaching in university lecture halls. As more schools promote the benefits of this type of teaching and learning, and as more classrooms are built based on active learning design princ iples, faculty too will need support in learning how to best utilize the space and new teaching strategies (Brown & Lippincott, 2003). Three overarching questions have shaped this research on faculty development for active learning classrooms: 1. How do we best prepare our faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? a) What are other universities doing to prepare their faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? b) What lessons can we learn from them, technologically and pedagogically? To help answer these research questions, ten openended questions were addressed during an interview with six participating universities. The interview data was analyzed and the results are organized by research question, and then the findings are explained, most commonly by what similarities I recognized, but also in terms of any diffe rences, and important lessons. The goal of this research is to explore what other universities have experienced with preparing instructors to teach in an active learning classroom, or in any classroom, using active learning teaching strategies Each program seemed to prefer a different word for development some universities made it clear that they did not consider their program a type of training but more as simply preparing to teach (Univ ersity D). I

PAGE 40

40 believe when the connotation of these words is removed, their meanings are very much the same. I will use both in this paper to describe the process of teacher development. Each participant shared only their experiences with faculty developmen t for active learning Participant Interview Data Findings The participating universities and their stories will be referred to below as University A through University F, to protect their anonymity. Additionally, I will not refer to any of the specific f aculty training program names (initiatives, fellowships, workshops, etc.), as these titles could inadvertently reveal location and university. Because the titles of the programs are not a vital component in understanding the experiences, I will use the ter m program to refer to all of the university training platforms. Below is an overview of the program characteristics at each participating university. The data from the interviews as well as information accessed from their websites helped in providing a clearer picture of their active lear ning development opportunities and programs. University A Formal program began in the Spring of 2011 Cohort of multidisciplinary faculty members invited. Not required Administratively initiated to develop best practices for active learning P rovides a variety of workshops University B No structured or formal program Provide oneon one consultation from faculty who specialize in active learning

PAGE 41

41 Provide current research and information on active learning classroom benefits and methods Encourage faculty interested in active learning to sit in on an active learning class University C Program began in 2011 Faculty must apply, if accepted receive funding to redesign their course Any faculty teaching traditional, blended or fully online course can apply Priority given to those teaching foundational, highenrollment courses with low competency rates Use NCAT methods for course design and assessment Must participate in faculty learning communities for su pport and education Also use oneonone consultations Faculty get support from instructional, technology, and assessment specialists Faculty get first priority to their active learning classrooms University D Program revolves around an active learning classroom Faculty must apply in order to teach in this space (only full time teaching faculty) Applications are accepted each fall and spring for the following year During this year, work with their teaching and learning center to redesign a course Require that any course taught in their ALC is one that cannot be taught anywhere else on campus University E Does not offer a specific program for active learning, but rather a variety of programs for faculty development Their teaching and learning center supports faculty at various campus locations Program types include workshops, individual and department/program consultations

PAGE 42

42 Faculty are not required to participate in any of their development opportunities Provides information about active learning teaching for s mall and large enrollment courses, in traditional classrooms University F Original development type programs began in 200 5 but focused more on service learning Since then, their new program focuses on other active learning pedagogies Faculty (including tenure, tenuretrack, and clinical faculty) must apply and if accepted, participate in the multi day training program and follow up workshops the following year Their teaching and learning center provides support needed to help redesign a course and course m aterials Faculty participate in monthly community meetings With few exceptions, o nly those faculty members who complete the program are allowed to teach in their ALCs. After analyzing the interview data, I was able to identify t wo common themes emerging fr om the data: multiple development opportunities and support for faculty members. To help provide more structure to this content I will explain each of the interview questions that correlate with that theme, and overarching research question. The hierarchy is as follows: research question (RQ) (or sub question), theme (T), and then the associated interview question, which have been shortened here for concision (Q1 Q10). Data Explained RQ 1: What are Other Universities Doing to Prepare their Faculty to Teach in an Active Learning C lassroom? T1: Multiple Development Opportunities for Faculty Q1: Do you have a formal faculty development program?

PAGE 43

43 Five of six schools interviewed had a faculty development program for active learning or offered a variety of program s ranging from in class observation of active learning and basic information sessions, to more complex programs requiring application and acceptance. I think the key is different approaches.. I would recommend [that you] take a wide approach from very informal and low impact in terms of faculty commitment to some that are much more involved and try to leverage of faculty as much as you can. University A, p. 3 Q2: What is covered during these sessions? Although each university offered some type of program or process to help faculty with active learning each school had a different purpose and goal and therefore covered somewhat different topics University As program was an outlier in that it began by administrative request, and those faculty members included in the cohort were already proficient at using some active learning teaching strategies in their classrooms. The groups mission was more to develop best practices while at the same time furthering their own understanding and practice of active learning teaching pedagogies. It wasnt like we needed to educate them a lot in terms of what active learning is and how to do these kinds of things. I mean, they were already leaders. So the idea was that we were going to, as a group, figure out some best practices for these spaces First of all, what can they use to improve their practice, but what can we learn from them and learn as a group that can then act to support oth er people who are new to this? (University A, p. 3). Their topics included how to use cooperative quizzing, noise in the rooms, student distraction, lack of a clear focal point for the instructor, and how to deal with these issues. Each school placed more emphasis on teaching pedagogies and course development for active learning than on technology training, which most felt was a less complicated component to teach faculty members. The bulk of the work, the

PAGE 44

44 development work, preparing to teach in that space is course design (University D, p.2). The total time of training for t he technology and the space is probably an hour or two in three days. And the rest of it is around pedagogy (University F, p. 1) University Cs program focused on assisting each faculty member with redesigning a course for more active teaching. Once a member of the program, the group met each week for one hour to discuss (for the first 15 minutes) a variety of topics ranging from good course design strategies and learning outcomes to blooms taxonomy, followed by 45minutes of peer discussion focused aroun d that weeks successes and failures experienced while teaching in their active learning classrooms. Additionally, faculty members received oneon one training and guidance specific to their course design and learning outcome needs. University Ds faculty members also received oneonone guidance with redesigni ng a course for the universitys active learning classroom. University E offered not one, but a variety of programs directed toward all faculty on campus, that all touch on active learning on some le vel: o ne oneone individual, program and department level consulting as well as workshops and seminars. The one school which did not offer a formal faculty program, University B, did have a process for helping the limited faculty who were interested in applying active learning teaching methods in their active learning classrooms. Those faculty members at University B would get oneonone guidance from another faculty member who was already experienced with active learning teaching methodologies, but no s tructured process or program existed at the time of the interview. However, University B offered a

PAGE 45

45 formal active learning training session for teaching assistants wherein they u tilized role play to learn about collaborative learning and group work. Q3: H ow far in advance do faculty members know if they will be teaching in an active learning classroom? Do you have an evaluation process to assess readiness prior to teaching? During the interview process, it became clearer to me what I was trying to achieve with this question: an understanding of the factors, if any, that determine how much preparation time faculty have prior to teaching in an active learning environment. More specifically, two subquestions w ere vital to my understanding: W ere there any spe cial requirements faculty needed to fulfill? How was one placed or assigned to a room? Through conversation, these subquestions became clearer Also, I have grouped in responses to question 9, as most participants answered these two (Q3 and Q9) together. Q9: After a course is complete, are faculty members required to continue with training in any way? Although only one of the six universities required continued training in order to teach in an ac tive learning classroom again, three of the six schools req uired some training to teach initially in these spaces. Scheduling and room request processes varied at each school, but the common responses were a) faculty members requested a room, or b) they had to complete training. Very rarely were they simply placed into an active learning classroom. Other factors such as semester, course type, and low retention rates also played a r ole in these decisions for some schools and departments.

PAGE 46

46 T2: Support for Faculty Members Another theme that emerged from common responses was that of supportive staff or team members This theme emerged from one of the interview questions about instructional designers and their level of involvement. Q4: If you have instructional designers, how much involvement do they have in cour se planning for active learning? While some of the universities did not even have instructional designers, all schools commented on their importance and offered support on some instructional design level to those who requested it, whether from a centrally supported office, or in their own department. Table 41 displays the type of ID support offered at each university. T able 41. Support Instructional Design Support for Faculty Members University A Central Support University B Department Level Support University C Department Level Support University D Department Level Support University E Central Support University F No ID's On Campus The level of instructional design involvement was ultimately up to those faculty members at each school. Yes, that support {instructional design} exists somewhere. Its either central or its specific to the college. Whether or not the faculty [members] know about it or use it is another matter (University A, p.7) I will discuss the issue of resource awareness more in chapter 5. They {the faculty members} work oneonone with an instructional designer who is dedicated to their class for the entire semester leading up to teaching in the space and then while they are teaching in that space that instructional designer sort of their point person for like if they need some technology support along the way, they can certainly help and get that,

PAGE 47

47 thats not primarily what their role is, but often having the instructional designer on standby during the class meeting time is very helpful. Because if something doesnt go according to plan, then they can hook up with the instructional designer and say, you know, take a break in the course and say, So that thing is not w orking, so, how do we rethink the instructional goal for this particular piece and go from there? It hasnt happened very often, but it is very useful to have them around (University D, p.1) In addition to the instructional design differences, the technical support demand was also different at each school Universities A, B, C, D, and F all had classrooms specifically designed for active learning teaching methods, however, the training or support needs of faculty members varied at each school. Meaning some schools placed a higher level of importance on promotion and general awareness of active learning teaching strategies than technology and pedagogy training, whereas other universities were more concerned with addressing the learning activities and helpi ng faculty to implement these in their course. The participating schools which felt the high demand from interested faculty generally focused more on technology and pedagogy training t han on reaching out to promote for new program participants Another aspect of support that emer ged from each interview included providing information or resources. Each university had a website which provided additional information about their program and/or active learning. The other methods for sharing active learning i nformation included newsletters, flyers, blogs, community wikis, and opencall emails to their faculty members. RQ a: What Lessons can We Le arn from Them, Technologically a nd Pedagogically? Although the two new themes discussed above could technically fit under support for faculty members, they seem to hold too much weight to not mention separately The

PAGE 48

48 third theme was a common statement throughout the interviews that pedagogies are not only the starting place for quality teaching and course design, but they take longer to work on than technology training. The forth theme, also a type of support covered evaluations as well as peer support, or the presence of communit y. T 3: Technology is Important, but Pedagogy is More I mportant. Q 5: What types of technologies are available for teaching in your active learning classroom? The active learning classroom scenario at each university was slightly different, in that some had one specific classroom or multiple rooms, around which their program revolved, or their program was geared towards all faculty teaching in any space on campus. The most important technology in the rooms are the tables (University B, p. 3). Technology which was a word long before computers came along, {and are} the designed solution to a particular problem and t hats what the tables are. T here was a lot of researching {conducted} in figuring out what shape to make the m and how big to make them. And th eir purpose is to facilitate interactions between the students and with faculty members. So the tables are the most critical par t. (University B, p. 3). Overall, the room and its technologies were second priority to the active learning teaching pedagogies. Table 4.2 is a compiled list of the technologies, software, and teaching pedagogies mentioned during the interviews. The process of technology selection ranged from those selected by a centrally supported office, to those selected by a committee using lit erature and the SCALE Up methods in its decision making

PAGE 49

49 Table 42 Tools for Active Learning Tools and Methods Used by Participants Technology Software Teaching Pedagogies Round Tables Echo 360 Collaborative Learning Moveable Chairs Integrity Team based learning Projection Walls Moodle Cooperative Learning Flat Panel Screens Angel Flipped Class Movable Whiteboards Voice Thread Inquiry/Problem based Learning Whiteboards Face Time Assessment Techniques Huddle Boards Skype Cooperative Quizzing iPads Clickers HD Camera Tablet PC PICO Projectors Video Conferencing Video Wall The above list of varied technologies, software and teaching pedagogies are important to note, as most universities offered some, if not all of the same types of resources for teaching and learning. I chose to organize them by tool type rather than by univ ersity, to see the collective groupings of tools commonly available for active learning teaching. T he most common active learning tools and technologies were the tables, chairs, whiteboards, and projection screens, all of which helped to create a flexible and collaborative learning environment. Q6 : Have you encountered a ny challenging experiences working with technology or faculty development for active learning? Each university expressed common obstacles related to technology or faculty development.

PAGE 50

50 Summa ry of Participant Challenges: Faculty awareness of active learning classroom differences Ensuring technology is invisible and does not interfere with teaching and learning Developing a program that met the various needs and experiences of faculty Technolog y malfunction Support knowledge to help address faculty concerns and barriers Faculty willingness University A described their greater challenge of helping faculty to teach effectively in an active learning classroom. How can we make people aware of the rules of the game change in these spaces? The really difficult part is making faculty aware that there is a difference and that the room really does make a difference. First of all, its trying to make people aware of that and convince them that its important and then trying to figure out a ways in which you can support smaller sequential changes to what theyre doing. And trying to lever age faculty to help with this, (University A, p.10). University B shared their challenge with identifying technologies that were taking time away from teaching. This participant stopped using a tablet PC after realizing they were writing too much in class and spending less time discussing and collaborating with students Additionally, University B shared their challenge of faculty development and knowing what amount of time to spend on certain topics. I spent too much time talking about all of the underpinnings as to why this works. Their faculty members were more interested in the tangible tools needed to create lessons for active learning classrooms. University C had this to say about their challenge with faculty development. O ne of the most challenging experiences is that different faculty [members] come in to [our] program with different attitudes and experiences with technology and with active learning, s o we have challenges in keeping them all happy and on target. University

PAGE 51

51 Ds challenges were technology related, specifically their digital whiteboard was not allowing for writing in a natural way, and required faculty members to press harder than they naturally wrote. Also, their wire less projection system was a challenge. University E works with an array of faculty members from across campus and explained one of their gr eatest challenges with faculty buy in. They said, We he ar a lot from faculty, who say I have too much material I have to cov er to allow for active learning (p. 8). For them, the challenge was learning how to deal with that ques tion, and finding the best ways to answer it when speaking with faculty members. Active learning doesnt necessarily have to take more time or effort. We just try to get them to take little steps, and many of them are willing t o do that, and some just arent (University E, p.9). T4: Evaluation and Community Q7: Do you have an evaluation process in place to evaluate teaching and learning in active learning classrooms? Table 43 Evaluations for Active Teaching and Learning University Evaluation Proce ss University A Student grades, Student Focus G roups, & S tudent/ F aculty interviews University B Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol University C Evaluation Team: Student Learning, Retention Rates, Satisfaction, Teacher Reflection, and Changes in Teaching Methods University D Herman Miller Pre and Post Surveys University E In Class Observations, Mid Semester Feedback, Student Interviews University F Student and Faculty Perceptions Table 43 shows the types of active learning evaluations processes offered at each university. When asked to share what their programs were doing to evaluate either the room or the teaching, University A pointed out that they have a separate office for

PAGE 52

52 conducting researchbased evaluations. This group conducts research based on student grades, student focus groups, and student and faculty interviews. University B uses Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) to assess the changes in their classrooms. University C also has an evaluation team that looks at student learning, the impact on student retention rates, student satisfaction, teacher reflection, and changes in teaching methods (evaluating the differences between what they used to do and what they are doi ng now). University D is also working with Herman Miller, much like the College of Business, and so they have added some questions to the Herman Miller pre and post evaluation instruments to assess the room and certain teaching methodologies. However, they do not evaluate teaching in the active learning classroom. We in the teaching center do not evaluate teaching. And we're very committed to that stance. .. We observe teaching, we give formative feedback on teaching, we help faculty think about how effecti ve their teac hing is. But we don't evaluate (University D, p. 10). University E often conduct s in class observations in addition to midsemester feedback and small group instructional diagnoses also known as student interviews, wherein they talk privately with groups of students and ask questions such as: W hat helps you learn in this class? or W hat could improve your learning in this class? First in small groups, and then as a whole class, they discuss the issues brought up and take those themes back to the instructor to see how things can improve, if needed. University Fs group of support s taff who work closely with their active learning faculty shared their process for evaluating s tudent and faculty perceptions. However, as

PAGE 53

53 a campus, they do not evaluate their teaching any differently than they do for other faculty (end of term evaluations) We observe d what happens in the rooms (faculty and students) and interviewed both students and faculty about their perceptions of what happens and its impact on student learning and f aculty professional development (University F) Q8: What efforts have you made to get faculty involved in some type of community? L iterature tells us about the importance of a community or network for supporting faculty, for active teaching, but also for teaching in general (Michael, 2007). The eighth interview question asked each participate if they had any type of community in place to help support their faculty with active learning. While the participants in this study were a part of a team that support faculty members with active learning in some manner, two of the six universities also had faculty learning communities (FLC) in place. The other four universities note some type of relationships that had formed naturally from being either in a department or in a cohort of peers, but did not have a structured community in pla ce at that time. All universities underst ood and expressed the importance of such a group. People come together because they perceive a shared need or theres a problem they want to solve. And, if they feel it strongly enough, the community will evolve. So part of the success of these communities of practice or faculty learning communities is making sure you choose the right people who are going to actually come together in that communal way. So, thats why I s ay, make sure you choose wisely (University A p. 15). While each school has their own set of experiences with active learning, faculty development, training, and technology, they all have some aspects in common with one another. They all have staff members who are knowledgeable about active learning teaching methods, resources for those needing technology training, and a plan for helping those faculty who are interested in this growing form of teaching.

PAGE 54

54 RQb: How do we Best Prepare our Faculty to Teach in an Active Learning C lassroom? This is the larger questi on that guided my research and that served as the starting point for my study. Although the above sections contributed to answering this question, I was also interested in recommendations or suggestions that the other universities might have, based on thei r experiences with active learning. My final interview question asked each university to consider any school just starting a program for faculty development in active learning and make some recommendations based on their experiences. For any novice school entering into this path, these list s of lessons learned and suggestions for preparing faculty members are invaluable. Further, the relative scarcity of literature on faculty development for active learning, the opportunity to learn from other schools that have been promoting and teaching faculty members to use active learning teaching st rategies, is important to the broader the wider field of research in higher education. Below are the compiled s uggestions from all participants listed in no particular order The recommendations are taken from answers to my final interview question, as well as from relevant points throughout each conversation. Q10: If you could recommend at least one thing to another university just starting out with active learning classrooms and faculty development for such a space, what would it be? Use a variety of strategies to reach as many people as possible (workshops, seminars, conferences, oneonone, etc.) Encourage faculty who are even slightly interested to visit an active learni ng class in session. Then show them what the room can do by hav ing those faculty participate as students.

PAGE 55

55 Require that faculty attend a workshop on active learning, one that is formatted around a course instructional design model. T alk to faculty about what the y wish they could do in their own (traditional) class, and then use this information to help them understand whether active learning could be right for them. Make use of faculty member enthusiasm for active learning, as ambassadors, for spreading the word and getting others interested. Bring in outside experts to present active learning strategies to faculty and deans. Create videos of teaching in your active learning classroom to share with other faculty on campus who might be interested. Having support for faculty development is important, so it is important to have a committee. Getting faculty together, even across discipline, to share their experiences with one another is most helpful. By exploring each participants experiences with active learning faculty development and technology training, I was able to gather important information needed to synthesize in depth answers to my research questions The commonalities and diffe rences further help to shape my understanding about what other universities are doing to help prepare their faculty to teach in an active learning classroom. The lessons learned here are a guide for those interested in faculty preparation for active learning.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to reveal current research in this field and to explore the experiences of the participating universities that have implemented active learning faculty development T he following research questions were used to guide this study: 1. How do we best prepare our faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? a) What are other universities doing to prepare their faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? b) What lessons can we learn from them, technologically and pedagogically? This study used semi structured interviews to help explore the current state of faculty development for active learning classroom teaching. These approaches helped to reveal a variety of comm onalities and differences among the participating schools which a ided in answering the guiding research questions. What are other universities doing to help prepare their faculty (RQ1)? In general, they are providing a variety of learning opportunities and programs Within these programs, pedagogical methods for active learning held a higher priority over technological training. The programs offered at each university varied. Some were optional and low impact The topics addressed in these types of sessions included information and background knowledge on active learning principles, research, and benefits mostly geared towards general faculty Other programs described were required for active learning classroom access T hese higher impact sessions, such as workshops and colloquiums were geared towards those faculty members already on board with active learning benefits. Each school provided faculty member support in some manner or another to assist all types of faculty in learning these new teaching

PAGE 57

57 methods and technologies Centrally supported instructional design and technology training or department level support, were offered at each university What lessons can we learn technologically and pedagogically (RQa) ? The participant experiences revealed that pedagogical training can often take longer and should hold h igher priority over technology and software training. Meyer (1993) provides four essential elements for faculty to consider when designing their course and teaching pedagogies: 1. Clarify your course objectives and content 2. Create a positive classroom tone 3. Cop e with the teaching space 4. Know more about your students (Meyer, 1993, p. 33) T aking the time to plan ones acti ve learning teaching pedagogies can be a challenge for those new to this type of instruction and often times faculty are not sure how they can gi ve up any content (Meyer, 1993). University C shared their experience in having faculty practice a phasedin approach to active learning. Meaning their faculty did not have to co n vert their course entirely to incorporate active learning teaching practices, but chose to use these methods strategically when possible. Faculty can choose to incorporate active learning activities in any environment, gradually and at will (Faust & Paulson, 1998) Challenges included teacher buy in, technology related issues such as tool malfunction, and core teaching misunderstandings. P articipants in this study often encounter reason s for why active learning will not work for a certain instructor often referred to in the literature as facult y barriers (Michael, 2007). These statements

PAGE 58

58 ranged from too much material to cover, or not enough time to plan or teach in groups. Learning to prepare for and address such hesitations was important to their programs successes And lastly, what are some ways in which we can help prepare faculty to teach in an active learning classroom (RQb)? This study revealed that preparedness begins with awareness and leads to application. The spectrum of needs is an important factor to consider as a support member my self. Awareness means getting the word out on campus about active learning opportunities, class rooms and teaching methods. Then providing ample support for faculty members to learn the tangible nuts and bolts of any active learning activity they want to incorporate into their teaching whether in an active learning classroom or not Recommendations T his recommendation plan serves as a resource for supplying various needs for any school or program interested in adopting active learning and faculty development With active lear ning teaching pedagogies as our guide, we should prepare for the variances in faculty awareness, knowledge, and application experiences. To oversimplify, my recommendation is to provide an information repository, various types of workshops and seminars, and oneon one support. Faculty members need professional development opportunities that supply them with the knowledge and skills they need to meet a higher standard of teaching practice (McGowan & Graham, 2009). All areas can be considered faculty development, while still fulfilling the v arying requirements ne eded by each faculty member Table 51 shows the recommended development opportunities and their level of impact, low impact meaning less time requirement, but also less of a direct impact on teaching Whereas, the high impact

PAGE 59

59 opportunities require more commitment of time from faculty members, but also more commitment from those providing support. In turn, these could have a higher impact on teaching development Table 51. Faculty Development Opportunities Program Levels Training Activity Low Impact Awareness and Knowledge Medium Impact Workshops and Seminars High Impact One onOne Support Awareness and Knowledge A low, impact starting place for active learning awareness could be a repository of information that is public and easily accessible (e.g., a website) I suggest those initiating active learning professional development construct a n online place for those faculty members interested in exploring information on their own time and in private. Links to literature on current research from leaders in the various active learning teaching methodologies should be provided and maintained reg ularly Additionally, I suggest that the school create and distribute newsletters, flyers, and videos sharing first the progress of their active learning classroom, and then first term teaching experiences to provide more tangible examples of active learni ng in action. T echnology training could fit into each impact level depending on the needs of the faculty member s. Therefore, providing technology rich information on the department or colleges website for active learning would be an additional recommend ation. Workshops/Seminars The participants each shared their varying examples of topics covered during workshops, faculty learning community gatherings, and seminar s. As University C explained, creating a workshop that is structured around an instructional design model

PAGE 60

60 also helps faculty to understand the importance of creating learning objectives, in addition to project management and planning strategies without having to really master project management. S chedule and plan for regular workshops or seminars on active learning best practices, methods, application, and troubleshooting (whether it is for technology, room issues, or activity support) For instance workshops could center around topics such as: team based learning, team grading, forming t eams, collaborative quizzing, problem based learning, or perhaps on incorporating new technologies that can facilitate co llaboration into their course. These should be held in the active learning classroom itself and incorporate learning activities that mo del individual activities, g roup activities, or other active learning strategies This allows for faculty to pick and choose the topics that most interest them and decide whether or not to attend. Additionally, and as University F pointed out, having gues t speakers come and present can provide a twofold advantage. One, faculty hear information from an expert in this field directly. And two, they see that the college is taking the time to invest (financially) in their profession al development for improved teaching Such experts could include (but are not limited to) Larry Michaelson on team based learning, or Robert Beich n er on SCALE UP active learning classrooms. One onOne Support I have listed oneonone support as the highest impact activity because it requires the most faculty commitment as well as support staff commitment. However, this is an opportunity for faculty to sit down and work directly with someone knowledgeable about act ive learning teaching methods This provides the time needed to look at instructor goals for teaching and f o r faculty, as content experts to choose one or multiple active

PAGE 61

61 learning activities to incorporate into their course design. As a result of this oneonone experience, the faculty should go forward with a clearer understanding of how these methods relate to their specific course and how they can be applied to enhance student learning. Whether it is providing time for reading, purchasing articles or books, investing in technologies or tools for experimentation, or some other unknown component, c onsider invest ing in support staff education, so that the team working directly with faculty is as knowledgeable as it can be when providing support. Staying well informed about current research on active learning is an important piece in providing the necessary faculty support. Conclusion T his study provides a starting place for active learning professional development. I n retrospect, a more complete picture might have been acquired through inclusion of literature related to: active learning a wareness, self efficacy, content assistance and librarian support, initial training experience in graduate programs (or lack thereof) methods for ass essing teaching and learning and faculty motivation for improved teaching. Additionally, this research project could have been augmented with feedback from focus groups of existing faculty in my department assessing data about current active learning awareness and barriers to active learning, as well as the inclusion of a mini workshop to apply some principles learned from the study participants At the end of this study, I am now able to identify a delimitation related to the select ion of participants based on their public information (i.e. website) as I now realize that there are hundreds of SCALE up schools alone, implementing active learning

PAGE 62

62 teaching strategies in active learning classrooms. Their experiences are equally as valuable as my chosen sam ple Nonetheless, by exploring each participants v arious experiences with active learning faculty development, I have been able to study and present objective information that reveals relevant starting points for active learning program development McGow an and Graham (2009) state, faculty members can indeed change and become better professors and learners and have a powerful impact on their students, regardless of their personalities, the subject matter they teach, or their current skill levels (p. 162) F aculty members just need more professional development opportunities that supply them with the knowledge and skills they need to meet a higher standard of teaching practice (McGowan & Graham, 2009). W hen students participate in activities that allow them to reflect upon their own knowledge, ideas and experiences, more meaningful learni ng takes place (Michael, 2006). Active learning teaching techniques increase participation, help create student centered environments, and motivate learners (Bonwell & Eiso n, 1991; Ladousse, 1987; McCarthy & Anderson, 2000; McKeachie, 1999; Schaftel & Schaftel, 1976; Van Ments,1994). More research is needed in this area to help ide ntify whether or not the types of faculty development recommendations stated herein have an impact on active learning teaching and learning and if so, to what degree. To move beyond theoretical support for active learning principles there is a need for more evidencebased research t o analyze the implementation of these faculty development strategies and their impact on successful active learning teaching and sustainability.

PAGE 63

63 APPENDIX A EMAIL INVITATION Hello _____________, I am a graduate student at the University of Floridas College of Education working on my master s thesis project. I am writing you in hopes that you, or someone in your department, is willing to speak briefly with me in a phone interview on PREPARING FACULTY TO TEACH IN ACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS? Ive been doing a lot of reading in this field an d have identified your school as one of the top universities with active learning spaces, who might have faculty development programs for active learning preparation. I hope that my research will provide a valuable overview of what other schools are doing to help prepare faculty, what works and what does not. Please let me know if you are the best person to contact, and if you are open to speaking with me. I can send my questions ahead of time, along with the informed consent. Thank y ou so much for your ti me! Alecia Brown Monteiro Instructional Designer Teaching Excellence and Assessment UF Warrington College of Business http://warrington.ufl.edu/itsp/teaching/design.asp

PAGE 64

64 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT Preparing Faculty to Teach in Active Learning Environments, an interview Dear Participant: I am a graduate student at the University of Floridas College of Education, School of Teaching and Learning. As part of my masters research project, I am conducting an interview, the purpose of which is to learn what other universities are doing to help their faculty prepare to teach in active learning classrooms. I am asking you to participate in this interview because you have been identified as a university using active learning methods in active learning spaces. Interviewees will be asked to participate in an interview lasting no longer than 30 minutes. The schedule of questions is enclosed with this letter. You will not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Your interview will be conducted by phone or via Skype (if you prefer) after I have received a copy of this signed consent from you. With your permission I would like to audiotape this interview. Only I will have access to the tape which I will personally transcribe, removing any identifiers during transcription. The tape will then be erased. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your identity will not be revealed in the final rep ort. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the interview at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at alecia.monteiro@warrington.ufl.edu or (352) 2733236, or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Kumar, at (352) 2734175. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research

PAGE 65

65 participant rights may be directed to the IRB02 office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; Phone (352) 3920433 Please sign and return this copy of the letter in an email at alecia.monteiro@warrington.ufl.edu Please save a second copy for your records. By signing this letter, you give me permission to report your responses anonymously in the final paper to be submitted to m y faculty supervisor as part of my final masters project. Thank you, Alecia Monteiro ___________________________________________________ I have read the procedure described above for the School Curriculum Interview assignment. I voluntarily agree to parti cipate in the interview and I have received a copy of this description. ____________________________ ___________ Signature of participant Date I would like to receive a copy of the final "interview" manuscript submitted to the instruc tor. __YES / NO__

PAGE 66

66 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Do you have a formal faculty development program for preparing your faculty to teach in an active learning classroom? a. Can you please provide a general overview of your program? 2. What is the most common form of faculty development? (a workshop, seminar, conference) a. What is covered during these sessions? b. How successful do you think these have been? 3. How far in advance do faculty members know if they will be teaching in an active learning classroom? a. Do you have an assessment or evaluation process to assess faculty readiness prior to them teaching? 4. If you have instructional designers, how much involvement do they have in course planning for active learning? 5. What types of technologies are available for teaching i n your active learning classroom? a. Specifically, what types of hardware are available? b. What types of software are available for them? c. Do you have a method for selecting such tools? i. Or do faculty members get to choose? ii. If so, how do you plan for such request s in terms of training? d. Are there technologies that are available in the classroom but are not used very frequently? 6. Please tell me one of your most challenging experiences working with technology in your active learning classrooms. a. Please tell me one of y our most challenging experiences working with faculty development for your active learning classrooms. 7. Do you have an evaluation process in place to evaluate teaching and learning in active learning classrooms? 8. What efforts have you made to get faculty inv olved in a community? a. Do you have a forum/place for them to share their experiences with one another? 9. After a course is complete, are faculty members required to continue with training in any way? a. If so, is this at their personal request? b. If not, how d o they stay current? 10. If you could recommend at least one thing to another university just starting out with active learning classrooms and faculty development for such a space, what would it be?

PAGE 67

67 LIST OF REFERENCES Akinoglu, O., & Tandogan, O. (2007). The effects of problem based active learning in science education on students academic achievement, attitude, and concept learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology 3.1 71 81. Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997) The place of inter rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology 31. 3, 597606. Bickford, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Community: T he hidden context for learning. Learning Spaces Chapter 4: http://www.educause.edu/learningspacesch4 Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHEEric Higher Education Report No. 1 Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/v45j727w7145426t/fulltext.pdf Brooks C. D. (2010). Space matters: T he impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology Retrieve d from http://www.oit.umn.edu/prod/groups/oit/@pub/@oit/@web/@evaluationresearch/d ocuments/article/oit_article_248303.pdf B rooks, M., & Brooks, J. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. The Constructivist Classroom, 57.3, 1824. Brown, M. B., & Lippincott, J.K. (2003). Learning spaces: More than meets the eye. E DUCAUSE Quarterly Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0312.pdf Brown, M., & Long, P. (2006). Trends in learning space design. Learning Spaces. Chapter 9. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/learningspacesch9 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. A Touchstone Book, Kappa Delta Pi, New York. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative Learning: Cogniti ve and Computational Approaches, 119. Retrieved from http://halshs.archives ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/02/40/PDF/Dillenbourg Pierre 1999.pdf Faust, J., & Pauls on, D. (1998). Active learning in the college classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 9.2 3 24. Feldman, M. S., Skoldberg, K., Brown, R. N ., & Horner, D. (2004). Making sense of storie s: A rhetorical approach to narrative analysis. J Public Adm Res Theory, 14.2 147 170. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 8.4, 597607

PAGE 68

68 Hammer, E. Y. & Giordano, P. (2012). Active Learning. Effective college teaching: Strategies and tactics for the new professoriate. 99114. Leiboff, M. (2010). Rethinking classroom design guidelines. Campus Technology. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2010/06/02/Rethinking Classroom Design Guidelines.aspx?Page=1 Lippincott, J. (2009). Learning spaces. Involving faculty to improve pedagogy. EDUCAUSE Review 44. 2, 16 25. M cGowan, W., & Graham, C. (2009). Factors contributing to improved teaching performance. Innovative Higher Education. 34, 161 171 McCarthy, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from hi story. Innovative Higher Education. 24.4 McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Boston: Houghton. McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Yi Guang, L., and Smith, D. A. F. (1986). Teaching a nd learning in the college classroom: a review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: Regents of the Univ. of Michigan. Means T. (2001). Edison Project Proposal, Warrington College of Business. Michael, J. (2001). In pursuit of meaningful learning. The Claude Bernard Distinguished Lecture. Advances in Physiology, 25. 3. Michael, J. (2006). Wheres the evidence that active learning works? Ad vanced Physiological Education, 30, 159 167. Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching, 55, 42 47. Michaelson, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. Wiley Periodicals. 16. Miller Herman Inc., Learning Space Research Program. Retrieved from http://www.hermanmiller.com/solutions/education/pages/learning spaces researchprogram.html Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education,1 8, 763 780. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the rese arch. Journal of Engineering Education. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Prince_AL.pdf

PAGE 69

69 Schaftel, F. R., & Schaftel, G. (1976). Role playing for social values. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Seeler, D. C, Turnwald, G.H., & Bull, K.S. (199 4). From teaching to learning: P art III. Lectures and approaches to active learning. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVME/V211/Se eler1.html Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 2 2, 6375. University of Florida, Warrington College of Business Administration Office of Publications. (2012, April 12). About Warrington College of Business Administration: History. Retrieved from http://warrington.ufl.edu/publications/about/history.asp Van Ments, M. (1994). The effective use of role play. London: Kogan Page. Whiteside, D. Brooks, C., & Walker J.D., (2010). Making the case for space: Three years of empirical research on learning environments. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, V. 33.

PAGE 70

70 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alecia Brown Monteiro was born in 1984, in O range Park, Florida. The youngest of three children, she grew up in the small town along the St. Johns River, Crescent City. She graduated from Crescent City Jr. Sr. High School in 2002, second in her class. Alecia earned her B.S. in public relations alo ng with a second major in anthropology from the University of Florida. After graduation, she moved abroad living in Berlin, Germany. Eventually moving back to Gainesville, FL, she began working as an associate producer for a production company and later obtained at job in instructional support specialist at the College of Business at UF. This sparked her interest in education and teacher training and led to her entering the Educational Technology graduate program at the College of Education. Later she was promoted to a new instructional design position, also at the College of Business. Upon completion of her M.A.E program, Alecia hopes to focus on apply ing to PhD programs and continuing as an instructional designer for her department. A lecia has been with her h usband for 10 years, married for 3. They have an awesome son, Coda, age 3 (or 26, if you ask him).