Active learning: It’s easier to implement than faculty think

BACKGROUND : Today’s current COVID-19 pandemic has abruptly impacted the university setting as institutions have now gone mostly online. In response, faculty have raced to transition their face-to-face programs into an online format, as they attempt to create an engaging and effective learning experience. Yet a new study suggests 77% of students in higher education are having difficulty adjusting to the new learning environment because faculty have yet to adopt active learning strategies such as technology tools designed for online education  (Kelly, 2020).  In this presentation, faculty will share their experience in how they created an online active learning environment in just 6 weeks. The purpose is to help faculty explore technology tools, integrate online learning theories, and implement selected technology tools into your courses in just days

THEORY:  Integrating active learning is now expected for faculty who teach online courses. However, selecting a technology tool is often done without consideration of its application to a learning theory (Picciano, 2017). During this session, we will share how the underpinnings of two online theory-based methods, specific to higher education, can be appropriately applied when selecting technology tools for your courses. Chickering & Gamson (1987) provides a guide of good practices that includes seven principles to support online education, including the importance of active learning tools. In addition, Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2000), Community of Inquiry framework, identifies three components of ‘presence’ needed for an ideal online learning experience. They specifically note how social, cognitive, and teaching presence facilitate learning environments and direct instruction. The faculty presenters will show how they used both theory-based methods as they selected and implemented active technology tools into their online courses. 

ACTIVE LEARNING : Active learning is not a new concept.  Bonwell and Eison (1991) described active learning “as instructional activity involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing” (p.5). Bonwell and Eison (1991) emphasized that active learning requires students not only read, write or have an ability to discuss presented topics, but also have an ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate. One way for faculty to improve active learning in their online environment is to implement technology tools. To accomplish such, the faculty presenters participated in a 6 week certificate course to both develop professionally and gain skills to use in teaching online courses.  The 6 week course immediately began using Flipgrid technology for self-introductions. During that first week, faculty critiqued one of their own academic courses using Chickering & Gamson (1987) principles to identify areas that lacked active learning technology tools. Those critiques were collectively posted into Padlet, a second technology tool, which demonstrated to faculty how to promote collaboration in a real-time environment. In the remaining few weeks, faculty selected a third technology tool that was free of charge, user-friendly, sparked personal interest, and met their student learning outcomes. A synchronized Zoom session was held to present the selection of their third technology, a relevant learning theory, and their plan for implementation. Throughout the Zoom session, faculty presented how they had already implemented their active technology tool into their online course and received anecdotal feedback in just days!

SELECTING AND IMPLEMENTING TECHNOLOGIES : It can be overwhelming to select technology tools that create and implement an active learning environment. Faculty are encouraged to choose technologies that promote experiential learning, deep content, reflection, and imagination. Thus, faculty presenters chose their technologies based on several factors. The first consideration was to choose a technology tool based on whether it met the learning needs of students in higher education. Next, faculty decided if the technology tool fulfilled the purpose of their assignment.  Based on these two considerations, other factors in choosing a technology tool varied. These included technology tools that are free of charge, adaptable for multiple devices, available with tutorials or tech support, intuitive design and functionality, visually stimulating, and creative. Other important factors are that technology tools selected provide an opportunity to use higher order thinking skills, collaboration, and idea sharing while making the learning both fun and engaging. One suggestion to selecting a technology tool is to ask for a recommendation from experienced faculty who teach online. Examples of technology tools the faculty presenters used in their 6 week course included Audacity, Bubble.us, FlipGrid, Microsoft Sway, Padlet, Popplet, Screencast-o-matic, Visme, Vocaroo, and VoiceThread. 

OUTCOMES : There were two categories for outcomes that occurred during the 6 week faculty development course. These included outcomes for faculty course participants and outcomes for students who used the technology tool that was implemented into the faculty online course.  Faculty course participants identified four overall outcome themes. (1) Faculty gained knowledge in the importance of selecting a theory-based method that could be appropriately applied when selecting technology tools for their courses. Multiple faculty expressed, “I had never heard of Chickering & Gamson.” (2) Faculty also shared “That my simple instructions and links were clear such that no student emailed or called me needing help with their active learning (Popplet) assignment.” Another faculty proudly reported, “I can actually create a lesson that stimulates critical thinking for students in higher education in less than two weeks!” (3) Faculty also became confident in selecting tools to implement in their individual online course, even though all technology tools were new to them.  One participant shared, “As a novice educator, the hands-on-experience I gained boosted my confidence to create an active learning environment whereby students want to engage in my course!” Similarly, a seasoned educator enthusiastically stated, “This was an eye-opener for me in how technology tools can enhance my teaching. I’m now a convert to finding new technologies that will create an active learning environment for my online students!  (4) As a result of the 6 week course, the faculty presenters felt like they began a network of online colleagues across the nation whereby they can share ideas of how they successfully implemented a technology tool within their own discipline of education. Finally, this OLC abstract is a result of the collaboration that occurred from the network of course participants. In summary, faculty participants developed professionally as they gained support to improve their online teaching and learning strategies as noted by one faculty, “I can do this again!” 

The second outcome gained was found from students who used the technology tool that was implemented into the faculty online course. These students identified four overall outcome themes. (1) Students immediately found that learning was exciting when an active technology tool was included in their course. For example, “Professor, I didn’t realize that learning could be this fun!” (2) Students also ‘flipped’ as they felt both faculty and student ‘presence’ when they saw each other's faces during the course introduction. “I had never heard or used FlipGrid prior to you introducing it to us. I find it really easy to use and a fun way to get to know each other. I need to be more creative with my introduction though, like my peers are!  (3) Learning activities were found to be engaging as students valued VoiceThread and Screencast-o-matic. One graduate student said, “ I felt more engaged in the course as I actually had to write out my project and then present it in video format.” Another student also shared, “I’ve noticed two faculty are now using Padlet in our nursing courses. Did both faculty just recently learn this technology?” (4) The last outcome demonstrated that students wanted to embrace new ways of learning. “Professor, here is the link to my popplet. I do have to share, I truly enjoyed this activity.” Another graduate student similarly posted in the discussion board, “Professor, I really enjoyed this activity too. I've never heard of a Popplet prior to this assignment and can already think of ways I can use this in the future [as I become an educator].” In summary, students quickly provided positive feedback about the active learning they felt was creative and engaging to them as adult learners. 

LIMITATIONS: There were a few limitations in the 6 week faculty development course. Perhaps the most notable one is that all faculty were teaching full-time in the midst of COVID-19 while also participating in the course. Yet, the faculty believed the investment into the course was worth the additional time required from their personal schedule. Faculty chose technology tools to improve their teaching that were free of charge. However, some “free” tools had limits to their functionality and the number of times the tools could be used. The faculty participants in the development course also gained much from each other through the networking that occurred; however, they lived in four different time zones that made scheduling Zoom meetings a challenge. Faculty are also learning that some students had limited access to appropriate internet speed needed to use the technology tool that was implemented into the faculty online course. Despite these limitations, faculty presenters believed they developed professionally in just 6 short weeks as they successfully created and implemented active learning technology tools into their online courses such that they “can’t wait to do it again!”