Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||How Teachers Implement Active Learning: Typologies of Orchestrational Flow|
|Publisher:||International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS)|
|Citation:||Charles, E., Slotta, J., Cassidy, R., Dugdale, M., Zhang, C., & Lenton, K. (2019). How Teachers Implement Active Learning: Typologies of Orchestrational Flow. In Lund, K., Niccolai, G. P., Lavoué, E., Hmelo-Silver, C., Gweon, G., & Baker, M. (Eds.), A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings, 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2019, Volume 1 (pp. 448-455). Lyon, France: International Society of the Learning Sciences.|
|Abstract:||The term, Active Learning (AL) is commonly used in describing pedagogical approaches that engages learners actively in classrooms, with an emphasis on problem solving, inquiry and reflection. While a growing body of evidence supports the effectiveness of such an approach, there is great variation in defining the specific strategies and approaches, making it difficult to advance the field. We examined 19 college instructors for over 220 hours using AL methods. We coded the observed classroom activities according to teacher- and student-centered behaviours. On average, these teachers allocated over 50% of class time to group work. A cluster analysis revealed four distinct patterns of student-centred activity: (1) frequent, short duration; (2) longer duration; (3) less frequent, short duration; and, (4) mixed. Two approaches to workflow were identified: 1) tightly orchestrated and 2) front-loaded with less structured periods of work. Results suggest typologies of instructional patterns, growth trajectories and new directions for examining AL.|
|Appears in Collections:||CSCL 2019|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.