Search

Active learning research emerged from the undergraduate STEM education communities of practice, some of whom identify as discipline-based education researchers (DBER). Consequently, current frameworks of active learning are largely inductive and based on emergent patterns observed in undergraduate teaching and learning. Alternatively, classic learning theories historically originate from the educational psychology community, which often takes a theory-driven, or deductive research approach. The broader transdisciplinary education research community is now struggling to reconcile the two. That is, how is a theory of active learning distinct from other theories of knowledge construction? We discuss the underpinnings of active learning in the geosciences, drawing upon extant literature from the educational psychology community on engagement. Based on Sinatra et al. engagement framework, we propose a model for active learning in the geosciences with four dimensions: behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic. We then connect existing literature from the geoscience education community to the model to demonstrate the current gaps in our literature base and opportunities to move the active learning geoscience education research (GER) forward. We propose the following recommendations for future investigation of active learning in the geosciences: (1) connect future GER to our model of active learning in the geosciences; (2) measure more than content learning; (3) document research methods and outcomes with effect sizes to accumulate evidence; and (4) prioritize research on dimensions of active learning essential to the geosciences.

Most research about reformed teaching practices in the college science classroom is based on instructor self-report. This research describes what is happening in some introductory geology courses at multiple institutions across the country using external observers. These observations are quantified using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). A scoring rubric created to support consistent application of the 25 items on the RTOP yields very high inter-rater agreement over multiple observations throughout a 3 y period. Using the adapted RTOP instrument, 66 separate observations of introductory physical geology classrooms at 11 different institutions (four associate's colleges, three baccalaureate colleges, a master's university, and three research universities) were collected, and those observations indicate three categories of instruction: (1) teacher-centered, traditional lecture-dominated classrooms (RTOP < 30) with little student talk and minimal student activity beyond listening and note taking; (2) transitional classrooms with some activities involving brief student discussions centered around right/wrong answers; and (3) student-centered classrooms (RTOP = 50) with considerable time devoted to active learning and student communications to promote conceptual understanding. The progression from teacher-centered to transitional and then to student-centered categories is incremental across all subscales of the RTOP instrument except for propositional knowledge (character of the lesson's content and instructor's command of the material), which only increases between teacher-centered and transitional categories. This means there is no single path to an active learning, student-centered introductory geology classroom. Such learning environments are achieved with a holistic approach to all aspects of constructivist teaching as measured by RTOP. If the instructor incorporates small changes in multiple aspects of their teaching from disseminator of knowledge to supporter of student learning, then the transition to a student-centered classroom becomes an approachable process. Faculty can also use the RTOP and rubric to guide course planning, promote self-reflection of their teaching, and assist in the peer evaluation of other's teaching.