American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2007;71 (5)Article 85 transition from"dependent to independent learner.and related to active learning.as well as classroom ass ment materials which emphasize active-learning techniques as a means to formatively monitor ongoing learning through Active learning can a course.All materials were reviewed in order to find create an environment that facilitates"learning in real types of active-learning techniques and methods that have time either in collaboration with others or independently. been descrbed to quantify and categorize these active and this is central to the philosophy of practice-oriente learning techniques.As our intentions for the use of this amning can b tool went beyond mere step he tin anuv iterat ng practice nange the tive le liz tive ntre h we use tad into the of the iall literature failed to identify an entory tool to quan facult risk,which was estimated based on the inter tify and characterize the use ofactive.le ing techn and ease of use of the ac ivity in the class om.Hvpoth by faculty members.Development of a standardized in esizing that a simpler tool would have greater ac ance ventory tool that is both valid and reliable provides th among faculty members we consciously y grouped similar ability to document the type and quantity ofactive leaming tems together and kept the tool as short as possible.The occurring in classes and establishes a basis for qualitativ proposed Active-Leamning Inventory Tool that was sent evaluation of active- ning techniques addition,an out to reviewers 2 inventory tool will help det nine the type of active learn widely accepte active-leam ng techniques and ranked ng th hem by degre oy th ser dmi a中 unt sign,impler rators as and ctivity nt tablish the of th In earch in thi ulte vide do tation for th ublished and hed e ely in the field of ing emphasis on meas uring nes in pharn education.The expe ts were asked to review the active education but to our knowledge there are no tools avail learning Inventory Tool and then comment on the use of able to obiectively document the use ofeffective teaching terminology and descrintions appropriateness of the spe techniques (such as active learning)to attain these out cific activities included,overall validity ofthe assessment comes.We therefore sought to develop a valid and reliable ease of use.and generalizability to other academic discr active-l ring inventory tool to quantify the use of activ plines nd prc general comments.The tool was sub e course .In additio we compared in ons of th ount and type ofactive leam and an ing act ers g th consid. While the ng tech ctive l ing.for the p of th in no as ents doing things and thinking risk The they are doing." In addition we considered active leam ing as successfully occurring in the classroom when 3 key and cons sensus of the authors.i5 The section of tool that components were observed:(1)the contert of the activity asked for qualitative comments about the use of active was explained,(2)the students were engaged in the activ learning was also clarified ty,and (3)there was closure to the activity via reflection After approval by the ortheastern University Insti We think of these elements as the CER(context.engage tutional Reviev Board the revised Active-Learning ment,reflection)components of successful active learning Inventory Iool stages METHODS and in 6 liv scn f the Active-Learning ses xpe prepared using articles,textbo an 3 pharmacy faculty membe ers)participated in this pha transition from ‘‘dependent to independent learner,’’ and develops in graduates ‘‘the ability to integrate and apply learning to both the present practice of pharmacy and the advancement of the profession.’’10,11 Active learning can create an environment that facilitates ‘‘learning in real time’’ either in collaboration with others or independently, and this is central to the philosophy of practice-oriented education at our institution.12Lastly, active learning can be viewed as the first step along an experiential learning con￾tinuum that promotes more substantive learning outcomes. While active learning has been validated as an effec￾tive way to increase student learning, and is increasingly being incorporated into the classroom, a search of the literature failed to identify an ‘‘inventory tool’’ to quan￾tify and characterize the use of active-learning techniques by faculty members. Development of a standardized in￾ventory tool that is both valid and reliable provides the ability to document the type and quantity of active learning occurring in classes and establishes a basis for qualitative evaluation of active-learning techniques. In addition, an inventory tool will help determine the type of active learn￾ing that is best suited to teach or assess a particular level of knowledge, serve faculty members and program adminis￾trators as they seek to evaluate teaching skills and provide comments for improvement, and be valuable for those conducting research in this area. An additional advantage of having an instrument is to provide documentation for the increasing emphasis on measuring outcomes in pharmacy education, but to our knowledge there are no tools avail￾able to objectively document the use of effective teaching techniques (such as active learning) to attain these out￾comes. We therefore sought to develop a valid and reliable active-learning inventory tool to quantify the use of active learning in large courses. In addition, we compared in￾structor perceptions of the amount and type of active learn￾ing used in the classroom to the amount and type quantified using the Active-Learning Inventory Tool as we consid￾ered potential faculty development uses for this tool. While there is no standard definition for active learn￾ing, for the purpose of this paper, we defined active learn￾ing as ‘‘...students doing things and thinking about what they are doing.’’6 In addition, we considered active learn￾ing as successfully occurring in the classroom when 3 key components were observed: (1) the context of the activity was explained, (2) the students were engaged in the activ￾ity, and (3) there was closure to the activity via reflection. We think of these elements as the CER (context, engage￾ment, reflection) components of successful active learning. METHODS A draft of the Active-Learning Inventory Tool was prepared using articles, textbooks, and online references related to active learning, as well as classroom assessment materials which emphasize active-learning techniques as a means to formatively monitor ongoing learning through a course. All materials were reviewed in order to find types of active-learning techniques and methods that have been described to quantify and categorize these active￾learning techniques. As our intentions for the use of this tool went beyond mere quantification of activities, we reviewed the literature on how to create change in faculty teaching practices.13,14 Change theory provided the con￾text for conceptualizing the approach we used to develop, introduce, and debrief this tool to instructors. Each active￾learning technique was initially categorized according to faculty risk, which was estimated based on the intensity and ease of use of the activity in the classroom. Hypoth￾esizing that a simpler tool would have greater acceptance among faculty members, we consciously grouped similar items together and kept the tool as short as possible. The proposed Active-Learning Inventory Tool that was sent out to reviewers identified, and briefly explained 22 widely accepted active-learning techniques and ranked them by degree of faculty risk as determined by the amount of time and effort it takes to design, implement, and extract learning data from the activity. To establish the validity of the Active-Learning In￾ventory Tool, we consulted with expert reviewers who had published and researched extensively in the field of education. The experts were asked to review the Active￾Learning Inventory Tool and then comment on the use of terminology and descriptions, appropriateness of the spe￾cific activities included, overall validity of the assessment, ease of use, and generalizability to other academic disci￾plines, and provide general comments. The tool was sub￾sequently modified based on the results of their written and verbal feedback, including reorganizing the rank or￾der of activities based on complexity versus faculty risk. Based on expert feedback, coding schemes and descrip￾tions of active-learning techniques were clarified and the rank order of techniques was changed to reflect complex￾ity of the active-learning activity as opposed to faculty risk. The complexity of an activity was assigned based on a combination of findings from the literature review and consensus of the authors.15 The section of tool that asked for qualitative comments about the use of active learning was also clarified. After approval by the Northeastern University Insti￾tutional Review Board, the revised Active-Learning Inventory Tool was tested for reliability in 2 stages: assessment using 3 videotaped 1-hour pharmacy lectures and then in 6 live lectures in large, school of pharmacy courses. Four trained observers (1 educational expert and 3 pharmacy faculty members) participated in this phase of American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2007; 71 (5) Article 85. 2