On Active Learning

Richard Feynman, 1988

Earlier this week I had to respond to the following prompt in pedagogy class.  I admit I wandered off course a bit in my passion, but I thought it would be worth sharing here:

----

1. How do you define active learning? How do you think teachers and education researchers define it?

2. What are some misconceptions about what active learning is and isn't?

3. Describe an instance of active learning that was valuable for you. What were the elements that made it valuable?

4. What are your constructive criticisms about the Freeman et al. paper?

 

It seems to me that the idea behind active learning is to standardize and make widely available the process that would normally go on within a single engaged student’s mind.  That is to say, recognizing that a large portion, perhaps most, students do not naturally make connections, pursue questions further, or seek out application of material they encounter in class the pedagological answer has been to give them assistance in doing so.  In essence, to facilitate learning, because that is what the aforementioned habits do.

As such, I think the common misconception about active learning is that it is about the methods rather than the goal.  It’s easy to see the flashy changes, converting lectures to discussion groups, slides to activities, and see that as the core (although to be fair, being apes just touching things does help on its own).  In a way, it’s kind of like what I feel is the misconception about lecturing – that it was all about the memorization of the facts, rather than listening to the person and the mind behind the presentation.  But of course facts are important, for we have to build models out of something.  I think of it like a stream cutting a canyon, or perhaps a bamboo scaffold that is used to erect a building; long after the creative materials are gone, the individual facts that described the Krebs cycle or stages of ecological succession, a broader pattern of thought remains.  That is, assuming that the students engaged with the facts, and so learned them, truly, which is what is at stake here.

Now, I’m not sure this is how it is commonly viewed in the educational community but I will take a stab.  It seems to me that how it is generally approached now is that active learning is aligned with how people learn, based on psychological and sociological principles, and therefore is the correct, I would say almost the moral, way to teach.  That by comparison the older method of lecture is inherently exclusive, sustained only by tradition, habit, and ignorance of what constitutes true learning.  Once revealed as mere information regurgitation, active learning may sweep it and its many follies away in a fundamental change of focus.  Teacher- to student-centric, external to internal, absorptive to creative, that sort of thing.  But in large part this is merely a response to trends.

Increasingly in our civilization education is the gateway to comfortable lifestyle, and the result is that a higher proportion of the populace is motivated to attend post-secondary school whether they have an interest in learning or not.  Unfortunately, while lecturing may be a fantastic way to rapidly expand the knowledge of and provide role models for those so already inclined, it is woefully inadequate for producing interest and belonging de novo.  So it must be supplemented, or supplanted, by another approach which does so: active learning.

An aside: Under this there may seem to be a fallacious assumption on my part, that people are easily categorized by ability or attitude.  A sort of sinister judgementalness with regards to human nature, and perhaps a secret glee of superiority as well.  I wish to take a moment to dispel that.  I have no objections to the general findings of Freeman et al. 2013, that students, especially students who traditionally perform worse, can be genuinely helped by active learning.  That attitudes of indifference can be addressed, lacunae in knowledge filled, and that many who would have abandoned the field for the wrong reasons can be retained through better course design.  I think it’s wonderful, that less and less in education we must say, “There but for the grace of God go I.”  But I also want to put it in its place in recognizing what it does, and also perhaps what it costs.

When I was growing up I loved the Discovery Channel.  It was a fantastic network, full of highly-educational series that mixed visuals with much information.  Aside from the biology pieces, which I always adored, I had a special fondness for the history programs.  The old-style where as a narrator talked there would be images, old footage or graphics, shown on the screen; perhaps a conversationally-framed speaker sitting comfortably in a stuffed chair as they were interviewed.  You were there because you wanted to know; its presentation for better or worse determined its effectiveness.  In particular certain presenters, such as David Attenborough or Kenneth Clark, were an inspiration for how their mere existence hinted at so much more.

Nowadays those are gone, replaced by programs that target a broader audience.  Simplified storylines, creations of fictitious “discovery” narratives for drama, cutout personalities, and so forth are the mainstays. “Reenactments” are the worst.  Flashy, empty spectacles that soak up screen time but which convey almost no real information; and because they are more expensive than archival footage, you can be guaranteed they will be used repeatedly in order to pad the time and get full bang for their buck.  Recognizing that more people are attracted by immediate entertainment than patient exposition the old style has been lost.

Now, I do not compare active learning directly to this, for as I noted above I am sold that it works in helping people truly engage and get more out of a class.  Perhaps even change the direction of their life for the better if we are lucky.  Active learning isn’t an empty stunt.  But in the process what you have done is redirected effort away from one pure purpose that could assume the learner coming to the teacher with another that divides its energy with enticing them forth.  For many this is a gain.  For a few this is a disservice.  One of the references in the Freeman paper, Burgan 2006, expresses it well:

“Recordings of Feynman’s lectures are still available; he delivers complicated ideas in a brash Queens accent, punctuated by jokes, ingenious analogies, and a friendly eagerness to accommodate undergraduate limitations. Like many other faculty, Feynman had gifts that were forensic and dramatic as well as intellectual. Such teachers thrive in lecture halls, and their classes are over-subscribed and overflowing… Lecture courses by such teachers can be as exciting as hearing a great violinist play the Beethoven concerto. Gaining admission to their performances is one of the reasons to go to college. Rarely do students have the chance to observe intellectual mastery and excitement in their daily world. When they find it on a campus, it validates the life—the liveliness—of the mind.”

I believe that there is something to this, that the opportunity to partake of such experiences are transformative to the right person.  Obviously not all, or even a majority, of lecture classes are like this.  Many are desperately dull readings of PowerPoints whose only saving grace is that they keep the student aware of where they ought to be in the book.  But nonetheless, above is what is aspired to, just as I’m sure when/if active learning takes over it will be found there are professors who conduct their class and others who let it conduct them.  Educational programs are sort of like pots that way: before they exist they are flawless.

Now, I’m not trying to set up a false dichotomy, because I think all but the most avid proponents of active learning recognize that at some point or another information has to enter the equation.  Lectures don’t have to vanish because people are doing more activities, and teachers don’t stop being inspirational because they aren’t talking most of the time.  But I do believe that these are curtailed inevitably, for time and energy must be spent elsewhere. 

At this point a natural objection arises: but the findings also demonstrate that high-achieving students are either not impacted or even improved by active learning as well.  That this is a win-win transition where everybody achieves “success.”  Well, the primary measure in Freeman, as in most others, is of course grades and other assessments.  It can be clearly recorded that A-students don’t suddenly stop being A-students when transitioning from lecture to active learning, and that they often do better on competency tests before and after.  Again, I think the statistics are convincing on this point and I’m not arguing against them.  Yet as I hope the quote above impresses, it isn’t all about that.  It is about appreciating a dimension of human experience, and that while it is true that everybody passes, for some they do not know what “success” might have truly been.

In any case, that is my roundabout critique of the Freeman paper, not from a methodological perspective but a philosophical one.  It bothers me when all the lines on the graph point upward in a way that almost seems to beg what is being missed or redefined in order to make it so tidy.  Also it bothers me from my own experience, that I know that at least one person, myself, feels at home in a lecture by a passionate expert but excluded when comporting with fellow novices.  Neither of these things is an argument against active learning and its implementation; as I started above, the majority sentiment is not my own, and as universities must now not only foster learning but turn out a product the result is inevitable.  But I do wish to at least occasionally ask of people, “Do you not hear the call?”