I totally agree with a lot of what Jane is saying. I constantly hear from many of my fellow faculty about the use of active learning methods to improve student learning and performance. However, my questions to us here especially, the older ones who are faculty now or have retired - didn't we all learn from lectures? There was not so much of active learning methods those days. But we have done well. And many of our peers have come out to be really good scientists/engineers/technicians.... And in my opinion this is mainly because of all the points Jane has just mentioned. We studied at a time when it was convenient to us. We were not restricted to use the one book recommended by the teacher. In fact we used many different books and in the process we got to read much more. If we had biochem exam today then we focused on that and worked on ecology another time. WHy are we forcing this 'active learning' on students? As teachers we show the way and students going down that path will pick up a lot of things that interest them. The whole journey down the path is education. Arathi
-----Original Message----- From: Jane Shevtsov <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, Jan 23, 2010 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] decline in education, comment on active learning One problem with many active learning methods is that they constrain when and how the student is to learn the material. In a traditional situation, I can attend lecture/lab, read the textbook, study with friends, study alone, decide our book sucks and use another one, look up material online, try problems, etc. It doesn't matter what methods I use or don't use. The only thing that matters is the result. In particular, I've had several math professors who graded homework to give students an incentive to do it, while also providing a way to get an A without turning in homework -- and gave fair warning that this was very unlikely to happen! On the other hand, active learning tends to be method-dependent. You're graded on the intermediate steps of learning, not just the outcome. If the methods a particular professor decides to use don't work well for me or if I already have a good grasp of the material, I still have to put in the time. Furthermore, if the professor decides that everybody needs to read the book before coming to class and gives a daily quiz to enforce the policy, the student has just lost some of the freedom to decide when to study. Maybe I find it helpful to have a lecture overview of the material before reading the more detailed book. Maybe I just have a big biochemistry exam and need to focus on that for a few days. Thus, many active learning methods have a paradoxical effect. By drawing attention to the process of learning as opposed to the outcome, they make the student more dependent on the professor for structuring their learning experience. Despite all of the above, I am not opposed to all active learning methods. In particular, I had a physiology professor in undergrad who would interrupt himself during lecture and start evaluating an idea he'd thought of or asking a question and trying to reason out the answer, thus modeling the process for us. This, plus the fact that he told the class on day one that he expected us to make mistakes and that these were just part of learning, really got people to ask questions and speak up in class -- and imposed no extra constraints. I myself, as a TA, have inflicted a journal assignment on ecosystem ecology students in which they were asked to wrestle with class material, ask questions and draw connections with their daily experiences or other classes. (This journal was only a small part of their grade and I gave substantive feedback, in the form of letters to each student.) And some things can only be learned through first-hand experience. I just wish the enthusiasm for active learning methods was tempered by an awareness of the constraints and dependence they can impose on students. Jane Shevtsov On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Sarah Berke <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I want to briefly respond to David Lawrence's comment from several days ago, > about evaluation scores declining when he switched to active learning. This > comment probably hit home for anyone who has tried active learning: > >> >>> I watched my evaluation scores decline when I switched to "active >> >>> learning." ...It was also unreasonable for me to expect them to ask > questions >> >>> relevant to the material we discussed in class. I had students >> >>> complain they didn't learn anything from me > > For anyone who has ever been in this boat, you are not alone--this is a > common phenomenon when introducing active learning methods to a student body > that is accustomed to traditional lecture-based methods. Based on my own > experiences, and those of various colleagues, I would guess that most > instructors got similar comments when they first switched over from > lecturing. I am fairly new to active learning myself, but I've talked with > colleagues who have been doing it for years, and everyone says that it > really does get better (particularly if many faculty in the department all > start using it). I think comments like "I didn't learn anything" stem from > problems with metacognition. How do you know when you've learned > something? Memorizing 30 vocabulary words is a concrete achievement, you > can point and say "There, I learned these words". But interpreting data, or > designing an experiment, or predicting the outcome of a perturbation to a > system are all rather amorphous--there's no one thing to point to and say > "I've learned this". That can throw students for a loop. Furthermore, the > level of energy and preparation required to participate in a > learner-centered classroom can push students out of their comfort zones, > particularly if they are accustomed to the ease of showing up and taking > notes through a lecture. I am not trying to dismiss your student's > comments, I'm just pointing out that some negative comments might have more > to do with feeling uncomfortable in a new situation than with learning > science per se. > > Happily, none of these issues are insurmountable. The trick is to help > students be aware of their own progress, and to bring them on board with the > goals of a learner-centered classroom. That is easier said than done, and > it might take several years of trying before you land on the best way to > accomplish that for your particular student body (but then, most new classes > take several years before you're happy with them, right?). > > Most importantly, none of these issues mean that your students were actually > not learning. You know what your students accomplished based on their > exams, papers, and class participation. You probably know that they > actually learned a lot, far more than they may have realized at the time. > > If you are convinced that active learning is better for students (and there > are good data to support that), then keep on truckin'. And pat yourself on > the back--changing the way you teach is a challenge, and your willingness to > try says more about you as an instructor than any given crop of > evaluations. Finally, if you have any colleagues who are also trying active > learning, get together regularly and compare notes. It will help a lot. > > Best wishes, > Sarah > _________________________________ > Sarah K Berke > Postdoctoral Researcher > Department of the Geophysical Sciences > University of Chicago > 5734 S. Ellis Ave > Chicago, IL 60637 > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, <www.worldbeyondborders.org> Check out my blog, <http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com>Perceiving Wholes "The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars." --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
