To clarify about the language I was using earlier, what I meant by "passive" learning was that this is learning where one observes but does not contribute to others learning (witnessing a lecture), while "active" learning is something like giving a presentation or answering questions or in some way affecting/assisting someone else's learning process. I do agree that all learning is "active" in the conventional sense of the word, and apologize for any misunderstanding that I caused. I agree with David's comments about the necessity of students being willing to participate and engage in the learning/teaching process. I've witnessed several fellow students during my studies who were very intelligent and insightful people, but because of a lack of interest and/or preoccupation with other affairs, were not able to focus proper attention on the material. I like to leave posts with a question, so here is one that I think is pertinent to the conversation: Asides from encouraging personal discipline, what are effective ways teachers can interest otherwise apathetic or disinterested students in material they are not interested in or excited about? To simplify the question further, how do you encourage people to learn about something when they don't want to or are not inclined to? ------ Derek E. Pursell
--- On Mon, 1/25/10, David L. McNeely <[email protected]> wrote: From: David L. McNeely <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] decline in education, comment on active learning To: [email protected] Date: Monday, January 25, 2010, 11:56 AM Won't argue with any of what you say. I think some of the rest of us have tried to make that point, with more attention to specifics. Your post may have made it more effectively, because it was more direct. I might disagree slightly about one thing. I think that many teachers, some of them even good teachers, might cause a good student to fail to learn particular material, if the student is bothered enough by the teacher's approach to turn away -- perhaps to seek a different path, while most other students the teacher is working with are doing very well. On the other hand, I have also seen students become more interested in a subject, and pursue it successfully, because a teacher opened their eyes to areas they had been little interested in before. I don't suppose this would qualify as causing a poor student to learn, but it certainly qualifies as leading a disinterested student to interest and therefore learning. But yes, in general, teachers, good or bad, can only successfully teach students who choose to participate. Those who choose not to participate will of course not learn. As you said, all learning is active. Some others have pointed out that the teacher's choice of activity may not fit every student at every time, even though the student is active in the learning process (though the poster may not have considered the learning as being "active" in the sense that we have been discussing). I think that by participating in this discussion, I have learned, actively. Some of the discussion, especially some of the ideas expressed by some student and recently graduated participants, I wish I had heard years ago, when I was personally struggling with appropriate and effective modes of teaching. Thank you, David Mc On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Thomas Martin wrote: > First let me say that all learning is active, cause if the student doesn't > get active about actually studying and trying to understand the material, > they're not going to learn it. Second, let me say that in my experience, it > would take an incredibly bad teacher to keep a good student from learning > just as it takes an incredibly good teacher to get a bad student to learn. > Third, I would go so far as to say a majority of the > pro-active-learning/anti-lecture crowd (at least the ones I've encountered) > paint an unfairly dismal picture of what a lecture is. Lectures do not have > to be someone "spewing facts" as was previously stated. In fact, if you took > the "lecturer" that spewed disjointed facts at their students and forced > them to do "active learning" my guess is that the result would be that they > spewed disjointed activities. A good teacher has a feel, for lack of a > better term, for what information is most suited to lecture delivery, or > active dialog or inquiry, or tactile experience, and acts accordingly. > There is no one best technique. > > Beware the true believer! > > Tom Martin > Western Carolina University
