Active learning

This article is about an educational technique. For active learning in the context of machine learning, see Active learning (machine learning).

Active learning is a model of instruction that focuses the responsibility of learning on learners. It was popularized in the 1990s by its appearance on the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) report (Bonwell & Eison 1991). In this report they discuss a variety of methodologies for promoting "active learning". They cite literature which indicates that to learn, students must do more than just listen: They must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems. It relates to the three learning domains referred to as knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA), and that this taxonomy of learning behaviours can be thought of as "the goals of the learning process" (Bloom, 1956). In particular, students must engage in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.[1] Active learning engages students in two aspects – doing things and thinking about the things they are doing (Bonwell and Eison, 1991).

Nature of active learning

There are diverse range of alternatives for the term "active learning" like learning through play, technology based learning, activity based learning, group work, project method, etc. the underlying factor behind these are some significant qualities and characteristics of active learning. Active learning is more than just listening, active participation of each and every student is a necessary aspect in active learning. Students must be doing things and simultaneously think about the work done and the purpose behind it so that they can enhance their higher order thinking capabilities. Many research studies have proven that active learning as a strategy has promoted achievement levels and some others say that content mastery is possible through active learning strategies. However, some students as well as teacher's find it difficult to adapt to the new learning technique.[2] Active learning should transform students from passive listeners to active participants, helps the student understand the subject through inquiry, gathering and analyzing data through which solving higher order cognitive problems. There is intensive use of scientific and quantitative literacy across the curriculum and technology based learning is also in high demand in concern with active learning.[3] Barnes (1989) [4][5] suggested principles of active learning:

  1. Purposive: the relevance of the task with the students' concerns.
  2. Reflective: students' reflection on the meaning of what is learnt.
  3. Negotiated: negotiation of goals and methods of learning between students and teachers.
  4. Critical: students appreciate different ways and means of learning the content.
  5. Complex: students compare learning tasks with complexities existing in real life and making reflective analysis.
  6. Situation-driven: the need of the situation is taken into consideration in order to establish learning tasks.
  7. Engaged: real life tasks are reflected in the activities conducted for learning.

Active learning requires appropriate learning environment through the implementation of right strategy. Characteristics of learning environment are:[6][7]

  1. Aligned with constructivist strategies and evolved from traditional philosophies.
  2. Promoting research based learning through investigation and contains authentic scholarly content.
  3. Encouraging leadership skills of the students through self-development activities.
  4. Creating atmosphere suitable for collaborative learning for building knowledgeable learning communities.
  5. Cultivating a dynamic environment through interdisciplinary learning and generating high profile activities for better learning experience.
  6. Integration of prior knowledge with new ones to incur rich structure of knowledge among the students.
  7. Task based performance enhancement by giving the student's a realistic practical sense of the subject matter learnt in the classroom.

Constructivist Framework

Active learning coordinates with the principles of constructivism which are, cognitive, meta-cognitive, evolving and affective in nature. Studies have shown that immediate results in construction of knowledge is not possible through active learning, the child goes through process of knowledge construction, knowledge recording and knowledge absorption. This process of knowledge construction is dependent on previous knowledge of the learner where the learner is self-aware of the process of cognition and can control and regulate it by themselves.[8] There are several aspects of learning and some of them are:

  1. Learning through meaningful reception by David Ausubel, he emphasizes on the previous knowledge the learner possesses and considers it as key factor to learning
  2. Learning through discovery by Jerome Bruner, where students learn through discovery of ideas with the help of situations provided by the teacher.
  3. Conceptual change, misconceptions takes place as the student's discover knowledge without any guidance, teacher's provide knowledge keeping in mind the common misconceptions about the content and keep an evaluatory check on the knowledge constructed by the student's.
  4. Social Constructivism by Bandura and Vygotsky, collaborative group work within the framework of cognitive strategies like questioning, clarifying, predicting and summarizing.[9]

Active learning exercises

Bonwell and Eison (1991) suggested learners work collaboratively, discuss materials while role-playing, debate, engage in case study, take part in cooperative learning, or produce short written exercises, etc. The argument is "when should active learning exercises be used during instruction?". Numerous studies have shown that introducing active learning activities (such as simulations, games, contrasting cases, labs,..) before, rather than after lectures or readings, results in deeper learning, understanding, and transfer.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] The degree of instructor guidance students need while being "active" may vary according to the task and its place in a teaching unit. In an active learning environment learners are immersed in experiences within which they are engaged in meaning-making inquiry, action, imagination, invention, interaction, hypothesizing and personal reflection (Cranton 2012).

Examples of "active learning" activities include

Use of technology

In order to have active learning experience, use of technology tools and multimedia helps enhance the atmosphere of the classroom. Each student will be actively engaged in the learning process. Using movies and games the teacher can make the experience more effective. The theoretical foundation of this learning process are :

  1. Flow: Flow is a concept to enhance the focus level of the student as each and every individual becomes aware and completely involved in the learning atmosphere. In accordance with one's own capability and potential, through self-awareness, students will perform the task at hand. The first methodology to measure flow was Csikszentmihalyi's Experience Sampling (ESM).
  2. Learning Styles: Acquiring knowledge through one's own technique is called learning style. Learning occurs in accordance with one's own potential as every child is different and has potential in different areas. It caters to all kinds of learner's: visual, kinaesthetic, cognitive and affective.
  3. Locus of Control: Ones with high internal locus of control believe that every situation or event is attributable to their resources and behavior. Ones with high external locus of control believe that nothing is under their control.
  4. Intrinsic Motivation: Intrinsic motivation is a factor that deals with self-perception about the task at hand. Interest, attitude and results will be dependent on the self-perception of the given activity.[22]

Research evidence

Numerous studies have shown evidence to support active learning, given adequate prior instruction.

Richard Hake (1998) reviewed data from over 6000 physics students in 62 introductory physics courses and found that students in classes that utilized active learning and interactive engagement techniques improved 25 percent points, achieving an average gain of 48% on a standard test of physics conceptual knowledge, the Force Concept Inventory, compared to a gain of 23% for students in traditional, lecture-based courses.[23]

Similarly, Hoellwarth & Moelter (2011)[24] showed that when instructors switched their physics classes from traditional instruction to active learning, student learning improved 38 percent points, from around 12% to over 50%, as measured by the Force Concept Inventory, which has become the standard measure of student learning in physics courses.

In "Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research," Prince (2004) found that "there is broad but uneven support for the core elements of active, collaborative, cooperative and problem-based learning" in engineering education.[25]

Michael (2006),[26] in reviewing the applicability of active learning to physiology education, found a "growing body of research within specific scientific teaching communities that supports and validates the new approaches to teaching that have been adopted."

In a 2012 report titled "Engage to Excel,"[27] the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) described how improved teaching methods, including engaging students in active learning, will increase student retention and improve performance in STEM courses. One study described in the report found that students in traditional lecture courses were twice as likely to leave engineering and three times as likely to drop out of college entirely compared with students taught using active learning techniques. In another cited study, students in a physics class that used active learning methods learned twice as much as those taught in a traditional class, as measured by test results.

See also

References

Citations

  1. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70 (4), 293–315.
  2. Bonwell, Charles; Eison, James (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom (PDF). Information Analyses - ERIC Clearinghouse Products (071). p. 3. ISBN 978-1-878380-06-7. ISSN 0884-0040.
  3. Bean, John C. (2011). Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking and Active Learning in the Classroom (2 ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 384. ISBN 978-1-118-06233-3.
  4. Barnes, Douglas. Active Learning. Leeds University TVEI Support Project, 1989. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-872364-00-1.
  5. Kyriacou, Chris. "Active Learning in Secondary School Mathematics". British Educational Research Journal 18 (3): 309–318.
  6. Grabinger and Dunlap, R. Scott and Joanna C. "Rich environments for active learning: a definition". Retrieved 25 September 2015.
  7. Panitz, Theodore (1999-12-00). COLLABORATIVE VERSUS COOPERATIVE LEARNING- A COMPARISON OF THE TWO CONCEPTS WHICH WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING NATURE OF INTERACTIVE LEARNING (PDF). Eric. Retrieved 25 September 2015. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. Anthony, Glenda (1996). "Active Learning in a Constructivist Framework". Jstor 31 (4). Retrieved 24 September 2015.
  9. Rusbult, Craig. "Constructivism as a Theory of Active Learning". Retrieved 25 September 2015.
  10. Brant, G., Hooper, E., & Sugrue, B. (1991). Which comes first: The simulation or the lecture? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(4), 469-481.
  11. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and instruction, 16(4), 475-5223.
  12. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2011). Classroom-based experiments in productive failure. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2812-2817).
  13. Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523-550.
  14. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424.
  15. Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651-672.
  16. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45-83.
  17. Westermann, K., & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction: evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science, 40(4), 673-689.
  18. McKeachie, W.J., Svinicki,M. (2006). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth.
  19. Weimer, Maryellen. "10 benefits of getting students to participate in classroom discussions". Faculty Focus. Faculty Focus. Retrieved 11 March 2015.
  20. Robertson, Kristina (2006). "Increase Student Interaction with "Think-Pair-Shares" and "Circle Chats"". colorincolorado.org. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
  21. Harmann, Kerstin. "Assessing Student Perceptions of the benefits of discussions in small-group, large-class, and online learning contexts". eric.ed.gov. Retrieved 10 March 2015.
  22. Karahocaa; et al. (2010). "Computer assisted active learning system development for critical thinking in history of civilization". Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences.
  23. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American journal of Physics, 66, 64.
  24. Hoellwarth, C., & Moelter, M. J. (2011). The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 79, 540.
  25. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education, 93(3), 223-231.
  26. Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works?. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167.
  27. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing on million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_feb.pdf

Works cited

Toronto: Wall & Emerson.

Further references

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, February 05, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.