Active learning redux

[Hibush]

There was a nice discussion on Active learning a while ago https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=967.0  in which xerprofrn brought up an article by Deslauriers et al from Harvard in 2019 that has been helpful and resulted in enlightening reflections on adoption by forumites.

There is a good followup in CHE that takes a look at the effect of that article in guiding informed adoption of active learning.

To nobody's surprise, a lot of faculty and even students are resistant to adopting these methods because they like their current approach.

In reading the comments of the various good education researchers and implementers, I was struck that their lessons in active learning are not resulting in learning by their intended audience. Ironic? Is there something amiss with their teaching method?

Or, is it our faculty largely constitutes a population that has been selected stringently for learning through lecture? That is, lecture is genuinely the technique that they both learn and teach with. And that their lectures are really very good.

[marshwiggle]

There was a nice discussion on Active learning a while ago https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=967.0  in which xerprofrn brought up an article by Deslauriers et al from Harvard in 2019 that has been helpful and resulted in enlightening reflections on adoption by forumites.

There is a good followup in CHE that takes a look at the effect of that article in guiding informed adoption of active learning.

To nobody's surprise, a lot of faculty and even students are resistant to adopting these methods because they like their current approach.

In reading the comments of the various good education researchers and implementers, I was struck that their lessons in active learning are not resulting in learning by their intended audience. Ironic? Is there something amiss with their teaching method?

If the information is presented in articles, i.e. one-way flow of information, then they are equivalent to lectures, so NOT active learning. The real test would be whether workshops on active learning changed faculty behaviour, by employing the kind of active learning techniques being promoted.

[mythbuster]

I was part of one such NSF funded workshop for science postdocs. We had a weeklong workshop retreat- then went off and taught for a semester, and then workshopped again after the fact. Many of us now have faculty jobs. At the end of our second workshop our coordinator asked all of us with new faculty jobs what would make the biggest difference to doing all active teaching- the answer was departmental and administrative buy in and support.
   The thing these studies always forget is how much more time and energy intensive active learning is for the instructor. As well as how much students complain about it. Because of this, it's only really worth maintaining if your efforts are being fully recognized and appreciated by your department and the upper admin. Mine- they don't care about the teaching enough to fully support an all active learning approach. You also really need the entire program to go down the road together to have maximum impact. In my large department, that just is not happening.

So there are some tricks, techniques, and activities that I use, but I also lecture. A lot. I do what works for me and keeps the peanut gallery happy at the same time.
   

[kiana]

The thing these studies always forget is how much more time and energy intensive active learning is for the instructor. As well as how much students complain about it. Because of this, it's only really worth maintaining if your efforts are being fully recognized and appreciated by your department and the upper admin. Mine- they don't care about the teaching enough to fully support an all active learning approach. You also really need the entire program to go down the road together to have maximum impact. In my large department, that just is not happening.

Pretty much why I'm not going fully active learning. The students loathe it and the outcomes weren't *enough* better to make it worth putting myself through that.

[the_geneticist]

I was part of one such NSF funded workshop for science postdocs. We had a weeklong workshop retreat- then went off and taught for a semester, and then workshopped again after the fact. Many of us now have faculty jobs. At the end of our second workshop our coordinator asked all of us with new faculty jobs what would make the biggest difference to doing all active teaching- the answer was departmental and administrative buy in and support.
   The thing these studies always forget is how much more time and energy intensive active learning is for the instructor. As well as how much students complain about it. Because of this, it's only really worth maintaining if your efforts are being fully recognized and appreciated by your department and the upper admin. Mine- they don't care about the teaching enough to fully support an all active learning approach. You also really need the entire program to go down the road together to have maximum impact. In my large department, that just is not happening.

So there are some tricks, techniques, and activities that I use, but I also lecture. A lot. I do what works for me and keeps the peanut gallery happy at the same time.
   

Same here.  There is a lot of agreement that active learning is "good", but most of the folks in my department just lecture.  There's no incentive to spend more time or energy on your teaching.  And no punishment if you don't use active learning.
I was also one of those postdocs!  Now I spend most of my time designing good active lab projects for our undergraduate classes.

[downer]

I'm not sure what counts as "active learning." In my asynchonous online courses I get students to do a lot of interaction and writing. That's pretty active. In my classroom I get students to do presentations.

But I don't think I will do more than that. There is literally zero incentive to make any innovations in teaching from the places I teach. Apart from setting out learning objectives and outcomes.

Actually there is one place that has been saying they want an "experiential learning" component. But they resolutely refuse to explain what would count as that, especially in an online course.

[the_geneticist]

I'm not sure what counts as "active learning." In my asynchonous online courses I get students to do a lot of interaction and writing. That's pretty active. In my classroom I get students to do presentations.

But I don't think I will do more than that. There is literally zero incentive to make any innovations in teaching from the places I teach. Apart from setting out learning objectives and outcomes.

Actually there is one place that has been saying they want an "experiential learning" component. But they resolutely refuse to explain what would count as that, especially in an online course.

There is a lot that counts as active learning - just having students talk to each other about the materials is a huge help.  Same with writing and definitely yes for presentations.
I've never heard "experiential learning" before.  Do they mean having something the students make/create/design?  Having them use the tools/equipment/sound stage that they would use if they took the class in person?  Or an experience like a field trip to a museum/marsh/rollercoaster park?

[Puget]

I'm not sure what counts as "active learning." In my asynchonous online courses I get students to do a lot of interaction and writing. That's pretty active. In my classroom I get students to do presentations.

But I don't think I will do more than that. There is literally zero incentive to make any innovations in teaching from the places I teach. Apart from setting out learning objectives and outcomes.

Actually there is one place that has been saying they want an "experiential learning" component. But they resolutely refuse to explain what would count as that, especially in an online course.

There is a lot that counts as active learning - just having students talk to each other about the materials is a huge help.  Same with writing and definitely yes for presentations.
I've never heard "experiential learning" before.  Do they mean having something the students make/create/design?  Having them use the tools/equipment/sound stage that they would use if they took the class in person?  Or an experience like a field trip to a museum/marsh/rollercoaster park?

My university uses "experiential learning" in place of "active learning" as the jargon of choice. Who knows why.

[mythbuster]

Experiential learning often encompasses out of the classroom events. So think field trips and internships. Active learning can mean anything in the  class where the students have to participate. So think pair shares, case studies, games, even a pop quiz can count as active.

[downer]

Experiential learning often encompasses out of the classroom events. So think field trips and internships. Active learning can mean anything in the  class where the students have to participate. So think pair shares, case studies, games, even a pop quiz can count as active.

My internet searches suggested the same. I wonder how you could do experiential learning for calculus or Plato. Or indeed, about half the courses in the course catalog.

For an ethics course, I was thinking of telling the students to go and commit some crimes and see how it goes.

[mythbuster]

Study abroad counts as experiential. Go see where Plato or Newton lived!

[Hibush]

My place tends to be a little further from the classroom, with experiental learning being learning by doing. So rather than going to a field trip to look at something, you get to do the job for a day or a week. And reflecting on various lessons afterwards.
With biology it is pretty easy since the outside world if full of biology, and a lot of jobs apply biology in one way or another.
For calculus, you could be put in a real world sitation where students find that moving ahead turns out to require  calculus. (I have never run into such a situation in real life, so I can't provide a concrete exxample.
Mythbuster is right about Plato. Stand where he stood.

[mythbuster]

We used to have an internal grant mechanism that was for study abroad and experiential "transformative" experiences. One faculty member from Nutrition ran a study abroad every year to Tuscany. Yep. Come EXPERIENCE to foods of Italy! I think she's my hero.

[downer]

A trip to Athens would be educational for sure, but students would not learn anything about ancient thought.

I'd be far more supportive of a virtual reality trip to Ancient Athens.

[mamselle]

As a music and dance teacher, as well as art history and French (in which I involve music and dance elements), I'm always bemused at the "active" thing.

Everything I and my students do is active learning.

Ditto the folk dance class I just took (a college-linked group that is also open to local interested folks since it's online/hybrid and we pay a fee).

Youse guys is too sedentary, is all...

;--}

M.