Active learning and passive learning

For my interviewees, active learning was quite difficult to explain. Some

lecturers in particular suggested that active learning was the opposite of passive learning and that passive learning was about students being given a set of facts rather than students exploring a subject for themselves. It was also suggested that passive learning was about pouring information into students’ minds and it was the students’job to absorb it. Participants, especially lecturers, offered examples of what active learning was not, rather than being able to clearly define what it is. However, one lecturer said that he thought all learning is active and that there was no such thing as passive learning; he seemed to believe that learning is inherently active, therefore placing the word 'active' before ‘learning’ makes no improvement. This is an important point because the lecturer believes there is no such thing as passive learning; this is a departure

from what most of the academic literature and the other participants said about active learning.

Furthermore, I was confronted by an idea that active learning may not look all that active. The word ‘active’ often has connotations of movement, activity and discussion. However, as I noted in one observation:

'In terms of active learning, the question still remains, can students be actively learning in these traditionally run classes? There certainly wasn’t any

movement around the room or ‘visible’ active learning which is not to say active learning wasn’t happening in a more subtle/internal way.' (Observer notes, Latin class, Glasgow)

There were participants who suggested that active learning is indeed learning which is demonstrated physically. One group of students said that active

learning is doing different things and not sitting listening. They also said it was not learning by rote; it is about getting up off your seat and working with different people. Similarly one lecturer asked:” ... but active, does that also mean leaping up and down?” (Interview with archaeology lecturer, Glasgow). It is clear that some participants believe that physical activity is an inherent part of active learning.

In the focus group with physics students from the University of Glasgow, they equated active learning with certain structured types of learning, like problem-based learning, which they believed was more prevalent in Medicine. For them the only ‘real’ active learning they undertook was when they were working and studying in labs, again indicating that they related the term to some type of activity. The veterinary medicine lecturer also felt that active learning occurred when students were physically active whilst on rotation in an animal hospital or farm setting. It may be that what veterinary students perceive to be the

‘active’ part of active learning is actually a form of experiential learning when they are physically engaged in hands-on activities.

However, active (in the sense of being active physically) could be quite a

restrictive and limiting interpretation of active learning . If active learning is to be defined in this way then how can it be possible to be actively learning in a

lecture? In Nablus, the geography lecturer stated that he did not use active learning because he taught using mainly classical lecturing. He qualified this by saying that he thought sometimes classical lecturing was needed because

educators have to present basic ideas and basic knowledge. His statement suggests that for him, active learning means not learning in a lecture

environment. However, not all lectures are conducted in the same way; some lecturers lecture in a didactic way, some choose to incorporate activities,

teacher-student or peer discussion into their lectures. As the geography lecturer argued, sometimes there is a need for the didactic lecture format because it is an efficient way of communicating information when it is needed.

Some of the academic disciplines and classes I observed appeared to align themselves more comfortably with the notion that active learning is something physical. In one of my observations I noted:

'In terms of active learning, I believe that the students were ‘active’ in so much that they were moving around, talking and handling the skulls.' (Observer notes biology lab, Glasgow)

Furthermore, the Iraqi biology lecturer I interviewed had a similar

understanding; she said that for her active learning means active participation and that the teacher must be active as well by questioning the students and incorporating quizzes to test students’ knowledge.

However, there were participants who said students can be actively learning without there being any physical demonstration. One lecturer at the University of Glasgow gave a philosophical definition of active learning which suggests that the 'active' part of active learning is whatever the student chooses to do with the knowledge they develop. She said “[Active learning is] learning that is

shaped and given life to by the learner” (Interview with urban planning lecturer, Glasgow). This lecturer seems to be saying that active learning is more of a philosophical approach to learning and teaching or a methodology of teaching rather than the tools, methods or exercises a teacher employs in the classroom.

Furthermore, biology students in one focus group said that active learning did not just happen in labs, that they had been in lectures and thought there had been active learning going on because for them active learning was about

engaging your brain and being inspired to find out more about what you had heard in previous days. Similarly, one lecturer said:

“…whereas [with] active learning you are much more protaganistic, you’re engaged in lots of different ways potentially, you’re engaged mentally. Your mind is engaged, [you’re] not just trying to absorb information; it's thinking, it's processing, it’s analysing it, so in a sense active learning could just be going on in your head.” (Interview with Spanish and adult education lecturer, Glasgow)

This takes the term active learning in a new direction from what the majority of previous research suggests because it proposes that active learning is a cognitive process rather than a physical one. This aligns with what O’Neill and McMahon (2005: p.29) have written about student-centred learning: that there is a

‘cognitive view which supports the idea that the activity of learning is computed in the head, or as often described ‘in the mind’.’

There seemed to be some cross-over between active learning and what could be described as student-centred learning. Consider my observation of a physics class:

'This was unlike any of my other observations to date. The lecturer called the class a ‘meeting’ rather than a tutorial which did change the focus for me slightly I feel. I understand that some curriculum areas lend themselves more neatly to student-centred and/or active learning, and this class was one of them. However, I cannot take away the fact that the entire session, and indeed the entire group project, was put together by the students (five of them in total). The purpose of the class was for the students to chart their progress so far with their physics-based group film making project and also to receive help and guidance from the lecturer. The students have chosen to make a film about a current piece of research which is being conducted by the physics dept. at the University of Glasgow…the students really seemed in control of what they were doing.' (Observer notes, physics tutorial, Glasgow)

In another observation I was initially impressed with the ‘student-centredness’

of what was going on but then became slightly disappointed that it was short lived:

'I am unsure of whether or not the students were supposed to interact, but to me it seemed quite dry and ‘staged’. I was expecting the student led tutorial to be more student led. Why couldn’t the presenters pose the discussion questions and lead the analysis and feedback? Am I expecting too much? Should they be capable of this at honours level?’ (Observer notes, English literature tutorial, Glasgow)

By asking lecturers if I could observe their classes where they thought I may see some active learning, I had in fact set myself up (in some instances) to be

disappointed. My expectations of what I would find during my observations were possibly not realistic. It is difficult to articulate exactly what I was expecting to see, but I did expect there to be more physical or visible active learning. As mentioned by Prince (2004), my pre-existing ideas about active learning led me to believe that it is a way of learning and teaching which is quite radically removed from didactic teaching. At the beginning of the observation of the English literature tutorial, it initially looked like the students had responsibility for running part of the class. Berry (2008) and Denicolo et al. (1992) all suggest that one of the main characteristics of active learning in higher education is that students have responsibility over what and how they learn. Of course, this may be aspirational as much of what goes on in the university class room is pre-determined by curriculum and other factors. Nespor (1987) suggests that teachers may think active/progressive/student-centred learning is a utopian alternative to the reality of the classroom; it is not reality, it does not exist.