Passive Learning

Some of the characteristics of active learning (collaboration, co-operative learning, students being engaged in activities) imply that learners must be physically active for there to be any active learning occurring, subsequently active learning is often described as the opposite of passive learning (Haidet et al., 2004). Passive learning is often associated with teacher-centred learning (Kain, 2003) where students are spectators rather than active participants or

‘citizens of the learning environment’ (Rogers and Friedberg, 1994; p.9).

Marton and Säljö’s (1976) work on the concept of deep and surface approaches to learning raises the issue of passive learning. Students who adopt a surface approach focus on remembering facts and learning by rote which may ultimately make them more passive learners. Haidet et al. (2004) suggest that passive learning is a negative concept which is associated with didactic lecturing and often denotes ideas of learner dependency and powerlessness. Interestingly, research carried out by Haidet et al. (2004) found that when one group of learners were taught using didactic lectures and another group taught in a participatory active way (group based problem solving tasks), their knowledge

and performance in a related exam was almost the same. However, what they did find was that the group taught in the ‘active session’ perceived the

experience to be of less benefit and crucially, these learners also had lower perceptions of their ability to meet the learning objectives. These results show that although passive learning may have a bad reputation, often it is more comfortable because it is what learners are used to and what they expect. Also, the didactically taught group may have really enjoyed what they were learning and engaged with it without having to have discussions or activities.

Similar to Haidet et al. (2004), Struyven et al. (2010) conducted a study in which a cohort of student-teachers were studied; one half was taught by lecture

method, the other by student-activating methods (self-discovery learning by means of authentic tasks). Struyven et al. (2010) found that the group who were engaged as ‘active learners’ did not necessarily want to continue this approach in the workplace once they qualified. Many of the student-teachers found that the student-activating methods were uncomfortable, leading many of them to experience a crisis in confidence. Many were upset by other ‘freeloading’

students who allowed other more dedicated students to do the group work. It could be argued that one of the purposes of learning is to give the students opportunity to transform their thinking; therefore the learning has to be challenging and even uncomfortable at certain points. Brookfield (1995) discusses the need for students to be challenged so that they can experience new ways of learning and he also suggests that it is the job of the university educator to encourage students to embrace new learning methodologies in order for them to have opportunities to develop. However, it is equally important for the educator to be able to empathise with learners so as not to push them too far outside their comfort zone and risk alienation.

The passive learning and active learning argument is more complex than many researchers and educators believe it to be. To present these two concepts at polar opposites of the learning spectrum is overly simplistic. Denicolo et al.

(1992) and Mayer (2004) suggest, active learning may go beyond these physically active features (e.g. group work, discussion, collaborative projects) and veer into more complex and abstract areas such as learner autonomy, learner agency and the development of critical thinking skills.

Some previous definitions present active learning as a series of physical

endeavours undertaken by both teacher and students e.g. discussions, projects, role-plays, pair-share activities (Berry, 2008; Bonwell and Eison, 1991;

Chickering and Gamson, 1987; Prince, 2004). If active learning is simply about being involved in ‘activities’ then there is a danger that the integrity of the learning may be lost, meaning that the activity itself becomes the priority and not the content of the learning. Rather than being behaviourally active during learning, Mayer (2004) suggests learners should be cognitively active, and as Kane (2000: p.5) suggests, ‘Passive countenance needn’t reflect an inactive brain’.

Student participation in learning can be viewed as a step towards more inclusive and progressive education. Nowhere is this truer than in the philosophy of

Popular Education founded by Brazillian Educator Paulo Freire in which learners are valued as equal partners in radical and emancipatory education. Arguably, the ‘active versus passive learning’ debate could benefit from some of Popular Education’s philosophies because within Popular Education, participatory techniques and active learning cannot be solely defined by activities; active learning must be an attempt to increase the greater good for the learners (Kane, 2004). Furthermore, activities should never be gimmicks they must have serious, purposeful and educational aims and objectives (Kane 2004). What Kane (2004) is suggesting here is at odds with the idea of ‘edutainment’ (which will be discussed later) and the findings of Marsh and Ware (1982) who found that a teacher’s performance could at times have a positive effect on learners even if what they were teaching was relatively meaningless.

From a Popular Education standpoint, learning activities are meaningless without underlying principles. Active learning needs to be more than just a set of

teaching tools or methods; it has to be interlocked with a guiding set of principles and goals. However, relating back to the discussion of power in learning, Kane (2004) argues that participatory teaching techniques can be just as manipulative if not more so than traditional didactic teaching methods. Kane (2004) argues that educators can quite easily promote their own agenda during

‘activities’ and quite easily manipulate the learners, but do so it a more subtle way by getting the students on board and getting them to think they are in control.

In summary, active learning in higher education could be more easily explained by its characteristics and the principles it is based on rather than a definition of what it is or what it looks like. It seems that finding a coherent definition of active learning in higher education is challenging. It may be useful to present the two different understandings of active learning which seem to be emerging from the literature. The first is that there is a physical/instrumental

understanding which is concerned with physical activities and physical demonstrations of learning. The second is that there is a cognitive

understanding of active learning, meaning that it is what goes on inside the learner’s mind that is of priority.