Discussion Area for INLT Post-IGC Workshop paper on Active learning
For the discussion to work we need people to engage with it. We hope therefore that you will plan to visit the Web site every few days during the discussion period and contribute your views. Above all we should aim for the discussion to be stimulating and enjoyable.
In making your comments, please phrase the majority of them as discussion points, expressing viewpoints, and raising questions to encourage other colleagues to respond. These comments should be addressed to all the delegates and not just the authors. You may also like to make some suggestions to the authors about additional points and references that they might consider including.
Authors are encouraged to join in the debate of their own papers by responding to issues raised and clarifying their own views.
To join the discussion simply send your comments by email to Mike Sanders (masanders@plymouth.ac.uk) who will add them to the appropriate area of this webpage. Here are some guidelines when submitting comments.
- If responding to a comment please remember to indicate which comment you are responding to in your email (e.g. you may wish to use "Re: subject")
- If you are posting a new comment please give your comment a title or subject
- We will not display your email address with your comments unless you indicate in your email that you are happy for us to do so
Many thanks for your input
Comments / Threads So Far
- Comment on Active learning paper (from John Bradbeer)
- Comment on Active learning paper (from Eric Pawson)
- Comment on Active learning paper (from Lee Thompson)
- Comment on Active learning paper (from Ruth Healey)
- Comment on Active learning paper (from Ian Fuller)
- Comment on Active learning paper (from Brian Chalkley)
Subject: Comment on Active learning paper
From: John Bradbeer - University of Portsmouth, UK
Date: 6th June 2006
Posting:
This is an interesting paper and I am sure that it should trigger a great deal of thought among the geographer-educator community. Perhaps I write now more as an educator than as a geographer and so my comments may reflect a slightly more distanced position from the geographical mainstream...read more (21kb rtf opens in Word).
Subject: Comment on Active learning paper
From: Eric Pawson, University of Canterbury, NZ
Date: 12th June 2006
Posting:
Great paper: no wonder the team leader won an Award for Sustained Excellence at the NZ Tertiary Teaching Awards last year! I'm especially taken by the e-portfolio and reading journals ideas. It's also encouraging to see myth 2 debunked: that active learning doesn't suit first years. I'm working through some of these issues - including peer review - with colleagues at the moment, precisely to try to achieve some deeper learning at first year level. It has always baffled me that primary school children are trusted with active learning, but that by the time one gets to high school and becomes a 'student', it's off the agenda. This is one of the things that then does pose a challenge for active learning with first year university students.
One of the best active learning methods I have used over the years is the landscape assay of Haigh and Revill (1995) referred to on page 3. I use it less for 'observation and classification' than to encourage students (postgrads in this case) to challenge preconceptions and work through how to represent (actively) environmental perspectives other than their own. But no matter how we set it up (re Brookfield, page 13) generally the results are great on 'activity', not bad on 'reflection' but leave something to be desired at the level of theorisation.
Subject: Comment on Active learning paper
From: Lee Thompson,
University of Canterbury Te Whare Wananga O Waitaha, NZ
Date: 13th June 2006
Posting:
Being relatively new to the world of tertiary teaching I found this paper very interesting and like Eric Pawson found the e-portfolio and reading journal ideas very appealing.
On the issue of gender (in which I have a strong interest), the paper states (following Hanson and Moser 2003) that active learning is particularly effective in reaching women and perhaps minority groups (pge 1). Does this mean that it is less effective in reaching young men, or are the outcomes neutral? Given the noise that has been generated in New Zealand about the way boys are possibly disadvantaged by our new high school qualifications, which rely on a mix of internal assessment and exam, rather than all on a final exam,I wonder if this could become a criticism leveled at active learning. I am curious to know if there is anything else written about this issue.
Having been involved last year in a 300 level course structured completely around problem-based learning in the form of group work, I am struck by the ways that I think that it succeeds and those in which it does not. These thoughts map very closely on to what Eric Pawson found in his postgraduate course. The projects that result from the course get ten points on the activity front, 8 points on the reflection front, and 0-1 on the application of theory front - a frustrating situation indeed.
Subject: Comment on Active learning paper
From: Ruth Healey, University of Sheffield, UK
Date: 15th June 2006
Posting:
I really enjoyed this paper. I found it particularly interesting as I have recently taken a short course in teaching designed for PhD students and the styles of teaching that they undertake. As it happens in this course we undertook various active learning tasks, alongside a web based discussion and producing a portfolio. So I have first hand experience of some of the activities discussed.
The emphasis on reflection I think is very useful. A substantial part of the portfolio concentrated on reflecting about our experiences of teaching. Writing this helped me think about my learning and how I could improve. One thing I would be interested to see a little more of, is how the authors suggest to develop 'active reflection'. They clearly outline the usefulness of students reflecting on what they are learning and how they are learning it, I thought perhaps some suggestions of practises of 'active reflection' beyond the evaluation forms completed by students so that reflection benefits them before the end of their course.
In your discussion of Kolb's theory of experiential learning I wondered if Healey et al's 2005 article (reference at the end) might be useful. In this article they discuss Kolb's Learning Style Inventory and how "departments should aim to produce balanced learners with a with a full range of learning capacities rather than simply matching teaching to existing learning styles"(p 30). I thought that this makes for an interesting point within your argument of how active learning and active reflection reach to the four stages of the experiential learning cycle, and as such different learning styles.
I found the example of the reading journal exercise very interesting, especially for encouraging critical thinking. I just wondered whether you had noticed any change in the average grades for the module through implementing this exercise? Did exam or course marks improve as they had learnt to critically engage with the reading more?
I also thought that the point about explaining to the students the rationale behind active learning was particuarly useful. I think this will help students a lot and make them see the benefits of this style much more, especially if being asked to reflect upon their what they have learnt and how they have learnt it.
Healey, M., Kneale, P. and Bradbeer, J. (2005) Learning styles among geography undergraduates: an international comparison, Area 37.1 pp30-42.
Subject: Comment on Active learning paper
From: Ian Fuller, Massey University, NZ
Date: 20th June 2006
Posting:
An interesting paper, but a more direct answer to the question posed in the title would be helpful - does 'dabbling' in active learning promote deep learning, or is deep learning better fostered / promoted by courses which do more than dabble, and which are actually structured around active learning - such as laboratory-based and fieldwork-based courses?
Also, how is deep learning measured? In my experience of lab and field-based courses in physical geography, active learning does not necessarily foster a deep approach to learning. For some students there may still be a tendency to skate over the surface and jump through the hoops, without developing that deeper understanding of the subject, even though the course and assessments are designed to foster a deeper approach. To quote from Lonergan and Andreson (1988:70) writing in the context of fieldwork, "effective learning cannot be expected just because we take students into the field”. We can do all the 'right things' and still find students are not learning deeply. Do the case studies in this paper provide substantial evidence of improved depth to learning? I guess this also follows up on one of Ruth Healey's points regarding grade improvement. Interestingly I have also adopted Regina's reading journal model in a paper I teach on River Dynamics and found that the students are now far more engaged with the literature. Whether this will translate to grade improvement / deeper learning remains to be seen...
Subject: Comment on Active learning paper
From: Brian Chalkley, University of Plymouth, UK
Date: 29th June 2006
Posting:
- This paper is already in an advanced condition and benefits from a clear focus on Geography and a strong international dimension.
- What is the basis on which the case studies in section 2 were selected? In what way are they representative?
- I wonder whether “myths 2 and 6” can really be described as such on the basis of the evidence put forward in the paper.