Re: [Phys-l] active learning needs a theory

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

Unfortunately a theory will not promote it.  We have huge amounts of data
that show that it gives better results.  Hake's 6000 student survey is
overwhelming evidence in support of it, and yet this evidence is ignored.
To make it work, teachers have to be trained in it.  This means they have to
practice it.  Being told about it does little to change behavior.  Even
knowing that it works better of that the conventional lectures has very low
educational value still does not change behavior.

But just active is not adequate for physics and the other sciences.  Because
of the prevalence of misconceptions and miscommunication the learning has to
be properly sequenced and the activity has to be monitored.  There are other
terms such as "guided inquiry" which also apply.

At present teachers are taught theory of education, and it ends up being
very vaporous.  They have no understanding of how to apply it.  This is sort
of like teaching mechanical engineers NTNs laws, but never having them
analyze trusses.

I think the best term is one that implies that all elements are preset, so I
prefer "research based" education.  The term active is usually used to
describe activity based education which does not rely heavily on lectures.
So there is the Activity Based curricula, or the Workshop curricula...  Now
the term self regulation goes back to Piaget's ideas that organisms self
regulate.  But this does not bring in the idea the mediation (Feuerstein) is
necessary.  This is where the teacher fits in.  And finally there is the
education of the mediator, which is where the research results fit in.

There is really no one term which adequately describes all of the desirable
elements of excellent education.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> In order to have more "active learning" in and out of classroom, both
> teachers and students need to know more about its theoretical basis. Even
> the term "active learning" is a little bit problematic. Every learning,
> even bad one, implies some kind of activity on the side of the learner.
>
> It seems to me that a good place to start is to look at "self-regulated
> learning" and what its main advocates, like Barry Zimmerman and Paul
> Pinthrich, said about it.
>
> Hoping this can help, I send my best wishes