Site
Links

Home

Search for ERIC
Digests

About This Site and
Copyright

Privacy Policy

Resources for Library
Instruction

Information Literacy Blog

ERIC Identifier: ED340272
Publication Date: 1991-09-00

Author: Bonwell, Charles C. - Eison, James A.
Source:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC.| George
Washington Univ. Washington DC.

Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom.
ERIC Digest.

Research consistently has shown that traditional lecture
methods, in which professors talk and students listen, dominate college
and university classrooms. It is therefore important to know the nature of
active learning, the empirical research on its use, the common obstacles
and barriers that give rise to faculty members' resistance to interactive
instructional techniques, and how faculty, faculty developers,
administrators, and educational researchers can make real the promise of
active learning.

WHAT IS ACTIVE LEARNING AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

Surprisingly, educators' use of the term "active learning"
has relied more on intuitive understanding than a common definition.
Consequently, many faculty assert that all learning is inherently active
and that students are therefore actively involved while listening to
formal presentations in the classroom. Analysis of the research literature
(Chickering and Gamson 1987), however, suggests that students must do more
than just listen: They must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving
problems. Most important, to be actively involved, students must engage in
such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
Within this context, it is proposed that strategies promoting active
learning be defined as instructional activities involving students in
doing things and thinking about what they are doing.

Use of these techniques in the classroom is vital because of
their powerful impact upon students' learning. For example, several
studies have shown that students prefer strategies promoting active
learning to traditional lectures. Other research studies evaluating
students' achievement have demonstrated that many strategies promoting
active learning are comparable to lectures in promoting the mastery of
content but superior to lectures in promoting the development of students'
skills in thinking and writing. Further, some cognitive research has shown
that a significant numbe of individuals have learning styles best served
by pedagogical techniques other than lecturing. Therefore, a thoughtful
and scholarly approach to skillful teaching requires that faculty become
knowledgeable about the many ways strategies promoting active learning
have been successfully used across the disciplines. Further, each faculty
member should engage in self-reflection, exploring his or her personal
willingness to experiment with alternative approaches to instruction.

HOW CAN ACTIVE LEARNING BE INCORPORATED IN THE
CLASSROOM?

The modification of traditional lectures (Penner 1984) is
one way to incorporate active learning in the classroom. Research has
demonstrated, for example, that if a faculty member allows students to
consolidate their notes by pausing three times for two minutes each during
a lecture, students will learn significantly more information (Ruhl,
Hughes, and Schloss 1987). Two other simple yet effective ways to involve
students during a lecture are to insert brief demonstrations or short,
ungraded writing exercises followed by class discussion. Certain
alternatives to the lecture format further increase student level of
engagement: (1) the feedback lecture, which consists of two minilectures
separated by a small-group study session built around a study guide, and
(2) the guided lecture, in which students listen to a 20- to 30-minute
presentation without taking notes, followed by their writing for five
minutes what they remember and spending the remainder of the class period
in small groups clarifying and elaborating the material.

Discussion in class is one of the most common strategies
promoting active learningmwith good reason. If the objectives of a course
are to promote long-term retention of information, to motivate students
toward further learning, to allow students to apply information in new
settings, or to develop students' thinking skills, then discussion is
preferable to lecture (McKeachie et al. 1986). Research has suggested,
however, that to achieve these goals faculty must be knowledgeable of
alternative techniques and strategies for questioning and discussion
(Hyman 1980) and must create a supportive intellectual and emotional
environment that encourages students to take risks (Lowman 1984).

Several additional strategies promoting active learning have
been similarly shown to influence favorably students' attitudes and
achievement. Visual-based instruction, for example, can provide a helpful
focal point for other interactive techniques. In-class writing across the
disciplines is another productive way to involve students in doing things
and thinking about the things they are doing. Two popular instructional
strategies based on problem-solving model include the case study method of
instruction and Guided Design. Other active learning pedagogies worthy of
instructors' use include cooperative learning, debates, drama, role
playing and simulation, and peer teaching. In short, the published
literature on alternatives to traditional classroom presentations provides
a rich menu of different approaches faculty can readily add to their
repertoire of instructional skills.

WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS?

To address adequately why most faculty have not embraced
recent calls for educational reform, it is necessary first to identify and
understand common barriers to instructional change, including the powerful
influence of educational tradition; faculty self-perceptions and
self-definition of roles; the discomfort and anxiety that change creates;
and the limited incentives for faculty to change.

But certain specific obstacles are associated with the use
of active learning including limited class time; a possible increase in
preparation time; the potential difficulty of using active learning in
large classes; and a lack of needed materials, equipment, or resources.

Perhaps the single greatest barrier of all, however, is the
fact that faculty members' efforts to employ active learning involve
risk--the risks that students will not participate, use higher-order
thinking, or learn sufficient content, that faculty members will feel a
loss of control, lack necessary skills, or be criticized for teaching in
unorthodox ways. Each obstacle or barrier and type of risk, however, can
be successfully overcome through careful, thoughtful planning.

WHAT CONCLUSIONS SHOULD BE DRAWN AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MADE?

The reform of instructional practice in higher education
must begin with faculty members' efforts. An excellent first step is to
select strategies promoting active learning that one can feel comfortable
with. Such low-risk strategies are typically of short duration, structured
and planned, focused on subject matter that is neither too abstract nor
too controversial, and familiar to both the faculty member and the
students.

Faculty developers can help stimulate and support faculty
members' efforts to change by highlighting the instructional importance of
active learning in the newsletters and publications they distribute.
Further, the use of active learning should become both the subject matter
of faculty development workshops and the instructional method used to
facilitate such programs. And it is important that faculty developers
recognize the need to provide follow-up to, and support for, faculty
members' efforts to change.

Academic administrators can help these initiatives by
recognizing and rewarding excellent teaching in general and the adoption
of instructional innovations in particular. Comprehensive programs to
demonstrate this type of administrative commitment (Cochran 1989) should
address institutional employment policies and practices, the allocation of
adequate resources for instructional development, and the development of
strategic administrative action plans.

Equally important is the need for more rigorous research to
provide a scientific foundation to guide future practices in the
classroom. Currently, most published articles on active learning have been
descriptive accounts rather than empirical investigations, many are out of
date, either chronologically or methodologically, and a large number of
important conceptual issues have never been explored. New qualitative and
quantitative research should examine strategies that enhance students'
learning from presentations; explore the impact of previously overlooked,
yet educationally significant, characteristics of students, such as
gender, different learning styles, or stage of intellectual development;
and be disseminated in journals widely read by faculty.

In retrospect, it appears that previous classroom
initiatives and written materials about active learning have all too often
been isolated and fragmented. The resulting pedagogical efforts have
therefore lacked coherence, and the goal of interactive classrooms has
remained unfulfilled. Through the coordinated efforts of individual
faculty, faculty developers, academic administrators, and educational
researchers, however, higher education in the coming decade CAN make real
the promise of active learning!

SELECTED REFERENCES

Chickering, Arthur W., and Zelda F. Gamson. March 1987.
"Seven Principles for Good Practice." AAHE Bulletin 39: 3-7. ED 282 491. 6
pp. MF-01; PC-01.

Cochran, Leslie H. 1989. Administrative Commitment to
Teaching. Cape Girardeau, Mo.: Step Up, Inc.

Hyman, Ronald T. 1980. Improving Discussion Leadership. New
York: Columbia Univ., Teachers College Press.

Lowman, Joseph. 1984. Mastering the Techniques of Teaching.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McKeachie, Wilbert J., Paul R. Pintrich, Yi-Guang Lin, and
David A.F. Smith. 1986. Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom: A
Review of the Research Literature. Ann Arbor: Regents of The Univ. of
Michigan. ED 314 999. 124 pp. MF-01; PC-05.

Penner, Jon G. 1984. Why Many College Teachers Cannot
Lecture. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

Ruhl, Kathy L., Charles A. Hughes, and Patrick J. Schloss.
Winter 1987. "Using the Pause Procedure to Enhance Lecture Recall."
Teacher Education and Special Education 10: 14-18.

-----

This ERIC digest is based on a new full-length report in the
ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION REPORT series, prepared by the ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education in cooperation with the Association for
the Study of Higher Education, and published by the School of Education at
the George Washington University.

Search the
Web.

Library Reference Search

Please note that this site is privately owned and is in no way related to any
Federal agency or ERIC unit.  Further, this site is using a privately owned
and located server. This is NOT a government sponsored or government sanctioned
site. ERIC is a Service Mark of the U.S. Government. This site exists to provide
the text of the public domain ERIC Documents previously produced by ERIC.
No new content will ever appear here that would in any way challenge the ERIC
Service Mark of the U.S. Government.

Satellite TV
DVD Rental
DVD Rentals