Reflection on Charles Bonwell workshop about active learning strategies

Last week on September 30th a few people from our class (including myself) attended the workshop of Charles Bowell PhD, who is a National guru in active learning. There were about 70-80 people in the room. This workshop was the one of the best workshops I ever saw. The event was from 9am – noon, it is the reason why I was late for the half of the class. But I think it is a good idea to share some thought with the class. The author spoke about pros and cons of active learning strategies, which are an integral part of contemporary higher education.
Before this workshop I had some opinion about active learning strategies. I think the term “active learning” is not always appropriate. As a contrast to “active learning” many scholars called classical lectures as a “passive learning” or “passive listening”. First, I don’t understand how the learning can be “passive”. The method when an instructor asks students to work in groups, including different activities, might be effective enough, but I am against of “attacks” towards the lecture method. My impression is that there is a new paradigm in American higher education, which states that: “the active learning is better than lecture”. This fashionable conception is pushed to be employed by schools and many instructors are resistant to change. A range of researchers is trying to prove that “active learning is more effective”. But on the other hand, my question is: why the lectures are not effective anymore?
During the lecture, there is a direct transformation of information from the professor to the student. The main idea of this process (lecture) is: “do this, as I told you because ……it works”. I am making an analogy between the direct transformation of knowledge during the lecture and the relationship of master-pupil. When the master shows to the pupil how to perform the task, he presents to the pupil his knowledge/information and asks to accept it because the master is more experienced and has an authority.
As a contrast of lectures, working in groups, when the instructor employs the active learning techniques, first, students often asked to “guess” , and to learn through the guessing. It looks like: “I (the teacher) won’t tell you what is the first Newton law , you tell me first, or guess…and after you guess…I finally may explain you how the Newton law works… but better if you read this in the book, because I believe that you will learn better through the readings ……because I am the fan of active learning”. It is chaos.
How about (this usually occurs in “classical lecture”) : explain to students what the Newton law is and be sure they heard you and understood you.If a student wants to learn- he will learn, it does not matter what method is used by the instructor. But if the student does not have motivation to learn, nothing will help, even the “active learning” techniques.
My comments might give the wrong impression that I am against of active learning, but it is not true. I sincerely believe that those techniques (including work in groups and active participation in discussions) are extremely important. But the teaching methods and techniques have to be appropriate to the particular situation. If the class size is fewer than 50 people- the group work might be very effective. But in big class (e.g.150 people) when an instructor has to present fundamental theoretical knowledge (in science), working in groups will create extra noise, distraction and frustrations between students. Students won’t be able to get appropriate feedback from the teacher. In this situation, the lecture is probably the best method to transform knowledge to students. Another important point is - cultural backgrounds of students. In many countries (including my homeland), an instructor is still considered as an authority , it is very disrespectful to interrupt him/her during the lecture with “opinions”. If the student has a question, he should ask the teacher after the class or during the office hours.
During the Charles Bowell’s workshop (he is practicing active learning for years) I did not see this separation between “active” and “passive” learning, his teaching method was a very organized synthesis of both techniques: lecture and group work.

Further, I decided to summarize some material, which was presented in the workshop’s handout.
The major characteristics those are associated with the active learning:
1.Students are involved in more than passive listening;
2.Students are engaged in activities (e.g. reading, discussing, writing);
3.There is less emphasis placed on information transmission and greater emphasis placed on developing student skills;
4.There is greater emphasis placed on the exploration of attitudes and values;
5.Student motivation is increased (especially for adult learners);
6.Students can receive immediate feedback from their instructor;
7.Students are involved in higher order thinking (such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).
The barriers, which prevent faculty from using active learning strategies:
1.You can not cover as much course content in the time available;
2.Devising active learning strategies takes too much pre-class preparation;
3.Large class sizes prevent implementation of active learning strategies;
4.Most instructor think of themselves as being good lectures;
5.There is a lack of materials or equipment needed to support active learning approaches;
6.Students resist non-lecture approaches;
7.The fact that using active learning strategies involves risk.

I guess it is enough for now, I can write about active learning more and more, but it is time to go to class……(before that I have to wake up kids and to drop them to babysitter)……See all of you in class………