Active Learning Still Led by Experts

Back in July I responded to an editorial by Keith M. Parsons of the University of Houston, Clear Lake who rather flippantly dismissed the trend of active learning, whose phraseology he dismissed as “buzz terms.” Molly Worthen’s recent editorial in the New York Times “Lecture Me. Really,” though less snide and dismissive, nevertheless follows a similar argument against what she calls “the active learning craze,” and obviously her word “craze,” like Parsons’ “buzz terms,” conveys contempt. Still, her attitude is less derisive than Parson’s and her points are worthy of attention; however, her argument against active learning, if not bordering on ad hominem, is still supported by the traditional straw men.

As a case in point, Worthen, an assistant professor of history at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, characterizes active learning as part of “a long tradition of complaining about boring professors.” I certainly can’t deny students have been calling many of their professors boring for many generations, and I’m sure I’ve both bored students and been bored by professors, but I don’t recall any part of the argument for active learning relying on such a demeaning characterization of professors. In fact, Eric Mazur, whom Worthen refers to in her editorial, has explicitly stated that many lectures and lecturers can be quite interesting and even entertaining. As for me, I like lecturing and I am reasonably good at it, but that’s not the point. The argument is that active engagement with the material improves overall retention rates and fosters a deeper conceptual understanding.

I am also puzzled by Worthen’s claim that active learning draws on “populist resentment of experts.” This seems even more fabricated than the previous claim. I have never heard active learning advocates state this. In fact, I would argue the very opposite. For active learning to succeed, it should be designed and orchestrated by people who are experts in their field. If I have a concern about active learning it would be how we can help new teachers expand and reinforce their expertise with such a pedagogy. Because contrary to Worthen’s and Parsons’ descriptions of active learning as “student-led discussion,” this is not an anarchic exercise where, as she puts it, the class is run along the lines of “the customer-service mentality that has seeped into the university from the business world.” I have always disapproved of the customer-service model of education and I would not willingly do anything to promote that; Worthen may be right that this is how administrators see active learning, but usually administrators are not actually teaching in any classrooms. If the curriculum is designed by an expert in the field, then the students may be the ones discussing the most, but by design the class and its discussions are led by a teacher choosing specific questions, themes, and texts.

These are not “the goals and methods of the hard sciences” imposed on the humanities as Worthen claims, but rather the questions and discussions that should emerge from an in-depth investigation of the complex ideas that arise in the humanities. “But if we abandon the lecture format because students may find it difficult, we do them a disservice,” Worthen claims; even if some teachers choose to abandon lectures, no one that I know who prefers active learning has been forced to abandon lectures. This is not an either/or proposition. Lectures can be integrated into an active learning curriculum either the traditional way in the classroom or online as suits the preferences of the instructor. And I have heard no one claim to give up lectures because the students found them difficult; this is another straw man argument, and it’s one that supposes that engaged learning is easy, which it certainly isn’t for either the students or the teachers.

But “[l]ectures are essential for teaching the humanities’ most basic skills: comprehension and reasoning…,” Worthen writes. For the right listener paired with the right lecturer, this might indeed be the case, because as Worthen explains, “[a]bsorbing a long, complex argument is hard work, requiring students to synthesize, organize and react as they listen.” I have always enjoyed listening to a well-delivered lecture myself; there are even a handful I can recall from twenty or more years ago, but I also remember more than a few undistinguished lectures, but again, that is not the point. Among other things, Worthen claims that listening to lectures teaches our attention-challenged students to pay better attention, but I agree with a colleague of mine who said that just because a lecture class penalizes a lack of attention doesn't mean it teaches attention, and I would add that attention in the moment doesn't always equate with learning by more engagement. Active learning should be scrutinized and critiqued so that its flaws can be corrected, but straw man arguments will not help with this necessary monitoring.