‘Active Learning’: an exploration of teachers’ perceptions and practices

Author(s):

Lorele Mackie(presenting / submitting)Valerie Drew(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching

Format:

Paper

Session Information

27 SES 03 B, Learning Theories and Curriculum Innovation

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-10

17:15-18:45

Room:

A-206

Chair:

Meinert Arnd Meyer

Contribution

The lifelong learning agenda (European Commission, 2009) is instrumental in promoting a developmental curriculum with constructivist understandings of learning and teaching which has implications for educators’ practices and their relationships with students (Reeves in Priestley and Biesta 2013). An example of this is evident in the discourse of ‘active learning’ currently enjoying a resurgence of interest in education policy from early years through higher education and beyond (Drew and Mackie, 2011) and which appears to be promoted by policy makers as a way of inculcating the transversal skills deemed necessary by the European Commission for learning, life and work (EC, 2009).

However, there appears to be a lack of clarity and understanding surrounding this construct in policy, research, and practice; this has repercussions for educators who are expected to translate policy into practice. This exploratory study was designed to elicit teachers’ understanding of ‘active learning’ which currently permeates the 3-18 education policy being implemented in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2004; Scottish Executive, 2007). The aims of study were:

to explore how teachers understand the policy construct of ‘active learning’
to determine how they develop these understandings and make sense of them in their practices
to further thinking about the debate about whether active learning may be considered a theory or some kind of pedagogical construct

The definition of active learning used as a framework for analysis in this paper is four fold: behavioural, cognitive, social and affective (Drew & Mackie, 2011; Watkins, Carnell & Lodge, 2007). This definition is underpinned by cognitive and social conceptions of a constructivist epistemology (Mayer, 1998 in Watkins et al., 2007) where knowledge and understanding is constructed both by individuals and through interaction with others (Fosnot, 1996), and making meaning is central to learning (Simons, 1997 in Watkins, 2007).

Method

A qualitative survey was undertaken which contained open-ended questions. This design accords with the exploratory purpose of this research and fosters flexibility in structure and length of response for participants to encourage more in-depth, insightful comments than perhaps would be evident with quantitative closed questions. A qualitative approach to analysis was adopted in that responses were grouped into general categories using a constant comparative method where data is examined repeatedly and compared (Thomas, 2009) in order to identify key themes (Anderson & Poole, 1998). The depth of analytical detail evident in this type of analysis is appropriate for this type of exploratory research which is grounded in complicated social phenomena (Denscombe, 1998). The sample selected for this study was both opportunistic and purposive (Cohen & Manion, 2011). The data is drawn from an opportunistic sample of 45 teachers attending the first day of professional post-graduate study courses. Although Cohen and Manion (2011) suggest this type of sample is not generalizable, we argue that this is also a purposive sample as the group comprises teachers at different stages in their career from all sectors of compulsory education for 3-18 year olds drawn from five education authorities across Scotland.

Expected Outcomes

Analysis of the data gathered fostered the identification of three key findings: • a lack of clarity and explicit recognition with regard to what teachers understand by ‘active learning’ • questionable bases for teachers’ understandings of policy constructs such as ‘active learning’ • 'active learning' appears to be viewed as a pedagogical construct rather than a theory of learning Based on these findings an area for further research is suggested, namely the use of Engestrom’s (2001) four learning theory questions: “(1) Who are the subjects of learning; (2) What do they learn, what are the contents and outcomes of learning; (3) Why do they learn, what makes them make the effort; (4) How do they learn, what are the key actions or processes of learning?”, as a basis for further research about the construct of active learning itself.

References

Anthony, G. (1996) Active learning in a constructivist framework, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31: 4, 349-369 Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. (2007) Research methods in Education, London: Routledge Denscombe, M. (1998) The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects, Buckingham: Open University Press Drew, V. & Mackie, L. (2011) Extending the constructs of active learning: implications for teachers' pedagogy and practice, Curriculum Journal, 22:4, 451-467 Engestrom, Y. (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: toward activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, 14:1,133-156 European Commission (2009) Education and training 2010 work programme: Assessment of key competences, Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture. Fosnot, C.T (ed) (1996) Constructivism Theory, Perspectives and Practice, New York: Teachers College Press Grabinger, S., Dunlap, J.C., & Duffield, J. A. (1999) Rich environments for active learning in action: problem-based learning, ALT-J, 5:2: 5-17 Kane, L. (2004) Educators, learners and active learning methodologies, International Journal of LifelongLearning, 23:3, 275-286 Larochelle, M., Bedwarz, N. & Garrison, J. (1998) Constructivism and Education, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Phillips, D.C (ed) (2000) Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues, Illinois: The National Centre for the Study of Education Reeves, J. (in press) Successful Learners: A Progressive or an Oppressive Concept? In: Priestley, M. and Biesta, G. J. J. (2013) Reinventing the Curriculum New Trends in Curriculum Policy and Practice, London: Bloomsbury Publishing Salomon, G. and Globerson, T. (1987) Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer, International Journal of Educational Research, 11:6, 623-637. Scottish Executive (2004) A Curriculum for Excellence, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Scottish Executive (2007) A Curriculum for Excellence, Building the Curriculum 2: Active learning in the early years, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Watkins, C., Carnell, E. & Lodge, C. (2007) Effective Learning in Classrooms, London: Sage

Author Information

Lorele Mackie (presenting / submitting)

University of Stirling, United Kingdom

Valerie Drew (presenting)

University of Stirling

School of Education

Stirling

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.