Hoe komt het dat docenten in het hoger onderwijs relatief weinig gebruik maken van vormen van actief leren? Een mogelijke verklaring ligt in de weerstand die studenten mogelijk hebben tegen activerende didactiek. Vaak zijn cursusevaluaties in cursussen waarin activerende didactiek wordt ingezet negatiever. In een recent artikel in PNAS onderzochten Deslauriers, McCarty, Miller, Callaghan en Kestin (2019) de paradox dat in activerende cursussen studenten vaak wel meer leren, maar studenten ook vaak negatief zijn over dergelijke cursussen. Het blijkt dat deze negatieve percepties van studenten samenhangen de verhoogde cognitieve inspanning die van hen gevraagd wordt tijdens dergelijke cursussen.
Significance: Despite active learning being recognized as a superior method of instruction in the classroom, a major recent survey found that most college STEM instructors still choose traditional teaching methods. This article addresses the long-standing question of why students and faculty remain resistant to active learning. Comparing passive lectures with active learning using a randomized experimental approach and identical course materials, we find that students in the active classroom learn more, but they feel like they learn less. We show that this negative correlation is caused in part by the increased cognitive effort required during active learning. Faculty who adopt active learning are encouraged to intervene and address this misperception, and we describe a successful example of such an intervention.
Abstract:We compared students’ self-reported perception of learning with their actual learning under controlled conditions in large-enrollment introductory college physics courses taught using 1) active instruction (following best practices in the discipline) and 2) passive instruction (lectures by experienced and highly rated instructors). Both groups received identical class content and handouts, students were randomly assigned, and the instructor made no effort to persuade students of the benefit of either method. Students in active classrooms learned more (as would be expected based on prior research), but their perception of learning, while positive, was lower than that of their peers in passive environments. This suggests that attempts to evaluate instruction based on students’ perceptions of learning could inadvertently promote inferior (passive) pedagogical methods. For instance, a superstar lecturer could create such a positive feeling of learning that students would choose those lectures over active learning. Most importantly, these results suggest that when students experience the increased cognitive effort associated with active learning, they initially take that effort to signify poorer learning. That disconnect may have a detrimental effect on students’ motivation, engagement, and ability to self-regulate their own learning. Although students can, on their own, discover the increased value of being actively engaged during a semester-long course, their learning may be impaired during the initial part of the course. We discuss strategies that instructors can use, early in the semester, to improve students’ response to being actively engaged in the classroom.
De auteurs geven ook enkele aanbevelingen die studenten kunnen overtuigen van de meerwaarde van activerende didactiek:
- Besteed aandacht aan het uitleggen waarom activerende didactiek in het belang van de student is. En leg daarbij ook uit dat de extra inspanning die van hen gevraagd wordt belangrijk is voor hun leerproces.
- Wacht niet te lang met het afnemen van een tussentijdse (formatieve of summatieve) toets, zodat studenten hun eigen voortgang kunnen inschatten.
- Vraag studenten regelmatig om feedback over de cursus en bespreek de zorgen van studenten met hen.
Deslauriers, McCarty, Miller, Callaghan, & Kestin (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. PNAS. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/09/03/1821936116
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten