I was a little taken aback when I started reading "Active Learning Not Associated with Student Learning in a Random Sample of College Biology Courses". I thought to myself, "Since when is active learning not associated with student learning?". As I reached the end of the article, I understood. It seems that active learning being successfully associated with student learning goes hand in hand with a teacher's experiences and knowledge with science education research, specifically a constructivist's approach. Anything less can be viewed as being "superficially similar" and not authentic. It seems that in order for active learning to occur in its most beneficial form, the instructors need to be knowledgeable and have experience with constructivist approaches.
Simply adding "think/pair/share" activities doesn't qualify as an active learning environment. You can't slap a sticker on something and make it so I've seen a lot of lessons where the "think/pair/share" is done to death, even within teacher trainings I've attended. I'll inwardly roll my eyes and sighing to myself while I think, "Again, really? How many times do I have to do this same boring routine?" In order to practice social constructivism, we need to know about what it is, what it looks like, and practice it ourselves. We are in a new culture of learning, and we as teachers are only one cog in the wheel. Students need to work on activities and projects that interest them, they need to find communities where they can discuss their shared experiences while learning from each other, and teachers need to mentor these students through the learning process. It is when we are doing this that others can come and watch us in action and see how they too can create an authentic COVA environment for their students.
Comments