Quiet Waters Run Deeper - some thoughts on passive and active learning

This week I had an introductory session with Chinese students coming to study at a UK university. One of the lesson aims was to introduce them to the active learning model which is commonly applied in Western educational institutions. We watched a carefully crafted presentation referring to recent research on the benefits and indeed better outcomes of the active learning approach as opposed to the passive learning model. 

In the ensuing discussion I gained further insights into students' own learning experiences and idea of passive and active learning. It was interesting to note they considered passive from the point of view of their confidence in expressing their ideas. If they have knowledge of the topic they said they would be more active in participating and if they did not, they would keep silent which is only logical and natural. Personality types were also menteioned which further complicates the dychotomy. They were discussing it from the point of view of the self-awareness which relates to the face saving so typical of many East-Asian cultures. What is surprising is that in collectivist cultures like the Chinese one individual learning is more valued than interaction. The decision to be active or passive springs from a variety of culturally determined (and linguistic in this case) factors. In conrast, we tend to discuss these approaches to learning in terms of interaction: passive - alone and one-directional; active - with others and multi-directional. My blog on group work offers some more reflections on the matter.

My experience and research have led me to believe Chinese students value grades more than knowledge when it comes to securing a place at uni (as is the case with any other students I am sure). Additionally, and related to the face-saving mentioned earlier, appearances also matter a lot and determine decisions on when and if to say what.  Putting English language level in the mix gives a very complex picture of each student's universe. On top of that there is also the collectivist cultures idea of fairness and equality leading to the paradox that a great deal of students are what we wrongly believe "shy" to speak in an unfamiliar academic environment but at the same time might feel left out if they believe participation will impact positively on their scores. This is specifically the case with the tutor nominating students or preferring to interact with dominant speakers in the class as disclosed by an interviewee in my small-scale study on students' attitudes towards being nominated in open class situations. The study itself was prompted by one such comment from a student who felt my approach of not nominating (to avoid embarrassing students by putting them on the spot) was unfair to others who wanted to show their knowledge. This leads me to the idea that even when wanting to be active, these students are waiting on the tutor to "activate" them rather than take the initiative to speak by their own accord. The tutor figure is relied on to distribute equal treatment in the form of paying attention/ nominating each student.

All of the above can present difficulty for tutors who are more sensitive towards teacher-student dynamic and do not wish to cause any discomfort or embarrassment for the students. I have often found myself wondering on the best approach to this. I certainly would not want to put students on the spot if they are not prepared to talk but I do try to gently urge them to participate.

It is clear that active and passive learning can be interpreted in different ways and students who are not familiar with the active learning approach should be acculturated in that respect with the necessary degree of patience as well as a consideration of their previous learning experiences.