Since the beginning of this year, I have been involved in planning events related to active learning, participating in such events, and giving lectures myself.
Now, I find myself wondering: what exactly do we mean by “active learning”? During an event at the University of Tokyo, Professor Nakahara from the University of Tokyo mentioned that since the term “active learning” began to be used, its definition has varied from person to person, and that there are as many ideas about active learning as there are people talking about it. As I recall, Professor Nakahara described it as “a form of learning where input, transformation (the process of growing by interacting with others who are different from oneself—his reference to Rogoff’s work made this easy to understand), and output are organically connected.” Some people use the term to refer to learner-centered learning forms such as problem-based learning or project-based learning, while others say it refers to any mechanism that can elicit learner autonomy, regardless of whether it is an exercise-based or lecture-based format (the latter resonates more with me).
What worries me slightly is that the term “active learning” has taken on a life of its own, with meanings proliferating to the point where it becomes unclear what it actually signifies, and that some people label everything as “active learning.”
Regarding the former, it is frustrating that every time there is an academic conference or symposium, one has to confirm in what sense “active learning” is being used. Professor Mizokami from Kyoto University organized the concept of active learning in a 2007 bulletin on higher education at Nagoya University, but even he has mentioned that he needs to re-examine what he wrote in that bulletin. I believe that even in the three years since Professor Mizokami wrote that in 2007, the term “active learning” has been interpreted in various ways and has become chaotic.
As for the latter, I think this is a recurring issue in education. Whenever a new trend in ICT, or popular technology in general, emerges, there is a tendency to believe in it religiously and use it. It is similar to that; some people just go around saying, “Active learning is good, we should introduce it.” This is problematic. Moreover, they do so without realizing that the term itself gives rise to various interpretations… Depending on what it means, for example, if it refers to learning forms based on a social constructivist view of learning, such as problem-based learning or project-based learning, then I think there are subjects for which such learning forms are suitable and others for which they are not. At the event “The Future of University Education Created by Active Learning,” hosted by my center on February 22nd, there was a comment: “Is there even a need to do active learning in the first place?” If this is the form of learning referred to as active learning, then that comment is correct. There are things for which it is not necessary, or rather, for which it is not suitable.
However, if it means a learning form/model that incorporates mechanisms to elicit learner autonomy, then it is necessary. A class without that would be poor. In this context, the argument that “we must do active learning!” is understandable. But this is just a change in terminology for something that has been discussed for decades, so I do have doubts about why we are making such a fuss about it now.
Over the past few months, I have been involved in various aspects of active learning. I am grateful that Watanabe-kun from Tokyo Metropolitan University told me, “I hear the term ‘active learning’ coming from Kanazawa,” which makes me feel that perhaps my efforts have had some impact, but I realized that I must proceed with careful consideration. Also, I must not forget to bring back to reality those teachers who are religiously obsessed or who mindlessly repeat the term “active learning.”