Thursday, June 26, 2014

DEMOCRATIZATION --- GENERAL STUDIES FORM V & VI

DEMOCRATIZATION ---- GENERAL    STUDIES  FORM   V  &  VI.

INTRODUCTION
Voting is an important part of the democratic process.
Democratization (or democratisation) is the transition to a more democratic political regime. It may be the transition from an authoritarian regime to a full democracy, a transition from an authoritarian political system to a semi-democracy or transition from a semi-authoritarian political system to a democratic political system. The outcome may be consolidated (as it was for example in the United Kingdom) or democratization may face frequent reversals (as it has faced for example in Argentina). Different patterns of democratization are often used to explain other political phenomena, such as whether a country goes to a war or whether its economy grows. Democratization itself is influenced by various factors, including economic development, history, and civil society.

Causes of democratization

Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale.
Percentage of countries in each category over time, from Freedom House's 1973 through 2013 reports.
  Free (90)   Partly Free (58)   Not Free (47)
There is considerable debate about the factors which affect or ultimately limit democratization. A great many things, including economics, culture, and history, have been cited as impacting on the process. Some of the more frequently mentioned factors are:
  • Wealth. A higher GDP/capita correlates with democracy and while some claim the wealthiest democracies have never been observed to fall into authoritarianism, Hitler would be an obvious counter-example that would render the claim a truism.[1] There is also the general observation that democracy was very rare before the industrial revolution. Empirical research thus lead many to believe that economic development either increases chances for a transition to democracy (modernization theory), or helps newly established democracies consolidate.[1] Some campaigners for democracy even believe that as economic development progresses, democratization will become inevitable. However, the debate about whether democracy is a consequence of wealth, a cause of it, or both processes are unrelated, is far from conclusion.
  • Education. Wealth also correlates with education, though their effects on democratic consolidation seem to be independent.[1] A poorly educated and illiterate population may elect populist politicians who soon abandon democracy and become dictators even if there have been free elections.
  • The resource curse theory suggests that countries with abundant natural resources, such as oil, often fail to democratize because the elite can live off the natural resources rather than depend on popular support for tax revenues. On the other hand, elites who invested in the physical capital rather than in land or oil, fear that their investment can be easily damaged in case of a revolution. Consequently, they would rather make concessions and democratize than risk a violent clash with the opposition.[2]
  • Market economy. Some claim that democracy and market economy are intrinsically linked. This belief generally centers on the idea that democracy and market economy are simply two different aspects of freedom. A widespread market economy culture may encourage norms such as individualism, negotiations, compromise, respect for the law, and equality before the law.[3] These are seen as supportive for democratization.
  • Social equality. Acemoglu and Robinson argued that the relationship between social equality and democratic transition is complicated: People have less incentive to revolt in an egalitarian society (for example, Singapore), so the likelihood of democratization is lower. In a highly unequal society (for example, South Africa under Apartheid), the redistribution of wealth and power in a democracy would be so harmful to elites that these would do everything to prevent democratization. Democratization is more likely to emerge somewhere in the middle, in the countries, whose elites offer concessions because (1) they consider the threat of a revolution credible and (2) the cost of the concessions is not too high.[2] This expectation is in line with the empirical research showing that democracy is more stable in egalitarian societies.[1]
  • Middle class. According to some models,[2] the existence of a substantial body of citizens who are of intermediate wealth can exert a stabilizing influence, allowing democracy to flourish. This is usually explained by saying that while the upper classes may want political power to preserve their position, and the lower classes may want it to lift themselves up, the middle class balances these extreme positions.
  • Civil society. A healthy civil society (NGOs, unions, academia, human rights organizations) are considered by some theorists to be important for democratization, as they give people a unity and a common purpose, and a social network through which to organize and challenge the power of the state hierarchy. Involvement in civic associations also prepares citizens for their future political participation in a democratic regime.[4] Finally, horizontally organized social networks build trust among people and trust is essential for functioning of democratic institutions.[4]
  • Civic culture. In The Civic Culture and The Civic Culture Revisited, Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba (editors) conducted a comprehensive study of civic cultures. The main findings is that a certain civic culture is necessary for the survival of democracy. This study truly challenged the common thought that cultures can preserve their uniqueness and practices and still remain democratic.
  • Culture. It is claimed by some that certain cultures are simply more conductive to democratic values than others. This view is likely to be ethnocentric. Typically, it is Western culture which is cited as "best suited" to democracy, with other cultures portrayed as containing values which make democracy difficult or undesirable. This argument is sometimes used by undemocratic regimes to justify their failure to implement democratic reforms. Today, however, there are many non-Western democracies. Examples include India, Japan, Indonesia, Namibia, Botswana, Taiwan, and South Korea.
  • Human Empowerment and Emancipative Values. In Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy,[5] Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel explain democratization as the result of a broader process of human development,[6] which empowers ordinary people in a three-step sequence. First, modernization gives more resources into the hands of people, which empowers capability-wise, enabling people to practice freedom. This tends to give rise to emancipative values that emphasize freedom of expression and equality of opportunities. These values empower people motivation-wise in making them willing to practice freedom. Democratization occurs as the third stage of empowerment: it empowers people legally in entitling them to practice freedom.[7] In this context, the rise of emancipative values has been shown to be the strongest factor of all in both giving rise to new democracies and sustaining old democracies.[8] Specifically, it has been shown that the effects of modernization and other structural factors on democratization are mediated by these factors tendencies to promote or hinder the rise of emancipative values.[9] Further evidence suggests that emancipative values motivate people to engage in elite-challenging collective actions that aim at democratic achievements, either to sustain and improve democracy when it is granted or to establish it when it is denied.[10] A compact summary and update of this "emancipatory theory of democracy" can be found in Freedom Rising.[11]
  • Homogeneous population. Some believe that a country which is deeply divided, whether by ethnic group, religion, or language, have difficulty establishing a working democracy.[12] The basis of this theory is that the different components of the country will be more interested in advancing their own position than in sharing power with each other. India is one prominent example of a nation being democratic despite its great heterogeneity.
  • Previous experience with democracy. According to some theorists, the presence or absence of democracy in a country's past can have a significant effect on its later dealings with democracy. Some argue, for example, that it is very difficult (or even impossible) for democracy to be implemented immediately in a country that has no prior experience with it. Instead, they say, democracy must evolve gradually. Others, however, say that past experiences with democracy can actually be bad for democratization — a country, such as Pakistan, in which democracy has previously failed may be less willing or able to go down the same path again.
  • Foreign intervention. Democracies have often been imposed by military intervention, for example in Japan and Germany after WWII.[13][14] In other cases, decolonization sometimes facilitated the establishment of democracies that were soon replaced by authoritarian regimes. For example, in the United States South after the Civil War, former slaves were disenfranchised by Jim Crow laws after the Reconstruction Era of the United States; after many decades, U.S. democracy was re-established by civic associations (the African American civil rights movement) and an outside military (the U.S. military).
  • Age distribution. Countries which have a higher degree of elderly people seems to be able to maintain democracy, when it has evolved once, according to a thesis brought forward by Richard P. Concotta in this article[15] in Foreign Policy. When the young population (defined as people aged 29 and under) is less than 40%, a democracy is more safe, according to this research.

Transitions

Democracy development has often been slow, violent, and marked by frequent reversals.[16]

Historical Cases

In Great Britain, the English Civil War (1642–1651) was fought between the King and an oligarchic but elected Parliament. The Protectorate and the English Restoration restored more autocratic rule. The Glorious Revolution (1688) established a strong Parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689 (which is still in effect) codified certain rights and liberties for subjects and set out the rights of Parliament, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that, unlike much of the rest of Europe, royal absolutism would not prevail.[17] Only with the Representation of the People Act 1884 did a majority of the males get the vote.
The American Revolution (1765–1783) created the United States. In many fields, it was a success ideologically in the sense that a relatively true republic was established that never had a single dictator, but slavery was only abolished with the American Civil War (1861–1865), and Civil Rights given to African-Americans became achieved in the 1960s.
The French Revolution (1789) briefly allowed a wide franchise. The French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars lasted for more than twenty years. The French Directory was more oligarchic. The First French Empire and the Bourbon Restoration restored more autocratic rule. The Second French Republic had universal male suffrage but was followed by the Second French Empire. The Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) resulted in the French Third Republic.
The German Empire was created in 1871. It was followed by the Weimar Republic after World War I. Nazi Germany restored autocratic rule before the defeat in World War II .
The Kingdom of Italy, after the unification of Italy in 1861, was a constitutional monarchy with the King having considerable powers. Italian fascism created a dictatorship after the World War I. World War II resulted in the Italian Republic.
The Meiji period, after 1868, started the modernization of Japan. Limited democratic reforms were introduced. The Taishō period (1912–1926) saw more reforms. The beginning of the Shōwa period reversed this until the end of the World War II.

Since 1972

According to a study by Freedom House, in 67 countries where dictatorships have fallen since 1972, nonviolent civic resistance was a strong influence over 70 percent of the time. In these transitions,
"changes were catalyzed not through foreign invasion, and only rarely through armed revolt or voluntary elite-driven reforms, but overwhelmingly by democratic civil society organizations utilizing nonviolent action and other forms of civil resistance, such as strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and mass protests."[18]

Indicators of democratization

One influential survey in democratization is that of Freedom House, which arose during the Cold War. The Freedom House, today an institution and a think tank, stands as one of the most comprehensive "freedom measures" nationally and internationally and by extension a measure of democratization. Freedom House categorizes all countries of the world according to a seven point value system with over 200 questions on the survey and multiple survey representatives in various parts of every nation. The total raw points of every country places the country in one of three categories: Free, Partly Free, or not Free.
One study simultaneously examining the relationship between market economy (measured with one Index of Economic Freedom), economic development (measured with GDP/capita), and political freedom (measured with the Freedom House index) found that high economic freedom increases GDP/capita and a high GDP/capita increases economic freedom. A high GDP/capita also increases political freedom but political freedom did not increase GDP/capita. There was no direct relationship either way between economic freedom and political freedom if keeping GDP/capita constant.[19]

Views on democratization

Francis Fukuyama wrote another classic in democratization studies entitled The End of History and the Last Man which spoke of the rise of liberal democracy as the final form of human government. However it has been argued that the expansion of liberal economic reforms has had mixed effects on democratization. In many ways, it is argued, democratic institutions have been constrained or "disciplined" in order to satisfy international capital markets or to facilitate the global flow of trade.[20]
Samuel P. Huntington wrote The Third Wave, partly as response to Fukuyama, defining a global democratization trend in the world post WWII. Huntington defined three waves of democratization that have taken place in history.[21] The first one brought democracy to Western Europe and Northern America in the 19th century. It was followed by a rise of dictatorships during the Interwar period. The second wave began after World War II, but lost steam between 1962 and the mid-1970s. The latest wave began in 1974 and is still ongoing. Democratization of Latin America and the former Eastern Bloc is part of this third wave.
A very good example of a region which passed through all the three waves of democratization is the Middle East. During the 15th century it was a part of the Ottoman empire. In the 19th century, "when the empire finally collapsed [...] towards the end of the First World War, the Western armies finally moved in and occupied the region".[22] This was an act of both European expansion and state-building in order to democratize the region. However, what Posusney and Angrist argue is that, "the ethnic divisions [...] are [those that are] complicating the U.S. effort to democratize Iraq". This raises interesting questions about the role of combined foreign and domestic factors in the process of democratization. In addition, Edward Said labels as 'orientalist' the predominantly Western perception of "intrinsic incompatibility between democratic values and Islam". Moreover, he states that "the Middle East and North Africa lack the prerequisites of democratization".[23]
Fareed Zakaria has examined the security interests benefited from democracy promotion, pointing out the link between levels of democracy in a country and of terrorist activity. Though it is accepted that poverty in the Muslim world has been a leading contributor to the rise of terrorism, Zakaria has noted that the primary terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were among the upper and upper-middle classes. Zakaria has suggested that the society in which Al-Qaeda terrorists lived provided easy money, and therefore there existed little incentive to modernize economically or politically.[24] With little opportunity to express themselves in the political sphere, scores of young Arab men were "invited to participate"[25] through another avenue: the culture of Islamic fundamentalism. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism and its violent expression on September 11, 2001 illustrates an inherent need to express oneself politically, and a democratic government or one with democratic aspects (such as political openness) is quite necessary to provide a forum for political expression.

Democratization in other contexts

Although democratization is most often thought of in the context of national or regional politics, the term can also be applied to:

International bodies

  • International bodies (e.g. the United Nations) where there is an ongoing call for reform and altered voting structures and voting systems.

Corporations

It can also be applied in corporations where the traditional power structure was top-down direction and the boss-knows-best (even a "Pointy-Haired Boss"); This is quite different from consultation, empowerment (of lower levels) and a diffusion of decision making (power) throughout the firm, as advocated by workplace democracy movements.

The Internet

The loose anarchistic structure of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet itself have inspired some groups to call for more democratization of how domain names are held, upheld, and lost. They note that the Domain Name System under ICANN is the least democratic and most centralized part of the Internet, using a simple model of first-come-first-served to the names of things. Ralph Nader called this "corporatization of the dictionary."

Knowledge

The democratization of knowledge is the spread of knowledge among common people, in contrast to knowledge being controlled by elite groups.

Design

The trend that products from well-known designers are becoming cheaper and more available to masses of consumers. Also, the trend of companies sourcing design decisions from end users.[26]

See also

References

  1. Przeworski, Adam; et al. (2000). Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Acemoglu, Daron; James A. Robinson (2006). Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Mousseau, Michael. (2000). Market Prosperity, Democratic Consolidation, and Democratic Peace. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44(4):472-507.
  4. Putnam, Robert D.; et al. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  5. * Inglehart, Ronald & Welzel, Christian (2005), Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521846950.
  6. Inglehart, Ronald; Klingemann, Hans-Dieter; Welzel, Christian (2003), "The Theory of Human Development: A Cross-Cultural Analysis", European Journal of Political Research 42 (3): 341–380, doi:10.1111/1475-6765.00086.
  7. Christian Welzel & Ronald Inglehart (2008): "The Role of Ordinary people in Democratization." Journal of Democracy 19: 126-40
  8. * Welzel, Christian (2006), "Democratization as an Emancipative Process", European Journal of Political Research 45 (6): 871–896, doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00637.x.
  9. Christian Welzel (2007): "Are Levels of Democracy Affected by Mass Attitudes? Testing Sustainment and Attainment Effects on Democracy" International Political Science Review 28: 397-24
  10. Christian Welzel & Hans-Dieter Klingemann (2008). "Evidencing and Explaining Democratic Congruence: The Perspective of 'Substantive' Democracy." World Values Research 1:57-90
  11. * Welzel, Christian (2013), Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation, New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781107664838.
  12. Marsha Pripstein Posusney. Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Regimes and Resistance. ed. by Marsha Pripstein Posusney and Michele Penner Angrist (Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., USA, 2005)
  13. Therborn, Göran (1977). "The rule of capital and the rise of democracy: Capital and suffrage (cover title)". New Left Review. I 103 (The advent of bourgeois democracy): 3–41.
  14. The Independent
  15. Foreignpolicy.com
  16. Journal of Democracy
  17. "Rise of Parliament". The National Archives. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
  18. Study: Nonviolent Civic Resistance Key Factor in Building Durable Democracies, May 24, 2005
  19. Ken Farr, Richard A. Lord, and J. Larry Wolfenbarger (1998). "Economic Freedom, Political Freedom, and Economic Well-Being: A Causality Analysis". Cato Journal 18 (2): 247–262. [1]
  20. Roberts, Alasdair S.,Empowerment or Discipline? Two Logics of Governmental Reform (December 23, 2008). Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1319792 SSRN.com
  21. Huntington, Samuel P. (1991). Democratization in the Late 20th century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  22. Simon, Bromley. Rethinking Middle East Politics: State Formation and Development. (Polity Press, Cambridge, 1994)
  23. ed by Marsha, Pripstein Posusney and Michele, Penner Angrist. Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Regimes and Resistance. (Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., USA, 2005)
  24. Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, W.W. Norton & Co., 2007, 138.
  25. Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, W.W. Norton & Co., 2007.
  26. Harry (2007). The Democratization of Design

Further reading

  • Thomas Carothers. Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. 1999. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  • Josep M. Colomer. Strategic Transitions. 2000. Baltimore, Md: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Daniele Conversi. ‘Demo-skepticism and genocide’, Political Science Review, September 2006, Vol 4, issue 3, pp. 247–262
  • Haerpfer, Christian; Bernhagen, Patrick; Inglehart, Ronald & Welzel, Christian (2009), Democratization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199233021.
  • Inglehart, Ronald & Welzel, Christian (2005), Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521846950.
  • Frederic C. Schaffer. Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an Unfamiliar Culture. 1998. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Fareed Zakaria. The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. 2003. New York: W.W. Norton.
  • Christian Welzel. Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation. 2013. New York: Cambridge University Press (ISBN 978-1-107-66483-8).

External links

Look up democratization in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Posted by at No comments:

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION------ GENERAL STUDIES FORM VI & VI


INTERNATIONAL  COOPEATION  refers to a group of actions and/or resources exchanged between actors from different countries, voluntarily and according to their own interests and strategies.

Robinson (2008) argues that international cooperation, by itself, cannot be catalogued as bad or god, because it is a type of human interaction that functions as a means to an end. In fact, the author proposes that this end is precisely what determines the value of a given act of cooperation.  In this sense, organized crime, traffic of weapons, narcotics, plants or animals can be considered actions of international cooperation with illicit ends.

When we refer to International Cooperation for Development (ICD), instead, we mean the mobilization of actions and technical, financial and/or human resources with the purpose to promote everything that can be considered as development. Nevertheless, the concept of development has many interpretations, meanings and senses that vary depending upon the perspective of the actors involved. Besides, it can be preceded by different adjectives (economic, sustainable, local, rural, endogenous, human, etc.) that contribute to the ambiguity of the concept. As a result, there is non a unique and permanent, correct or incorrect definition of ICD. On the contrary, this concept evolves and changes according to global tendencies, international priorities, social, political and economic environment and, most important, according to the notion of what is considered as development.

There is a global tendency to the diminution of traditional aid fluxes to middle income countries. The Accra Agenda for Action, established in September 2008, reinforces the importance of this group of countries in the South-South cooperation process. In this sense, Latin America is a key region, because it aggregates 32% of the middle-income countries in the world (Alonso, 2007). Therefore, it is important to have a framework of how Latin American countries define ICD, in order to understand why they conduct their actions in this field one way or another.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

WHAT IS ACTIVE LEARNING ?

IMPLEMENTING  ACTIVE   LEARNING.
WHAT   IS   ACTIVE  LEARNING ?
Active learning involves students doing something and thinking about what they are doing. Examples include discussions, surveys, laboratory exercises, in-class writing, role-playing, small-group or individual presentations, and field trips. Active learning requires students to take a participatory role in learning, rather than to adopt a receptive, passive posture. According to Charles Bonwell (1995), active learning often involves one or more of the following characteristics:
  • There is less emphasis on the transmission of information and greater emphasis on developing analytical and critical thinking skills.
  • Students do something other than simply listen passively.
  • Students are engaged in activities.
  • There is more emphasis on exploring attitudes and values held about course material.
  • Students generally must adopt higher-order thinking?critical thinking, analysis, evaluation.
  • Both students and teachers receive more and faster feedback.
Active learning methods usually result in superior performance. In studies comparing classrooms using active learning with those using passive learning, active learning methods generally result in greater retention of material at the end of a class, superior problem-solving skills, more positive attitudes, and higher motivation for future learning (Meyers & Jones, 1993; Bonwell & Eison, 1991; McKeachie et al., 1987). Researchers thus generally conclude that active learning produces educationally superior results. One team describes their conclusions as follows:

?Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in class listening to teachers, memorizing pre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves.? (Chickering & Gamson, 1987, p. 3)

Active learning increases students? interest and attention. This is important given the tendency for students? attention to wax and wane the class period. One study found that students? concentration and attention declines precipitously after the first ten minutes of class time (Thomas, 1972). By adopting active learning methods, one can maximize student attention.

Finally, active learning may benefit students by providing greater and richer enjoyment of class meetings. Students like classes that involve active learning, and teachers typically find such classes more fun and less boring as well. Consider, by analogy, the story of the guru and his disciples. One morning, as the guru was teaching his students, a bee flew into the room but could not find its way out, repeatedly flying up against a glass window in vain attempts to get outside. ?Watch the bee,? the guru instructed his students. The bee continued to fly into the window until it hit the window and fell to the ground, stunned. The guru picked up the bee and placed it on the ground outside. ?What have you learned?? he prompted his disciples. A new student, anxious to get on with the day?s study, objected. ?Why not simply tell us what it is you wish us to learn instead of forcing us to struggle needlessly?? he complained. The guru picked up an apple from a nearby bowl and responded, ?Would you like me to eat this for you, or would you enjoy it more if you ate it yourself??

The Challenge of Active Learning
If active learning is more educationally desirable and more enjoyable, then why is it not the norm in education? There are several obstacles to teaching with active learning techniques. Such obstacles include:
  • Breaking social norms
  • Surrendering control and taking risks on the part of the teacher
  • Advance planning
  • More effort from both teacher and students
  • Covering less material in class
Teaching through active learning involves breaking social norms. Classrooms, like all forums for interpersonal contact, have social norms. Teachers and students alike have come to expect that certain things ?must? happen in a classroom: Teachers stand and lecture; students sit and listen; teachers direct the class session; students take notes. Active learning involves departures from such expectations: Teachers may ask questions rather than state conclusions; students may move around while participating in an exercise or making a presentation; student input may drive class content with the teacher following the students? lead. Therefore, deciding to involve students actively in the classroom requires a willingness from both teacher and student to break social norms. As in other settings, social norms are powerful, and breaking them can be stressful. By contrast, passive learning methods are easier and less threatening.

Teaching through active learning involves surrendering control and taking risks. In a passive learning environment, the teacher dictates what is said and what events occur in the classroom. With active learning, students assume greater control over class content. For example, a class discussion requires input from students. This makes the classroom less teacher-directed. Teachers may dislike not knowing what to expect from their students, and students may feel uneasy about shouldering responsibilities for which they may feel ill prepared. Also, since teachers generally think of themselves as good lecturers, it is difficult adopting alternative instructional methods about which they may feel less confident.

Teaching through active learning involves advance planning. All teaching requires some degree of advance planning. However, passive learning methods generally require the least teacher preparation. A lecture that has been delivered repeatedly over years takes little effort to deliver again. Similarly, students engaged in passive learning do not need to do much before class. They can simply show up and take notes. By contrast, active learning methods require a teacher to carefully consider in advance what he or she will want students to do in that class session. This preparation may require responding to student input from previous sessions, anticipating the idiosyncrasies of current students, taking the time to think through specific examples intended for class use, carefully rehearsing the mechanics of particular class activities, constructing visual aids or handouts, jotting down specific questions that will be used to inspire or structure class discussions, and so forth. Students about to engage in active learning class sessions may need advance preparation as well, since their capacity to apply concepts will require some degree of understanding those concepts. Teaching through active learning involves more effort from both teacher and students. It takes real effort and work to employ active learning effectively. Greater time is spent in preparation and more work is required during class. By contrast, passive learning requires less effort from both teacher and students.

Teaching through active learning involves covering less material in class. It takes time to solicit and listen to input from students. And since the teacher has partially surrendered control over what happens in class, less content is covered when active learning techniques are used. In a passive learning environment, the primary function of class is to provide specific information. In an active learning classroom, however, the emphasis is on applying critical thinking and analytical skills to course content. This requires students to acquire more of the course content from their out-of-class studying.

Since active learning therefore requires a shift in the conception of what is to be accomplished during class time, teachers and students uncomfortable with such a perspective may be reluctant to embrace active learning. So, there are many obstacles to successfully implementing active learning methods in your teaching.

But, do not despair! Recognize the many benefits of active learning methods?a revitalization of your teaching and greater enjoyment and satisfaction of both you and your students. In the sections that follow, we present conceptual approaches?as well as specific concrete methods?to help you implement active learning experiences in your classroom.

How to Implement Active Learning?Conceptual Advice

1. Recognize that the goals of active learning differ from those of passive learning.Without recognizing such different goals, one can easily feel that active learning is not accomplishing what a classroom is ?supposed? to do.

Recognize that even in a lecture-based classroom, the mere fact that some words have been said does not necessarily mean that anything has been communicated. Understanding a concept often requires more than passively hearing it. Passive learning methods may ?cover? more material, but when students leave class it is unclear how much of the covered material they retain and understand. Active learning methods seek to target a smaller number of concepts, but students will leave class knowing information and understanding how they can use it.

2. Tell students what you are doing. Be open with students about what your teaching methods are going to be and what they are intended to accomplish. Do this often, beginning with a course syllabus and continuing with timely comments in class meetings throughout the course. If students know what they are expected to do and what they can expect from their teacher, they will be more willing and able to participate.
3. Direct and redirect class discussions. If you are going to seek class discussion, here are several suggestions for generating and continuing discussion while maintaining control and steering the conversation.
  • Use good wait time (see #4).
  • Use reflection to repeat aloud what a student says. This communicates to the students that you are listening to them, while making sure everyone in class heard what was said.
  • Summarize each student?s comment as it occurs by writing a quick word or two on the blackboard or overhead transparency. Accept student comments whenever possible?you do not have to agree with everything that is said.
  • Wait until several students have responded before you comment on the course of the discussion.
  • After adding your comments, redirect the class discussion to focus on the particular comments that have hit the points you want students to consider further.
  • Begin with general questions and move toward more specific ones. A good first question is a general brainstorming question, such as ?What do you see psychologists doing every day? Where do they work? What do they do??
  • If students are reluctant to talk, have them write something first. For example, you may say, ?Write down one thing you think psychologists do, one place you think you might find them working.? After a few moments, ask for people to share something they wrote. A variation on this same idea is to collect anonymous written responses and randomly redistribute them. Students can then read aloud what another nameless person has written, a less stressful task than making their own comments.
  • Use humor or drama to break the ice. You may want to begin a discussion by first showing a cartoon, overhead, or video, by reading a relevant newspaper item or case history, or by doing a fun class activity, such as the water gun classical conditioning activity in this Instructor?s Resource Manual (supplement 5.5).
4. Use wait time effectively. It is critical that you allow pauses of silence in the classroom to give students time to process and respond to what they are learning (Tobin, 1987).

Instructors are often uncomfortable with silence in the classroom. Indeed, part of the social norm of a classroom often includes an expectation that a teacher should be speaking, and thus silence feels like ?something is wrong.? But teachers and students need time to think?time to analyze and evaluate what has been said, time to generate questions or comments. Consider, for example, what is happening when an instructor asks, ?Are there any questions about this notion of cerebral asymmetry?? It is unlikely that students will immediately ask a question that has already occurred to them; students generallyneed time to think through what has been covered in the last few minutes of class, to pull together ideas, consider their reactions, discover what they want to ask, and formulate how they want to ask it. Good wait time can be enhanced with two very important and simple techniques.
  • After asking a question of the class, silently count to five and look left and right across the room before saying anything at all. Be aware that this can be uncomfortable for the uninitiated, which includes even some very experienced instructors. [Research shows that the average college instructor barely pauses at all after asking a question (Tobin, 1987).]
  • Take the time to frequently write on the blackboard or overhead transparency. This allows a momentary ?suspension? in the discourse and gives students silence in which to think and process information.
5. Manage risk. Different types of active learning involve different degrees of risk. Consider the level of risk you are comfortable with and select strategies that fit your comfort level. Bonwell (1995) has summarized what high-risk and low-risk teaching strategies entail, as follows:
DimensionLow-Risk StrategyHigh-Risk Strategy
class time
planning
structure
subject matter
controversy		 relatively short
careful
highly structured
relatively concrete
low		 relatively lengthy
spontaneous
less structured
relatively abstract
high

Low-Risk Strategies (listed from most active to most passive)
small-group discussions
surveys or questionnaires
laboratory exercises
self-assessment activities
brainstorming activities
in-class writing
field trips
lecture with discussion
lecture with pause procedure
show a film for the entire session
lecture for the entire session


High-Risk Strategies (listed from most active to most passive)
role-playing activities
small-group presentations
individual student presentations
small-group discussions
invite a guest lecturer of known quality
invite a guest lecturer of unknown quality
How to Implement Active Learning?Concrete Suggestions
  1. Begin class by asking students to briefly write a summary of what was covered in the last class. Ask students to share what they have written or ask questions about what they have written.
  2. Ask students to identify one question from the assigned reading that they would like to have addressed (in class today/on the topic we?re now turning to).
  3. Ask students to predict what issues will be explored (in class today/on the topic we?re now turning to).
  4. Ask students to write down a comment they have about what will be covered (in class today/on the topic we?re now turning to) and then have students share and discuss their responses with the person sitting next to them for a few minutes.
  5. Use a ?jigsaw? technique (Hauserman, 1992) to facilitate small-group activities. In this method, each group member has some information in common with others, but each member also has some information that no one else has. Thus, the group?s problem-solving task requires that everyone works together.
  6. Precede a discussion by asking students to write down ?1? if they agree with a stimulus statement, ?2? if they disagree, or ?3? if they are unsure. Then ask students to describe and defend their reactions.
  7. Put a question from an old test on an overhead transparency and display it after relevant concepts have been covered in class. Ask students to respond to the question, explain the reasoning behind a response, or predict potential difficulties people might have in answering the question.
  8. Periodically stop and ask students to take two minutes to summarize what has been said in class since the last such pause. Then ask students to take a minute to share their responses with the person sitting next to them.
  9. Ask students to take two minutes to write a test question similar to those you use on your tests or quizzes. Then ask students to take a minute to ask the person sitting next to them to answer and critique the question.
  10. Break the class into small groups and ask each group to come up with an activity, exercise, or demonstration that could have been used to illustrate a concept covered in the day?s class.
  11. Toward the end of class, have students write down a short description of an alternative way the material in the day?s class could have been presented. Ask students to present and discuss their responses.
  12. Ask students to write down a question about the day?s class and exchange it with the person sitting next to them to bring to the next class meeting.
  13. In the last five to ten minutes of class, have students look at the notes taken by the person sitting next to them. Ask each student to identify something in the other person?s notes that he or she did not include in his or her own notes, or that he or she finds surprising or interesting.
  14. Toward the end of class, have students decide which learning objectives from their study guide were addressed in the day?s class meeting.
  15. Ask students to write down an example from their personal life that illustrates a concept covered in the day?s class.


References and Resources
Bonwell, C. C. (1995). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Center for Teaching and Learning, St. Louis College of Pharmacy.

Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Brooks, C. I. (1985). A role-playing exercise for the history of psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 12(2):84?85.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7): 3?7.

Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dillon, J. T. (1984). Research on questioning and discussion. Educational Leadership, 42:50?56.

Frederick, P. (1981). The dreaded discussion: Ten ways to start. Improving College and University Teaching, 29(3):109?114.

Gilbert, S. J., & Conway, P. (1987). Drama in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 14(3):171?172.

Goodsell, A., Maher, M., & Tinto, V. (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, & Assessment.

Meyer, C. & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Greathouse, L. R., & Karmos, J. B. (1990).

Using effective questioning techniques in the classroom. Business Education Forum, 44:3?4.

Hauserman, C. (1992). Seeking an effective cooperative learning strategy. Contemporary Education, 63(3):185?190.

Huryn, J. S. (1986). Debating as a teaching technique. Teaching Sociology, 14(4):266?269.

Kitzerow, P. (1990). Active learning in the classroom. Teaching Sociology, 18(2):223?225.

Knodeler, A. S., & Shea, M. A. (1992). Conducting discussions in the diverse classroom. To Improve the Academy, 11:123?125.

Kohut, D., & Sternberg, J. (1995). Using the Internet to study the Internet: An active learning component. Research Strategies, 13(3):76?81.

Lewin, L. M., & Wakefield, Jr., J. A. (1983). Teaching psychology through an instructor-debate format. Teaching of Psychology, 10(2):115?116.

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y. G., & Smith, D. A. (1987). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the literature. Ann Arbor: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, The University of Michigan.
Ralphelson, A. C. (1987). The use of slides in class: A demonstration of incidental learning. Teaching of Psychology, 14(2):103?105.

Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C. A., & Schloss, P. J. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10:14?18.

Silberman, M. (1996). Active Learning: 101 Strategies to teach any subject. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stuart, J., & Rutherford, R. J. (1978). Medical student concentration during lectures. The Lancet, 2:514?516.
Thomas, J. (1972). The variation of memory with time for information appearing during a lecture. Studies in Adult Education, 4:57?62.

Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 69?95.

Wenk, V. A., & Menges, R. J. (1985). Using classroom questions appropriately. Nurse Educator, 10:,19?24.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)