More than 30 years ago, Charles C. Bonwell and James A. Eison documented the effectiveness of active learning strategies. Since then, studies have consistently shown that students benefit from active learning. Because active learning is so effective, is it an ethical imperative that professors incorporate active learning strategies into our classes.

When he spoke at Schoolcraft College last week, Robert Talbert advanced the position that we do have such an obligation; a position he took in his 2015 “Active Learning as an Ethical Issue.” To support his position, Talbert cited a 2014 study in which Scott Freedman and their coauthors argued that, if the experiments concerning active learning were conducted as randomized controlled trials of medical interventions, the studies would likely be stopped because it would be unethical to withhold such treatment from the patients in the control group. The evidence for active learning is that compelling. Yet is it an ethical imperative?

Talbert builds a convincing case, in part, because he does not write as a true believer who sees active learning as a panacea. He does not condemn lecturing and recognizes that it is a valid teaching methodology (2021a, 2021b). While I am in agreement that active learning is important and would even go so far as to say that faculty should incorporate active learning into their classes, I would not frame the discussion in terms of ethical imperatives.

Although C.D. Meyers argues that actions done solely from duty have more worth than actions that are taken from a position of love or sympathy, to adopt a pedagogical approach simply out of duty can lead to bad pedagogy. Talbert provides a list of 25 problems that can develop if a professor attempts active learning without coming from a position of empathy. Good teaching is more rooted in passion than obligation.

Instead of discussing the ethical imperatives of teaching specific pedagogical approaches, I prefer to frame the ethical imperative as one of continuous improvement; to be better next semester than I am this semester. Such an imperative works best if it is built on a foundation of empathy (Talbert’s word) or compassion (the word I tend to use). An imperative of improvement accomplishes Talbert’s goal. Regardless of whether we take on the imperative of active learning or the imperative of improvement, “the lecture naturally begins to morph into active learning (2021a).”

Furthermore, the imperative of improvement does not allow us to rest on our laurels. I do active learning very well and could easily point to my accomplishments with self-satisfied felicitations. But because I take self-improvement seriously, in addition to improving in areas in which I am not as strong, I continue to improve on what I do well.

Although I would frame the question of ethical imperatives differently than does Talbert, I am not being critical of his approach for two main reasons. First, we need to be challenged to think about pedagogy from a variety of perspectives. Talbert’s framework challenges my worldview in ways that help me clarify my own thinking.

Second, it is important that we consider what constitutes an ethical imperative. For example, do I have an ethical imperative to allow students to Zoom into my office hours? I could build a case for such an obligation.

Given my spiritual practice, I clearly have an ethical imperative to teach using active learning strategies. However, I remain unsure if other faculty have such an imperative. At the same time, I would argue that anyone who does not incorporate active learning into a class is doing students a disservice by ignoring more than 30 years of research that shows the effectiveness of such a pedagogy.

But is someone also doing their students a disservice or ignoring an ethical imperative if they don’t incorporate reading or math or some other important pedagogical strategy into their classes? Although his focus in on active learning, Talbert encourages us to consider broader ethical questions. Regardless of the answers, we will be better at our profession by taking his lead and asking, “Do I have an ethical obligation to adopt this particular pedagogical approach?”

–Steven L. Berg, PhD

Bonwell, Charles C., and James A. Eison. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, 1991.

Freeman, Scott, et al. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 111, no. 23, 2014, pp. 8410-8415.

Meyers, C. D. “The Virtue of Cold-Heartedness.” Philosophical Studies, vol. 138, no. 2, Mar. 2008, pp. 233–44. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-006-9034-3.

Reid, Alistair. “Curiosity.” Weathering: Poems and Translations. Canongate, 1978. [Part of the inspiration for the illustration.]

Talbert, Robert. “Active Learning as an Ethical Issue.” Robert Talbert, Ph.D., 4 Feb. 2015; 2021.

Talbert, Robert. “Empathy in Teaching.” Robert Talbert, Ph.D., 28 Jan. 2021a,

Talbert, Robert. “How Not to Do Active Learning.” Robert Talbert, Ph.D., 1 Feb. 2021b.

 

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.