Critique in academic disciplines and active learning of academic content

Abstract

This article argues for increased theoretical specificity in the active learning process. Whereas constructivist learning emphasizes construction of meaning, the process articulated here complements meaning construction with disciplinary critique. This process is an implication of how disciplinary communities generate new knowledge claims, which is comprised by an interaction of roles – authors construct claims and peers critique them. Because disciplinary critique drives and shapes generation of knowledge claims, specialized features of these claims both justify and define their meaning. Here science is offered as an example, in which critique drives measurement of key concepts, thereby anchoring their meaning in operational definitions. The account of active learning proposed sheds new light on both historical and contemporary characterizations of active learning in terms of taking a critical stance toward content, in which the learner questions and challenges content. Thus students, rather than teachers, should actively challenge their emerging understanding of content.

Keywords:

• learning processes
• pedagogy
• classroom communication
• thinking skills

Notes

1. By current constructivist tenets I mean the consensus among educational researchers that focus less on extreme philosophical positions (see Von Glaserfeld, 1995) than on the core practical ideas that have moved our notions of teaching and learning beyond transmission and acquisition.

2. Science studies is a field that includes history, philosophy, and sociology of science. My argument uses science as an example academic discipline precisely because such a rich literature exists on it. Although science is used as an example, I believe the points about active learning are general for other academic (that is, knowledge producing) disciplines as well.