Page 20 - 0051

Culture, Knowledge, and Assessment in Active Learning 13

Situation 2
The professor asked the students to dissect and observe two plants – a cone and a

flower – under a magnifying glass. The professor asked the students a set of questions on
plants’ structure. The students, then, compared the structures of the cone to the flower.
He wrote the students’ observations on the board. The professor revealed that the cone is a
part of a plant that belongs to a group called “gymnosperm”. He then proceeded to lecture.
After the lecture, the professor conducted a Think-Pair-Share where students share what they
have learnt and questions they have. Before the class ended, he gave the weekly reading to
the students on gymnosperm.

We can notice that both situations involve active learning activities. However, they are
designed divergently that may lead to desired or undesired results. The purpose of the
Think-Pair-Share activity in situation 1 is to elicit students’ understanding of their research
and previous reading of an academic article. We can predict that the probability of May
dominating the Think-Pair-Share activity is very high. May has an advantage over Del due to her
cultural capital – experience of being in hong king group in secondary school and the financial
resources to afford time and advanced classes with a highly skilled tutor. May is possibly aided
in research and academic article reading in her advanced classes. The advanced classes may
have provided her broader schemata to understand and explain more complex ideas about

the weekly reading. Additionally, having highly educated parents and being a former member
of the hong king group may have given May the chance to be exposed in vertical discourses
(see next section for an elaboration of vertical discourse) at a young age. Exposure in vertical
discourses can help one understand highly specialised discourses – e.g. academic article on
gymnosperm – needed in universities.
In the second situation, the professor drew from the students’ ability to observe and describe
physical structures. He is drawing from students’ ‘observable present’. Therefore, it is more

likely that more students can participate and engage in the discourse because the knowledge
framework of physical observation required to do the task is already developed in them. The
professor linked the students’ observable present to an abstract concept. May, in this situation,
may have an advanced understanding compared to her classmates, however, she is not given
the opportunity to outshine them as the professor did not draw from a knowledge framework
that only a very few students, like May, have. Moreover, the purpose of the Think-Pair-Share
activity is different: to check students’ learning about the topic discussed and clarifying possible
confusions. We can notice that the professor avoided tasks that enables students to study
topics that have not been discussed. If the professor gave them research work or a reading (e.g.

research article) as a preparation for the class, learners who do not have access to technology
or who are working students (therefore have no time for research) may struggle, or at worst,
fail to do the given task. In addition, students who have limited linguistic capital may struggle
to process information from research materials written in highly specialised language.