Page 24 - 0051

Culture, Knowledge, and Assessment in Active Learning 17

does not guarantee effective recontextualisation of horizontal knowledge to vertical (Harju &
Akerblom, 2017; Khaphingst et al., 2009). Harju and Akerblom (2017) explore the discourse of

knowledge production between thesis students and their supervisor. Specifically, they examine
how knowledge students gained in their practice are transformed into academic and specialised
knowledge when involved in active learning and student-centred approach. They find out that
students’ horizontal knowledge is not transformable into vertical without the supervisor’s
modelling, intervention, and involvement in the discourse. Students’ practical experiences do
not have a place in negotiating knowledge production in their thesis conversations with their
supervisor (Harju & Akerblom, 2017). Additionally, Khaphingst et al. (2009) compare patients’

learning of a genomic concept through games – an active learning technique – and didactic
approach. Results show that patients in didactic method understand the abstract concept
better than those involved in game-based learning (Khaphingst et al., 2009). Therefore, didactic
approach can be more effective in learning a specialised concept than game-based learning
(Khaphingst et al., 2009).
Vertical knowledge is abstracted in immediate milieux. To grasp vertical knowledge, learners
need to develop an epistemic resources or cognitive frameworks which bridge their experiences
to theories and concepts required to be learnt in formal schooling. If learners are given full
autonomy to the learning (as those heavily student focussed active learning), then they have

to rely on their existing frameworks to create new meanings in order to bridge the gap. In most
situations, either learners fail to bridge this gap or they bridge it inappropriately thus creating
'misconceptions' on theories, concepts, processes, and/or methods of the discipline. Failure to
address these misconceptions may jeopardise learning (Andrews et al., 2011). Active learning is
commonly practiced with minimal guidance (Kirchner et al., 2006). Disciplinary misconceptions
are not uncommon in minimally guided learning as a strong epistemic foundation for learners
is required to process the incomplete information given so as to create a new knowledge

system. Kirschner et al. (2006) argues that ‘minimally guided instruction is less effective and less
efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student
learning process’ (p. 75). Moreover, vertical knowledge frameworks are not static systems; they
are dynamic. Developing vertical knowledge frameworks, therefore, requires adequate support
and consistent contact and negotiation with different knowers of the discipline to harmonise
oneself with the dynamicity of the fields.
On the contrary, this paper does not neglect the potential of active learning strategies in
teaching and learning specialized or vertical knowledge. Thus, active learning’s potential can
be maximized if it is done appropriately within its contexts and goals. Teachers adopting active

learning strategies should provide constant support to students’ recontextualisation of horizontal
and vertical knowledges. Active learning strategies, therefore, should have a clear purpose
rather than an additional activity for student engagement. One possible way to practice this is
to combine activities with some explicit instruction where teacher bridges students’ knowledge
to specialised one. Some might argue that explicit or direct approach is passive learning but this