We Learn by Doing: Why Passive Information Consumption Does Not Work

On the common sensical nature of active learning

Imagine you really need to learn something important. And fast. Would you: listen to a lecture –or– practice it?

Most people would correctly intuit that the answer is to practice. We do not learn how to speak French by reading about it. We do not learn how to use a new piece of software by reading the manual as much as playing around with it. We learn and master things more quickly and effectively by doing something, not listening or reading about it.

This also makes sense given what we know about how humans became such adept learners. The four most important traits of children's learning mechanisms are "(1) skeletal perceptual and cognitive mechanisms…mainly through play; (2) a high level of plasticity that is greatest early in life but that persists into adulthood; (3) remarkable social-learning capabilities; and (4) dispositions toward exploration and play." In the simplest terms, humans became such good learners (relative to other animals) through play, interacting with others, and being given the freedom to explore and tinker.

A playground slide is designed for a child to go down and yet so many children want to climb up. Play for one child might mean creating a story with dolls, while for another play means kicking a ball. Adults are no different in this respect. We play sports, we play card games, we play with color for artistic satisfaction, and so on. The best way to learn how to ride a bike is to try and ride it, not read about it. The best way to write code is to write code, not listen to someone else talk about it.

And yet! Given this clear preference for experiential, active learning, it's puzzling that so much educational training remains stuck on presenting information via lecture. Death by powerpoint. Why?

Research across multiple disciplines highlight why passive consumption of information is inefficient at best and detrimental at worst. Tasking students to generate information instead of passively consuming it has benefits, especially when there is more latitude in how an individual generates this information. Meta-analyses of 126 studies on the "generation effect" suggests that learners remember information better when they generate it themselves rather than simply read it. There is also the "testing effect"–where tasking an individual to actively recall information is superior to passively receiving information to learn. The testing effect demonstrates that retrieval practice, for example using flashcards to memorize something, improves learning in authentic educational settings, for different types of study materials, and for different populations.

The testing and generation effects have something in common–the student is performing work. Students are doing something. When planned out thoughtfully, this can roughly equate to 'active learning.' Research indicates that active learning is associated with various positive learning outcomes. One meta-analysis of 225 research publications on STEM education found students performed about 0.40 standard deviations better with active learning techniques across all STEM disciplines and all class sizes over lecturing. Another meta-analysis of 104 publications in humanities and the social sciences found assessment scores 0.489 standard deviations better than traditional lecturing.

This does not necessarily equate to gruelling tests and exhausting busy work. Active learning techniques requiring an individual to recall information or come up with new ideas can be done quickly. While requiring genuine energy and effort on the part of the learner, speaking French, exploring a new piece of software, solving a new type of problem, will help you learn far more quickly than listening to a lecture about it.

But what if learners are used to lectures? Or to learn a new skill by reading a book? Could there be a cost, in terms of learning, if students are expected to solve problems and engage with the content more actively when they much prefer to sit in front of a powerpoint deck presented by an expert?

The evidence suggests these concerns are not something to take too seriously. One study is worth quoting at length, [t]ransformation of passive lectures to interactive learning sessions is feasible, has the potential to close achievement gaps by benefiting the lowest achieving learners the most, and provides students a greater sense of learning than passive lectures." Using fMRI scans one study found that "One week after active learning, relative to more passive learning, performance and fronto-parietal brain activity was significantly higher during retesting." It's plausible to expect some individuals to feel frustrated or exhausted by being required to perform work instead of sitting there listening. But the learning benefits far outweigh this potential downside.

Assessment as learning

One incredibly powerful upside to assigning learners to engage with the material through an activity is that you create artifacts of their understanding. You get evidence of their progress, or lack thereof. These artifacts are constructed while a learner is engaging with the material, not after a one hour cramming session to memorize information only to forget about it a few days later. This provides diagnostic power for the instructor–what is going well and what isn't. What topics need more remedial work and what topics can be safely ignored moving forward.

Receiving more immediate feedback makes learning environments more productive as well. Consider getting immediate feedback on multiple quizzes over the span of a month versus taking an exam at the end of the month. The former helps the learner think about their learning process and gives guidance as to what to focus on to improve. The latter tests retention at a specific point in time with few waypoints to guide the learner from the beginning of their learning journey to the end.

Lastly, providing active learning experiences has the added benefit of making assessment easier. Why wait to gather data on performance after a summative exam? In an ideal world every trainer or instructor would love consistent, regular feedback on student performance. In tasking a learner to do something, you generate direct feedback on their understanding. You can also note trends over time for each individual student (are their average scores improving?) and for groups (What are the students gaining proficiency with? What are they missing?).

Active learning, requiring actual work and energy by a student, produces better outcomes and happier learners than more passive methods. Actively processing information is important for learning. Play is important for learning. Research from neuroscience to evolutionary psychology provides a compelling case for educational and training experiences prioritizing active involvement of learners with material over passive consumption.

The path forward is clear: replace your next PowerPoint presentation with a hands-on simulation. Transform your compliance training into scenario-based problem-solving. Turn your onboarding process into interactive experiences where new hires practice real situations rather than glaze over policies. The research strongly indicates that this not only works better—it also demonstrates that every minute spent in passive consumption is a missed opportunity for genuine learning. Stop giving training. Start giving experiences.