Today at work I heard several administrators say something to the effect:
What we need to do is have more teachers teach actively… we need more active learning at [insert school name].
I assume what this means is an education experience taken from the following sundry list:
- student-centered,
- project-based,
- problem-based,
- hands-on,
- students are continuously engaged,
- practice of the myriad, so-called 21st century skills.
The more I think about all of those concepts above, I come to the conclusion that I think I recognize teaching and learning in this class. This approach might be labeled progressive, after the ideas of John Dewey, or even constructivist after Piaget or constructionist after Papert. Those who know their education history realize these concepts of learning are not new. Yet, it is refreshing that they are continuing to be heralded in discussions of education reform.
Unless, of course, you’re A. Duncan.
So the problem is… where is this type or style of pedagogy (in some cases you wouldn’t even label it pedagogy, but perhaps self-pedagogy or anti-pedagogy) effectively being championed? The reason I ask, and the crux of the problem, is because making this succeed in schools today is a taxing enterprise for the aspiring trainer or professional developer.
There are all these little camps, of course, which aim to attack the problem from their various viewpoints and angles. Let me list just a few:
- 21st century learning,
- Constructivist learning,
- habits of the mind,
- brain-based learning,
- the Montessori method,
- inquiry-based learning,
- challenge-based learning,
- game-based learning,
- Children’s Engineering.
A real challenge for me (or any education student) might be to construct a diagram that somehow showed the overlaps and differences between all these approaches. One of the problems is that some are better-defined than others. Another problem is that one methodology may look or work very differently between different subject areas.
And, of course, some may not very well stay within the bounds of one subject area. And we can’t have that. High school English teachers know English. We don’t expect them to know geography or Earth science as well. The solution to that old problem is teacher collaboration. Sometimes that works towards great ends. Other times it is far too inconvenient to be realistic.
We might also call collective goodies between these approaches “hot” learning. One system of measuring “hot” learning is the LoTI HEAT scale. A giant amalgamation of letters standing-in for bigger concepts, it’s a model by which one can measure the quality of learning, perhaps how “active” it is, by taking a “temperature” along four criteria.
I find all of this theoretically fascinating. But when you walk into a school classroom today, despite the cute posters on the walls that may profess “We learn by doing,” or “An active mind makes a wise man,” or any other similar polemic, we’re going to see examples of (for lack of a better word) inactive learning.
For those of us who belong in departments with the word “technology” included, many of us have already resigned ourselves to the fact that doing anything meaningful with technology requires some take on active learning strategies. To make them succeed, everyone has to be on board. It tends not to work out as well when:
- state assessments reward memorized facts,
- you’re out on your own trying the active “thing,”
- when there’s a lack of instructional support for active pedagogy, and
- administrative reviews or oversight make no reference to an active style of learning.
So, granted, the education system has a lot of challenges towards a more progressive approach to learning, at least here in public schools in America. But it’s a good sign, right, when administrators are calling for more active learning experiences to be taking place in their schools? But is that change possible?
I’ll say I think it is. Last school year I designed an activity where by teachers did some “active” learning together. Granted, it was a 3.5 hour professional development activity that didn’t depend heavily on their subject area or grade level, but it got them working together. They had to solve problems. They had to make mini-presentations for feedback. And, with multiple modes of popcorn poppery going, we tried our best at making the experience hands-on and multi-sensory.
So what holds us back from day to day?
Two things, I think. A freedom to fail and the so-called luxury of time. Creating active learning experiences for students, I firmly believe, requires creative educators. Creativity takes time. Lots of it! Unfortunately, teacher training programs fill young teachers-to-be with a lot of theory, some methods for getting-by, and then some practice before pushing them into a profession where they’ll be under-valued, stifled against attempting change, and asked to work miracles in unreasonable spans of time.
I’ve found in working with folks that “freedom to fail” is never a popular term. No one wants to fail. So, let’s re-word it. How about… incentives to innovate? And giving professionals enough time to complete an important task is just that… professional.
So, I think that’s the formula for starting a professional development program geared towards more “active learning” in a public school: incentives to innovate and ample professional time for planning and preparation. The question is, how do you make active learning experiences work in your school(s)?
