Action Learning

Agus Subandi,Drs.MBA

Action learning

Action learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.
Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (November 2010)



According to Confucius, i hear and i forget ; i see and i remember ; i do and i understand.
Action learning is an educational process whereby the participant studies their own actionsand experience in order to improve performance. Learning acquire knowledge through actual actions and repetitions, rather than through traditional instruction.
Action learning is done in conjunction with others, in small groups called action learning sets. It is proposed as particularly suitable for adults, as it enables each person to reflect on and review the action they have taken and the learning points arising. This should then guide future action and improve performance.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Revans's Formula
• 2 Nobel Prize winners
• 3 Use in schools
• 4 ARL and MiL Models
• 5 "Unlearning" as a Prerequisite for the "Learning" in Action Learning
• 6 Role of AL Coach and Questions
• 7 Bibliography
• 8 Notes
• 9 See also

Revans's Formula
Professor Reginald Revans is the originator of action learning. He had invented and developed this method in the United Kingdom in the 1940s, working in the Coal Board. he encouraged managers to meet together in small groups, to share their experiences and ask each other questions about what they saw and heard. The approach increased productivity by over 30%[1]. Later in hospitals, he concluded that the conventional instructional methods were largely ineffective.
People had to be aware of their lack of relevant knowledge and be prepared to explore the area of their ignorance with suitable questions and help from other people in similar positions.
This conclusion brought him into head-on conflict with educational institutions using lectures.[citation needed]
Later, Revans made this more precise in the opening chapter of his book (Revans, 1980) which describes the formula:
L = P + Q
where L is learning, P is programming (or programmed knowledge with simulations) and Q is questioning to create insight into what people see, hear or feel.
Q uses :
 "closed" questions:
 who?
 what?
 "objective" questions:
 how much or how many?
 "relative" questions:
 where
 when
 "open questions
 why?
 how?
Although Q is the cornerstone of the method, the more relaxed formulation has enabled action learning to become widely accepted in many countries all over the world. In Revans' book there are examples from the USA, Canada, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia-Pacific.
Michael Marquardt (2004; Marquardt, Leonard, Freedman, & Hill, 2009) expanded Revans's formula as follows:
L = P + Q + R, where R refers to Reflection.
This additional element emphasizes the point that "great questions" should evoke thoughtful Reflections while considering the current problem, the desired goal, designing strategies, developing action or implementation plans, or executing action steps that are components of the implementation plan.
Nobel Prize winners


Knowledge is got by experience, all the rest is information.(Einstein)
Ravens noted from his experience working with Nobel prize winning scientists at University of Cambridge, that there was a distinction between cleverness (i.e. knowledge) and wisdom, which showed in the form of insightful questioning. He showed that much powerful learning comes from people learning 'with and from others', hence many action learning programmes put the 'action learning set' at the heart of the process.
Use in schools
The contribution of Revans is being seen today through initiatives in leadership development such as those made by Richard Hale working with major organisations. They have developed a new approach to education of leaders which is recognised by leading universities interested in work based learning in the UK. This puts the business or personal questions issues before the syllabus, so following Revans' principles 'theory follows the action'. Richard Hale spent his early career in the GEC organisation where Revans' ideas were pursued by Arnold Weinstock. Revans distinguished between puzzles and problems, noting that action learning lent itself to working on real problems (e.g. improving productivity or morale rather than puzzles e.g. constructing a balance sheet). Key writers on the subject have been Mike Pedler and Alan Mumford in the United Kingdom, Canada and internationally, and Robert Kramer, Michael Marquardt, and Joe Raelin in the United States.
ARL and MiL Models
As with other educational processes, practitioners have built on Revan’s pioneering work and have adapted some tenets to accommodate their needs. One such branch of action learning is Action Reflection Learning (ARL), which originated in Sweden among educators and consultants under the guidance of Lennart Rohlin of the MiL Institute in the 1970s. With the so-called “MiL model”, ARL gained momentum with the work of LIM, Leadership in International Management, under the leadership of Ernie Turner in the USA.
The main differences between Revans’ approach to action learning and the ‘MiL Model’ in the ‘80s are :
1. the role of a project team advisor (later called Learning Coach), which Revans advised against;
2. the use of team projects rather than individual challenges;
3. the duration of the sessions, which is more flexible in ARL designs.
The MiL Model evolved organically as practitioners responded to diverse needs and restrictions. In an experiential learning[mode, MiL practitioners varied the number and duration of the sessions, the type of project selected, the role of the Learning Coach and the style of his/her interventions.
ARL evolved organically through the choices and savvy intuitions of practitioners, who informally exchanged their experiences with each other. It became a somewhat shared practice, which incorporated elements of design and intervention that the practitioners adopted because of their efficacy. In 2004, Isabel Rimanoczy researched and coded the ARL methodology, identifying 16 elements and 10 underlying principles.
"Unlearning" as a Prerequisite for the "Learning" in Action Learning
Robert Kramer (2007a, 2007b, 2008) pioneered the use of action learning for officials in the U.S. government, and at the European Commission in Brussels and Luxembourg. He also introduced action learning to scientists at the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen and to officials of the Estonian government at the State Chancellery (Prime Minister's Office) in Tallinn, Estonia.
Unlike other writers in the field of action learning, Kramer applies the theory of art, creativity and "unlearning" of the psychologist Otto Rankto his practice of action learning.
Questions allow group members to “step out of the frame of the prevailing ideology,” as Otto Rank wrote in Art and Artist (1932/1989, p. 70), reflect on their assumptions and beliefs, and reframe their choices. The process of “stepping out” of a frame, out of a form of knowing – a prevailing ideology – is analogous to the work of artists as they struggle to give birth to fresh ways of seeing the world, perspectives that allow them to see aspects of the world that no artists, including themselves, have ever seen before.
The most creative artists, such as Rembrandt, Michelangelo and Leonardo, know how to separate even from their own greatest public successes, from earlier artistic incarnations of themselves. Their “greatness consists precisely in this reaching out beyond themselves, beyond the ideology which they have themselves fostered,” according to Art and Artist (Rank, 1932/1989, p. 368). Through the lens of Otto Rank’s work on understanding art and artists, action learning can be seen as the never-completed process of learning how to “step out of the frame” of the ruling mindset, whether one’s own or the culture’s – in other words, of learning how to unlearn.
Comparing the process of unlearning to the “breaking out” process of birth, Otto Rank was the first psychologist to suggest that a continual capacity to separate from “internal mental objects” – from internalized institutions, beliefs and assumptions; from the restrictions of culture, social conformity and received wisdom – is the sine qua non for life-long creativity.
Unlearning necessarily involves separation from one’s self concept, as it has been culturally conditioned to conform to familial, group, occupational or organizational allegiances. According to Rank (1932/1989), unlearning or breaking out of our shell from the inside is “a separation [that] is so hard, not only because it involves persons and ideas that one reveres, but because the victory is always, at bottom, and in some form, won over a part of one’s ego” (p. 375).
In the organizational context, learning how to unlearn is vital because what we assume to be true has merged into our identity. We refer to the identity of an individual as a “mindset.” We refer to the identity of an organizational group as a “culture.” Action learners learn how to question, probe and separate from, both kinds of identity—i.e., their “individual” selves and their “social” selves. By opening themselves to critical inquiry, they begin to learn how to emancipate themselves from what they "know" – they learn how to unlearn.
Role of AL Coach and Questions
An ongoing challenge of action learning has been producing desired organizational results and meeting organizational expectations by taking action and learning in an action learning project. Usually the urgency of the problem or task decreases or eliminates the reflective time necessary for learning. More and more organizations have recognized the critical importance of an action learning coach in the process, someone who has the authority and responsibility of creating time and space for the group to learn at the individual, group and organizational level. There is controversy relative to the need for an action learning coach. Reg Revans was against the use of learning coaches and, in general, of interventionist facilitators and "certified"coaches" . He believed the action learning set or group could practice action learning on its own. Neither did he want a group to become dependent on a coach. Moreover, reflection was always a fundamental component of action learning for him and did not, therefore, have to be emphasized as some consultancies have done.
Self-managed action learning (Bourner et al., 2002; O'Hara et al., 2004) is a variant of action learning that dispenses with the need for a facilitator of the action learning set. Shurville and Rospigliosi (2009) have explored taking self-managed action learning online to create virtual self managed action learning. Deborah Waddill has developed guidelines for virtual action learning teams, what she calls action e-learning.
To increase the reflective, learning aspect of action learning, many groups now adopt the practice or norm of focusing on questions rather than statements while working on the problem and developing strategies and actions. Questions also enable the group to listen, to more quickly become a cohesive team, and to generate creative, out-of-the-box thinking.
The difficulty with relating Self-managing teams (e.g., Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991) to action learning is that the former focus almost exclusively on finding or creating solutions for the problems with which they are tasked. Without reflection, action learning team members are likely to import their organizational or sub-unit cultural norms and familiar problem solving practices into their teams without making them explicit or testing their validity and utility. Cultural norms and practices inform action learning team members’ implicit assumptions, mental models, and beliefs about what methods or processes should be applied to solve a problem. Thus, not always but with great regularity, they apply traditional problem solving methods to non-traditional, urgent, critical, and discontinuous problems while mindlessly expecting them to produce viable, effective solutions—generally without enduring positive effect.
Without action learning team coaches who focus exclusively on helping team members to inquire, reflect, and learn from their emerging experiences while explicitly refraining from any involvement in the contents of the problem, team members often "leap" from the initial problem statement to some form of brainstorming that they assume will reveal or produce a viable solution. These suggested solutions typically provoke objections, doubts, concerns, or reservations from other team members who advocate their own preferred solutions. The conflicts that ensue are generally both unproductive and time-consuming. Self-managed teams, tend to split or fragment rather than develop and evolve into a cohesive, high-performing team.
Perhaps most important, without coaches who have the authority to intervene whenever they perceive a learning opportunity, there is no assurance that the team will make the time needed for periodic, systemic, and strategic inquiry and reflection (Marquardt, 2004; Marquardt, Leonard, Freedman, & Hill, 2009). Thus, self-managed versions of action learning teams are unlikely to enable team members to make explicit efforts to learn – about themselves, leadership, teamwork, participative problem solving, the systemic nature of problems, the relationships between the problem and the organization’s strategic direction, interactions of organizational subsystems, and organizational dynamics, including organizational politics.
Bibliography
 Bourner, T., O’Hara, S. &Webber, T. 2002. Learning to manage change in the Health Service, in: A. Brockbank, I.
 Crainer, Stuart. 1999. The 75 Greatest Management Decisions Ever Made. New York: AMACOM Publishing
 Dilworth, R. L., and Willis, V. 2003. Action Learning: Images and Pathways.
 Chambers, A. and Hale, R. 2007. Keep Walking: Leadership Learning in Action, RHA Publications, UK.
 Kramer, R. 2008. Learning How to Learn: Action Learning for Leadership Development. A chapter in Rick Morse (Ed.) Innovations in Public Leadership Development. Washington DC: M.E. Sharpe and National Academy of Public Administration, pp. 296–326.
 Kramer, R. 2007b. How Might Action Learning Be Used to Develop the Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Capacity of Public Administrators? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13 (2): 205-230.
 Kramer, R. 2007a. Leading Change Through Action Learning. The Public Manager, 36 (3):38-44.
 McGill & N. Beech (Eds) Reflective learning in practice, Aldershot, Gower.
 Marquardt, M. J. 1999. Action learning in action. Palo Alto, CA:Davies-Black.
 Marquardt, M. J. 2004. Harnessing the power of action learning.T�D, 58(6): 26–32.
 Marquardt, M.J. 2004. Optimizing the power of action learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
 Marquardt, M.J., Leonard, S., Freedman, A., and Hill,C. 2009. Action learning for developing leaders and organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Press.
 Martinsons, M.G. 1998. MBA action learning projects. Hong Kong University Press.
 O'Hara, S., Bourner, T. and Webber, T. 2004. Practice of self managed action learning. Action learning: research and practice,1(1): 29-42.
 O'Neil, J. and Marsick, V.J. 2007. Understanding Action Learning. NY: AMACOM Publishing
 Pedler, M., (Ed.). 1991. Action learning in practice (2nd ed.). Aldershot,UK: Gower.
 Pedler, M. 1996. Action learning for managers. London: Lemos and Crane.
 Raelin, J. A. 1997. Action learning and action science: Are they different? Organizational Dynamics, 26(1): 21–34.
 Raelin, J. A. 2000. Work-based learning: The new frontier of management development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
 Rank, O. 1932/1989. Art and Artist: Creative Urge and Personality Development. W.W. Norton.
 Revans, R. 1980. Action learning: New techniques for management. London: Blond & Briggs, Ltd.
 Revans, R. W. 1982. The origin and growth of action learning.Brickley, UK: Chartwell-Bratt.
 Revans, R. W. 1998. ABC of action learning. London: Lemos and Crane.
 Rimanoczy, I., and Turner, E. 2008. Action Reflection Learning: solving real business problems by connecting learning with earning. US, Davies-Black Publishing.
 Rohlin, L., Turner, E. and others. 2002. Earning while Learning in Global Leadership: the Volvo MiL Partnership. Sweden, MiL Publishers AB.
 Sawchuk, P. H. 2003. Adult learning and technology in working class life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
 Shurville, S.J. and Rospigliosi, A. 2009. Implementing blended self-managed action learning for digital entrepreneurs in higher education. Action Learning: Research and Practice, Volume 6, Issue 1 March 2009 , pages 53 – 61.
 Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C., & Wilson, J.M. (1991). Empowered teams: Creating self-directed work teams that improve quality, production, and participation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Notes
1. ^ Caroline Altounyan - January 2003
See also
Wikiversity has learning materials about storytelling

 Action research
 Inquiry-based learning
 Action Science


Inquiry-based learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Inquiry_education. (Discuss)


Contents
[hide]
• 1 Open Learning
• 2 Inquiry-based learning in science education
• 3 Philosophy
• 4 Characteristics of inquiry-learning
• 5 Examples of inquiry-based science
• 6 Debate
• 7 References and further reading
• 8 See also

[edit]Open Learning
Main article: Open learning
An important aspect of inquiry-based science is the use of open learning. Open learning is when there is no prescribed target or result which students have to achieve. In many conventional traditional science experiments, students are told what the outcome of an experiment will be, or is expected to be, and the student is simply expected to 'confirm' this.
In open teaching, on the other hand, the student is either left to discover for themselves what the result of the experiment is, or the teacher guides them to the desired learning goal but without making it explicit what this is. Open teaching is an important but difficult skill for teachers to acquire.
Open learning has many benefits. It means students do not simply perform experiments in a routine like fashion, but actually think about the results they collect and what they mean. With traditional non-open lessons there is a tendency for students to say that the experiment 'went wrong' when they collect results contrary to what they are told to expect. In open lessons there are no wrong results, and students have to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the results they collect themselves and decide their value. Because the path taken to a desired learning target is uncertain, open lessons are more dynamic and less predictable than traditional lessons.
Open learning has been developed by a number of science educators including the American John Dewey and the German Martin Wagenschein. Wagenschein's ideas particularly complement both open learning and inquiry teaching. He emphasized that students should not be taught bald facts, but should be made to understand and explain what they are learning. His most famous example of this was when he asked physics students to tell him what the speed of a falling object was. Nearly all students would produce an equation. But no students could explain what this equation meant. Wagenschien used this example to show the importance of understanding over knowledge.
Inquiry-based learning has been of great influence in science education, where it is known as Inquiry-based science, especially since the publication of the U.S. National Science Educational Standards in 1996. Since this publication some educators have advocated a return to more traditional methods of teaching and assessment. Others feel inquiry is important in teaching students to research and learning (e.g., see Constructivism (learning theory)).
Scientists use their background knowledge of principles, concepts and theories, along with the science process skills to construct new explanations to allow them to understand the natural world. This is known as "science inquiry".
The National Science Education Standards call for students to do inquiry, and to know about inquiry. When students do inquiry, they use the same ideas as scientists do when they are conducting research. Students become 'mini-scientists.'
When students are learning about inquiry, they should become familiar with the processes used by scientists, and the new knowledge that results. Inquiry is a natural introduction to the branch of epistemology known as the Nature of Science, which deals with the characteristics of scientific knowledge.
The National Science Education Standards were often misunderstood with regard to inquiry-based learning. As a result, the National Research Council put out a second volume, entitled 'Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards' in 2000. Inquiry-based learning (Enquiry-based learning in British English) or inquiry-based science describes a range of philosophical, curricular and pedagogical approaches to teaching.
Inquiry-based learning is an instructional method developed during the discovery learning movement of the 1960s. It was developed in response to a perceived failure of more traditional forms of instruction, where students were required simply to memorize fact laden instructional materials (Bruner, 1961). Inquiry learning is a form of active learning, where progress is assessed by how well students develop experimental and analytical skills rather than how much knowledge they possess.
[edit]Inquiry-based learning in science education
Heather Banchi and Randy Bell (2008) suggest that there are four levels of inquiry-based learning in science education: confirmation inquiry, structured inquiry, guided inquiry and open inquiry. With confirmation inquiry, students are provided with the question and procedure (method), and the results are known in advance. Confirmation inquiry is useful when a teacher’s goal is to reinforce a previously introduced idea; to introduce students to the experience of conducting investigations; or to have students practice a specific inquiry skill, such as collecting and recording data.
In structured inquiry, the question and procedure are still provided by the teacher; however, students generate an explanation supported by the evidence they have collected. In guided inquiry, the teacher provides students with only the research question, and students design the procedure (method) to test their question and the resulting explanations. Because this kind of inquiry is more involved than structured inquiry, it is most successful when students have had numerous opportunities to learn and practice different ways to plan experiments and record data.
At the fourth and highest level of inquiry, open inquiry, students have the purest opportunities to act like scientists, deriving questions, designing and carrying out investigations, and communicating their results. This level requires the most scientific reasoning and greatest cognitive demand from students.
[edit]Philosophy
The philosophy of inquiry based learning finds its antecedents in the work of Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky, and Freire among others.
[edit]Characteristics of inquiry-learning
 Inquiry learning emphasizes constructivist ideas of learning. Knowledge is built in a step-wise fashion. Learning proceeds best in group situations.
 The teacher does not begin with a statement, but with a question. Posing questions for students to solve is a more effective method of instruction in many areas. This allows the students to search for information and learn on their own with the teacher's guidance.
 The topic, problem to be studied, and methods used to answer this problem are determined by the student and not the teacher (this is an example of the 3rd level of the Herron Scale)
The above comments represent a classroom that is fully committed to inquiry, to the greatest extent possible. However, it is not necessary to take an all-or-nothing approach to inquiry-based teaching methods.
In the 1960s, Schwab called for inquiry to be divided into four distinct levels. This was later formalized by Marshal Herron in 1971, who developed the Herron Scale to evaluate the amount of inquiry within a particular lab exercise. Since then, there have been a number of revisions proposed, but the consensus in the science education community is that there is a spectrum of inquiry-based teaching methods available.[citation needed]
[edit]Examples of inquiry-based science
 Students develop a method to find which antacid tablets are the best at neutralizing acids.
 Students learn about inertia and movement by studying what affect rolling of marbles on different surfaces has.
 Students work in groups to build bridges to hold marble weights. By doing so they discover how to build strong bridges.
 Inquiry based learning is a way of assuring students become more actively involved in what they are learning, particularly in the content area of Science.
 A special case of inquiry learning is problem-based learning (PBL). Students are assigned to teams and provided with an ill-defined problem. Teams must organize themselves, define objectives, assign responsibilities, conduct research, analyze results, and present conclusions. The problems are purposely “ill-defined,” causing team members to work collaboratively to define specific issues, problems, and objectives. Such tasks mimic the problem-solving skills that professionals engage in, whether repairing automobiles, or treating cancer patients. Problem-based learning employs open-ended questions that are not limited to a single correct answer. The questions elicit diverse ideas and opinions and require students to work as a group. Problem-based learning naturally integrates various fields of study as students search beyond the traditional curricular boundaries to develop solutions.
 The Hands-On Universe (HOU) project is an educational program that enables students to investigate the Universe while applying tools and concepts from science, math, and technology. Using the Internet, HOU participants around the world request observations from an automated telescope, download images from a large image archive, and analyze them with the aid of user-friendly image processing software. The HOU pedagogical ressources are typical tools inspired from Inquiry-based science education (IBSE).
[edit]Debate
“ After a half century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal guidance, there appears no body of research supporting the technique. In so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate learners. Even for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong guidance while learning is most often found to be equally effective as unguided approaches. Not only is unguided instruction normally less effective; there is also evidence that it may have negative results when student acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge ”
— Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching by Kirschner, Sweller, Clark
[1]
[2] review the literature and have found that although constructivists often cite each others' work, empirical evidence is not often cited. Nonetheless the constructivist movement gained great momentum in the 1990s, because many educators began to write about this philosophy of learning.
Inquiry-based science has been increasingly promoted as a mainstream teaching approach, especially since the publication of the 1996 Standards in Science Education document. However, there are many critics of inquiry-based science.
Science testing has become increasingly important with the No Child Left Behind program, and the rewriting of the National Assessment of Educational Progress to emphasize facts. This has led to a decrease in emphasis on inquiry as a method of teaching science and a fall back to more traditional 'chalk and talk' methods.
Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the constructivist problem-based and inquiry learning methods. For example, they describe a project called GenScope, an inquiry-based science software application. Students using the GenScope software showed significant gains over the control groups, with the largest gains shown in students from basic courses.[3]
Hmelo-Silver et al. also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of inquiry-based science for middle school students, as demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes standardized tests. The improvement was 14% for the first cohort of students and 13% for the second cohort. This study also found that inquiry-based teaching methods greatly reduced the achievement gap for African-American students.[3]
Based on their 2005 research, the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute concluded that while inquiry-based learning is fine to some degree, it has been carried to excess.[4]
[edit]References and further reading
1. ^ Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching Paul A. Kirschner Utrecht University, The Netherlands, John Sweller University of New South Wales, Richard E. Clark University of Southern California
2. ^ http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41 (2) 75-86
3. ^ a b Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn. (2007). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107
4. ^ [1] Wall Street Journal, 19 January 2006 (p. A09)
 Bruner, J. S. (1961). "The act of discovery". Harvard Educational Review 31 (1): 21–32.
 Banchi, H. & Bell, R. (2008). The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29, October 2008 pdf
 Dewey, J (1997) How We Think, New York: Dover Publications
 Freire, P. (1984) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum Publishing Company
 Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75–86 doi= 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
 Herr, N. (2008) "The Sourcebook for Teaching Science". San Francisco: John Wiley
 Mayer, R. (2004). "Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction".American Psychologist 59 (1): 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14. PMID 14736316.
 Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E. (2006). "Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching". Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75–86.doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
 Herron, M.D. (1971). "The nature of scientific enquiry". Educational Psychologist 79 (2): 171–212.
[edit]See also
 Action learning
 McMaster Integrated Science
 Jerome Bruner
 Learning
 Minnesota State University, Mankato Masters Degree in Experiential Education
 Jean Piaget
 Problem-based learning
 Progressive inquiry
 Science education
 Scientific literacy
[hide]v • d • eStandards-based education reform


Theorists William Spady • Jean Piaget • Benjamin Bloom • Marc Tucker • Maria Montessori • Constance Kamii • Rheta DeVries • Betty Zan


Theories Outcome-based education • Cognitive load • Standards-based education reform • Developmentally Appropriate Practice • Holism •Constructivism • Block scheduling • Holistic grading • Active learning • Problem-based learning • Discovery learning •Inquiry-based learning • Inventive spelling • Open-space school • Small schools movement • Inclusion


Values Excellence and equity • Achievement gap


Learning standards
National Science Education Standards • National Reading Panel • No Child Left Behind Act • Adequate Yearly Progress • Goals 2000 •School-to-work transition • Principles and Standards for School Mathematics • National Skill Standards Board


Standards-based
assessment
Authentic assessment • Criterion-referenced test • Norm-referenced test • Standards-based assessment •High school graduation examination


Standardized tests
List of standardized tests in the United States • Standardized testing and public policy


Standardized
curriculum Decodable text • Guided reading • Phonics • Whole language • Traditional education • Traditional mathematics • Direct instruction •Rote learning • Grades • Lecture • Tracking (education) • Standard algorithms




Problem-based learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered pedagogy in which students learn about a subject in the context of complex, multifaceted, and realistic problems. Working in groups, students identify what they already know, what they need to know, and how and where to access new information that may lead to resolution of the problem. The role of the instructor is that of facilitator of learning who provides appropriate scaffolding of that process by (for example), asking probing questions, providing appropriate resources, and leading class discussions, as well as designing student assessments.
PBL was pioneered in the health sciences at McMaster University in the late 1960's and subsequently it has been adopted by other medical school programs (Barrows, 1996) and also been adapted for undergraduate instruction (Boud and Feletti, 1997; Duch et al., 2001; Amador et al., 2006). The use of PBL, like other student-centered pedagogies, has been motivated by recognition of the failures of traditional instruction (Wingspread, 1994; Boyer, 1998) and the emergence of deeper understandings of how people learn (National Research Council, 2000). Unlike traditional instruction, PBL actively engages the student in constructing knowledge in their own mind by themselves, and thus addresses many of deficits of traditional classroom where knowledge is expounded by an instructor.
Characteristics of PBL are:
 Learning is driven by challenging, open-ended, ill-defined and ill-structured problems.
 Students generally work in collaborative groups.
 Teachers take on the role as "facilitators" of learning.
In PBL, students are encouraged to take responsibility for their group and organize and direct the learning process with support from a tutor or instructor. Advocates of PBL claim it can be used to enhance content knowledge while simultaneously fostering the development of communication, problem-solving, and self-directed learning skills.
PBL may position students in a simulated real world working and professional context which involves policy, process, and ethical problems that will need to be understood and resolved to some outcome. By working through a combination of learning strategies to discover the nature of a problem, understanding the constraints and options to its resolution, defining the input variables, and understanding the viewpoints involved, students learn to negotiate the complex sociological nature of the problem and how competing resolutions may inform decision-making.

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Evidence supporting problem-based learning
• 2 Examples of applying Problem-Based Learning pedagogy to curriculum
• 3 Constructivism and PBL
• 4 Criticisms of Problem-based learning
o 4.1 Problem-based learning and cognitive load
o 4.2 Cognitive effects of problem-based learning
o 4.3 Other outcomes of problem-based learning
• 5 References
• 6 External links
• 7 See also

[edit]Evidence supporting problem-based learning
Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the constructivist problem-based and inquiry learning methods. For example, they describe a project called GenScope, an inquiry-based science software application. Students using the GenScope software showed significant gains over the control groups, with the largest gains shown in students from basic courses.[1]
Hmelo-Silver et al. also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of inquiry-based science for middle school students, as demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes standardized tests. The improvement was 14% for the first cohort of students and 13% for the second cohort. This study also found that inquiry-based teaching methods greatly reduced the achievement gap for African-American students.[1]
A systematic review of the effects of problem-based learning in medical school on the performance of doctors after graduation showed clear positive effects on physician competence. This effect was especially strong for social and cognitive competencies such as coping with uncertainty and communication skills.[2]
[edit]Examples of applying Problem-Based Learning pedagogy to curriculum
In Malaysia, an attempt is being made to introduce a hybrid of problem-based learning in secondary mathematics called PBL4C, which stands for problem-based learning the four core areas in the mathematics education framework. These core areas are content, thinking processes, skills, & values, with the aim of nurturing citizens who are wise rather than just intelligent. This hybrid first sprouted in SEAMEO RECSAM in 2008 and was presented at EARCOME5 conference in 2010. At tertiary level, many Malaysian universities are going for PBL purposely to improve the quality of the graduates produced. In collaboration with Aalborg University of Denmark, PBL was introduced at University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM). Since then the PBL was widely used among engineering and as well as humanities lecturers at UTHM (Berhannudin, 2007).
Several medical schools have incorporated problem-based learning into their curricula, using real patient cases to teach students how to think like a clinician. More than eighty percent of medical schools in the United States now have some form of problem-based learning in their programs. [3] Research of 10 years of data from the University of Missouri Medical School PBL curriculum supports PBL. ( Koh GC-H, Khoo HE, Wong ML, Koh D. The Effects of Problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review.CMAJ 2008;178(1):34-41.)
Maastricht University offers its whole program in PBL format only, as does the University of Limerick Graduate entry medical school in Ireland.
In 2004, the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine founded a branch campus in Bradenton, Florida, utilizing an entirely PBL format. From 2006-2010, this campus led the nation in COMLEX scores.
[edit]Constructivism and PBL
From a constructivist perspective Problem-based learning (PBL), the role of the instructor is to guide the learning process rather than provide knowledge (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006). From this perspective, feedback and reflection on the learning process and group dynamics are essential components of PBL. Students are considered to be active agents who engage in social knowledge construction.
[edit]Criticisms of Problem-based learning
[edit]Problem-based learning and cognitive load
Sweller and others have published a series of studies over the past twenty years that is relevant to problem-based learning but concerningcognitive load and what they describe as the guidance-fading effect (Sweller, 2006). Sweller, et al. conducted several classroom-based studies with students studying algebra problems (Sweller, 1988). These studies have shown that active problem solving early in the learning process, is a less effective instructional strategy than studying worked examples (Sweller and Cooper, 1985; Cooper and Sweller, 1987). Certainly active problem solving is useful as learners become more competent, and better able to deal with their working memory limitations. But early in the learning process, learners may find it difficult to process a large amount of information in a short amount of time. Thus the rigors of active problem solving may become an issue for novices. Once learners gain expertise the scaffolding inherent in problem-based learning helps learners avoid these issues. These studies have however been conducted largely based on individual problem solving of well-defined problems.
Sweller (1988) proposed cognitive load theory to explain how novices react to problem solving during the early stages of learning. Sweller, et al. suggests a worked example early, and then a gradual introduction of problems to be solved. They propose other forms of learning early in the learning process (worked example, goal free problems, etc.); to later be replaced by completions problems, with the eventual goal of solving problems on their own (Sweller, Van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998). This problem based learning becomes very useful later in the learning process.
Many forms of scaffolding have been implemented in problem based learning to reduce the cognitive load of learners. These are most useful to fade guidance during problem solving. As an example, consider the fading effect[dead link] helps learners to slowly transit from studying examples to solving problems. In this case backwards fading was found to be quite effective.
[edit]Cognitive effects of problem-based learning
The acquisition and structuring of knowledge in PBL is thought to work through the following cognitive effects (Schmidt, 1993):
 initial analysis of the problem and activation of prior knowledge through small-group discussion
 elaboration on prior knowledge and active processing of new information
 restructuring of knowledge, construction of a semantic network
 social knowledge construction
 learning in context
 stimulation of curiosity related to presentation of a relevant problem
[edit]Other outcomes of problem-based learning
One of the aims of PBL is the development of self-directed learning (SDL) skills. In Loyens, Magda & Rikers' discussion (2008), SDL is defined as “a process in which individuals take the initiative…in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating goals, identifying human and material resources, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.” By being invited into the learning process, students are also invited to take responsibility for their learning, which leads to and increase in self-directed learning skills. In Severiens and Schmidt’s study of 305 first year college students, they found that PBL and its focus on SDL led to motivation for students to maintain study pace, led to social and academic integration, encouraged development of cognitive skills, and fostered more study progress then students in a conventional learning setting (2009). PBL invites learners to take a place in the academic world through inquiring and discovery that is central to problem-based learning.
[edit]References
1. ^ a b Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn. (2007). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107
2. ^ Koh GC, Khoo HE, Wong ML, Koh D (January 2008). "The effects of problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review". CMAJ 178 (1): 34–41. doi:10.1503/cmaj.070565. PMC 2151117. PMID 18166729.
3. ^ http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55419.php
 Amador, J.A., Miles, L., & Peters, C.B. The Practice of Problem-Based Learning: A Guide to Implementing PBL in the College Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 2006.
 Armstrong E: A hybrid model of problem-based learning. In: Boud D and Feletti G (editors): The challenge of problem-based learning, 137-149. London, Kogan Page, 1991
 Barr RD and Tagg J: From teaching to learning - a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, Nov/Dec.1995:13-25
 Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In Wilkerson, L, & Gijselaers, W.H. (eds.). New directions for teaching and learning, vol. 68. Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and pracice, pp. 3-13. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Boud, D., & Feletti, G.I. (eds.). The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, 2nd Ed. London: Kogan Page Ltd., 1997.
 Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities. URL:http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf.
 Duch, B.J., Groh, S.E., & Allen, D.E. (eds.). The Power of Problem-Based Learning, Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2001.
 Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
 Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1. 21-39.
 Loyens, S., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. (2008). Self-Directed Learning in Problem-Based Learning and its Relationships with Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411-427.
 National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
 Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41 (2) 75-86
 Severiens, S., & Schmidt, H. (2009). Academic and social integration and study progress in problem based learning. Higher Education, 58(1), 59-69.
 Merrill, M.D. (2002). "A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design". Performance Improvement 41 (7): 39–44.doi:10.1002/pfi.4140410709.
 Schmidt HG (1993). "Foundations of problem-based learning: some explanatory notes". Medical Education 27 (5): 422–432. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00296.x. PMID 8208146.
 Sweller, J. (1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning". Cognitive Science 12 (2): 257–285. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7.
 Sweller, J. (2006). "The worked example effect and human cognition". Learning and Instruction 16 (2): 165–169.doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.005.
 Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). "Cognitive architecture and instructional design". Educational Psychology Review 10: 251–296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205.
 Wingspread Conference. (1994). Quality Assurance in Undergraduate Education: What the Public Expects. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
[edit]External links
 PBL at Queen Mary, University of London, Materials Department (SEMS)
 An introduction to PBL, resources, criticism, links
 Problem-based Learning at the University of Delaware
 PBL Directory
 PBL at Maastricht University
 Interdisciplinary Journal of PBL at Purdue
 Penn State's PBL Site
 West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine's PBL site
 Problem Based Learning for College Physics (CCDMD)
 Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy's Problem Based Learning Network (PBLN)
[edit]See also
 project-based learning
 Educational psychology
 Inquiry-based learning
 Learning by teaching (LdL)
 Active learning
 McMaster University
 Collaborative learning
 Minnesota State University, Mankato Masters Degree in Experiential Education

Active learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about an educational technique. For active learning in the context of machine learning, see Active learning (machine learning).
Active learning is an umbrella term that refers to several models of instruction that focus the responsibility of learning, on learners. Bonwell and Eison (1991) popularized this approach to instruction (Bonwell & Eison 1991). This "buzz word" of the 1980s became their 1990s report to the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE). In this report they discuss a variety of methodologies for promoting "active learning." However according to Mayer (2004) strategies like "active learning" developed out of the work of an earlier group of theorists—those promoting discovery learning. While there is no question that learners should be engaged during learning and cognitively active, several researchers have noted that being behaviorally active during initial learning can be detrimental to schema acquisition (Mayer 2004) (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark 2006) (Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Cooper & Sweller, 1987).
It has been suggested that students who actively engage with the material are more likely to recall information (Bruner 1961), but several well-known authors have argued this claim is not well supported by the literature (Anderson, Reder & Simon 1998) (Gagné 1966) (Mayer 2004) (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark 2006). Rather than being behaviorally active during learning, Mayer (2004) suggests learners should be cognitively active.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Active learning exercises
• 2 Active learning method: Learning by teaching (LdL)
• 3 Active learning and Policy
• 4 Research supporting active learning
• 5 Should learning occur while one is behaviorally active?
• 6 Studying examples as an alternative to active learning strategies
• 7 Learning in Sudbury model democratic schools
• 8 See also
• 9 Notes
• 10 References
o 10.1 Further references
• 11 External links

[edit]Active learning exercises
Bonwell and Eison (1991) suggested learners work in pairs, discuss materials while role-playing, debate, engage in case study, take part incooperative learning, or produce short written exercises, etc. The argument is when should active learning exercises be used during instruction. While it makes some sense to use these techniques as a "follow up" exercise or as application of known principles, it may not make sense to use them to introduce material. Proponents argue that these exercises may be used to create a context of material, but this context may be confusing to those with no prior knowledge. The degree of instructor guidance students need while being "active" may vary according to the task and its place in a teaching unit.
Examples of "active learning" activities include:
 A class discussion may be held in person or in an online environment. Discussions can be conducted with any class size, although it is typically more effective in smaller group settings. This environment allows for instructor guidance of the learning experience. Discussion requires the learners to think critically on the subject matter and use logic to evaluate their and others' positions. As learners are expected to discuss material constructively and intelligently, a discussion is a good follow-up activity given the unit has been sufficiently covered already.[1]
 A think-pair-share activity is when learners take a minute to ponder the previous lesson, later to discuss it with one or more of their peers, finally to share it with the class as part of a formal discussion. It is during this formal discussion that the instructor should clarify misconceptions. However students need a background in the subject matter to converse in a meaningful way. Therefore a "think-pair-share" exercise is useful in situations where learners can identify and relate what they already know to others. So preparation is key. Prepare learners with sound instruction before expecting them to discuss it on their own.
 A learning cell is an effective way for a pair of students to study and learn together. The learning cell was developed by Marcel Goldschmid of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (Goldschmid, 1971). A learning cell is a process of learning where two students alternate asking and answering questions on commonly read materials. To prepare for the assignment, the students will read the assignment and write down questions that they have about the reading. At the next class meeting, the teacher will randomly put the students in pairs. The process begins by designating one student from each group to begin by asking one of their questions to the other. Once the two students discuss the question. The other student will ask a question and they will alternate accordingly. During this time, the teacher is going around the class from group to group giving feedback and answering questions. This system is also referred to as a student dyad.
 A short written exercise that is often used is the "one minute paper." This is a good way to review materials and provide feedback. However a "one minute paper" does not take one minute and for students to concisely summarize it is suggested[who?] that they have at least 10 minutes to work on this exercise.
 A collaborative learning group is a successful way to learn different material for different classes. It is where you assign students in groups of 3-6 people and they are given an assignment or task to work on together. This assignment could be either to answer a question to present to the entire class or a project. Make sure that the students in the group choose a leader and a note-taker to keep them on track with the process. This is a good example of active learning because it causes the students to review the work that is being required at an earlier time to participate. (McKinney, Kathleen. (2010). Active Learning. Normal, IL. Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology.)
 A student debate is an active way for students to learn because they allow students the chance to take a position and gather information to support their view and explain it to others. These debates not only give the student a chance to participate in a fun activity but it also lets them gain some experience with giving a verbal presentation. (McKinney, Kathleen. (2010). Active Learning. Normal, IL. Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology.)
 A reaction to a video is also an example of active learning because most students love to watch movies. The video helps the student to understand what they are learning at the time in an alternative presentation mode. Make sure that the video relates to the topic that they are studying at the moment. Try to include a few questions before you start the video so they will pay more attention and notice where to focus at during the video. After the video is complete divide the students either into groups or pairs so that they may discuss what they learned and write a review or reaction to the movie. (McKinney, Kathleen. (2010). Active Learning. Normal, IL. Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology.)
 A class game is also considered an energetic way to learn because it not only helps the students to review the course material before a big exam but it helps them to enjoy learning about a topic. Different games such as jeopardy and crossword puzzles always seem to get the students minds going. (McKinney, Kathleen. (2010). Active Learning. Normal, IL. Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology.)
While practice is useful to reinforce learning, problem solving is not always suggested. Sweller (1988) found solving problems can even have negative influence on learning, instead he suggests that learners should study worked examples, because this is a more efficient method of schema acquisition. So instructors are cautioned to give learners some basic or initial instruction first, perhaps to be followed up with an activity based upon the above methods.
[edit]Active learning method: Learning by teaching (LdL)
Main article: Learning by teaching
An efficient instructional strategy that mixes guidance with active learning is "Learning by teaching" (Martin 1985, Martin/Oebel 2007). This strategy allows students to teach the new content to each other. Of course they must be accurately guided by instructors. This methodology was introduced during the early 1980s, especially in Germany, and is now well-established in all levels of the German educational system.[2] "Learning by teaching" is integration of behaviorism and cognitivism and offers a coherent framework for theory and practice.
[edit]Active learning and Policy
Policy may be satisfied by demonstrating the instructional effectiveness of instruction. Educational rubrics are a good way to evaluate "active learning" based instruction. These instructional tools can be used to describe the various different qualities of any activity. In addition, if given to the student, they can provide additional guidance (here is an example rubric).
In the past few years outcome-based education policy has begun to limit instructors to only using those techniques that have been shown to be effective. In the United States for instance, the No Child Left Behind Act requires those developing instruction to show evidence of its "effectiveness."
[edit]Research supporting active learning
One study has shown evidence to support active learning.[3] Bonwell and Eison (1991) state that active learning strategies are comparable to lectures for achieving content mastery, but superior to lectures for developing thinking and writing skills.[4]
[edit]Should learning occur while one is behaviorally active?
Some educational literature from the past few decades suggests initial skill acquisition occurs best when one is cognitively active (Mayer, 2004), but not behaviorally active.[5] Certainly practicing procedural skills is a necessity for learning to be automated. But while these activities may be motivating for learners, these unguided situations can in fact leave learners less competent than when they began the activity.[5]
One 2007 study compared results for college students in six different versions of a computer literacy course. In some groups, instructional elements were left out (objectives, information, examples, practice with feedback, review). The "practice with feedback" is the active learning component of the study. The researchers found that in all cases, students who had practice with feedback had better performance and more positive attitudes than those students who did not have opportunities for practice.[6]
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark[5] suggest that novices be taught with direct methods of instruction like worked examples. Sweller (2006) discusses the worked-example effect as a alternative to problem-solving for novices. However practice with feedback is condoned and even encouraged by Sweller and his associated because these types of learning are important for those who already acquired a schema (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, & Sweller, 2003) therefore there is no conflict between Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark's views, and those of Klein and Sullivan. Each agrees that the learner be given practice with feedback. Kirschner et al. (2006) propose instruction should, however, begin with worked examples.
[edit]Studying examples as an alternative to active learning strategies
Self-guided instruction is possible, but Sweller and Cooper argue that it is often arduous, clumsy, and less than efficient (Sweller and Cooper, 1985). Sweller (1988) suggests learners should first study worked examples because this is a more efficient method of initial instruction. Sweller and Cooper found that learners who studied worked examples performed significantly better than learners who actively solved problems (Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Cooper & Sweller, 1987). This was later called the "worked-example effect" (Clark, Nguyen and Sweller, 2006).
Evidence for learning by studying worked examples (the worked-example effect) has been found to be useful in many domains [e.g. music, chess, athletics (Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, & Wortham, 2000); concept mapping (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007); geometry (Tarmizi and Sweller, 1988); physics, mathematics, or programming (Gerjets, Scheiter, and Catrambone, 2004)]. Finally the worked example effect is only useful for novices (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, and Sweller, 2003), so again practice is a necessity, but only later after a student has the underlying schema in place.
[edit]Learning in Sudbury model democratic schools
Main article: Sudbury model
Sudbury model democratic schools criticize today's schools, the concept of learning disabilities, special education, and response to intervention, taking the position that every child has a different learning style and pace and that each child is unique, not only capable of learning but also capable of succeeding.
They believe there are many reasons why children may have difficulty learning, especially when the learning is imposed and the subject is something the child, or the young, or even the adult is not interested in, as is frequently done in today's school system.
Sudbury model democratic schools assert that there are many ways to study and learn. They argue that learning is a process people do, not a process that is done to people; they affirm this is true of everyone and it is basic.[7] The experience of Sudbury model democratic schools, they adduce, shows there are many ways to learn without the intervention of a teacher being imperative. They maintain that in the case of reading for instance in the Sudbury model democratic schools some children learn from being read to, memorizing the stories and then ultimately reading them. Others learn from cereal boxes, others from game instructions, others from street signs. Some teach themselves letter sounds, others syllables, others whole words. Sudbury model democratic schools adduce that in their schools no one child has ever been forced, pushed, urged, cajoled, or bribed into learning how to read or write, and they affirm they have had no dyslexia. They also assert that none of their graduates are real or functional illiterates, and claim no one who meets their older students could ever guess the age at which they first learned to read or write.[8] They also claim that in a similar form students learn all the subjects, techniques and skills in these schools. The staff are minor actors, the "teacher" is an adviser and helps just when asked.[9][10]
Describing current instructional methods as homogenization and lockstep standardization, alternative approaches are proposed, such as the Sudbury model democratic schools, an alternative approach in which they affirm children, by enjoying personal freedom thusencouraged to exercise personal responsibility for their actions, learn at their own pace and style rather than following a compulsory and chronologically-based curriculum.[11][12][13]
A healthy upbringing gives free reign [sic] to children from the very beginnings of their lives to recognize and express their basic needs. The earlier this begins, and the longer it is allowed to develop without intervention, the more likely it is that such children will go through life with a firmly established set of inner-directed guidelines that enable them to distinguish clearly between needs that are real for them, and needs that are artificially introduced by others. Indeed, the worst excesses of our consumer economy can be traced directly to the inability of people to make this distinction, which is a result of being raised according to the principles of Industrial Era Thinking.[14]
As Sudbury model of democratic education schools, proponents of unschooling have also claimed that children raised in this method do not suffer from learning disabilities, thus not requiring the prevention of academic failure through intervention.
[edit]See also
Wikiversity has learning materials about Active learning

 Activity theory
 Cephalonian method
 Learning-by-doing
 Educational psychology
 Educational technology
 Experiential learning
 Experiential education
[edit]Notes
1. ^ McKeachie, W.J., Svinicki,M. (2006). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth.
2. ^ Jean-Pol Martin: Zum Aufbau didaktischer Teilkompetenzen beim Schüler. Fremdsprachenunterricht auf der lerntheoretischen Basis des Informationsverarbeitungsansatzes. Dissertation. Tübingen: Narr. 1985; Jean-Pol Martin, Guido Oebel (2007): Lernen durch Lehren: Paradigmenwechsel in der Didaktik?, In: Deutschunterricht in Japan, 12, 2007, 4–21 (Zeitschrift des Japanischen Lehrerverbandes, ISBN 1342-6575)
3. ^ http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/short/30/4/159
4. ^ Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ERIC Digest, Bonwell & Eison, 1991.
5. ^ a b c Kirschner P.A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R.E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41 (2) 75–86
6. ^ Martin, F., Klein, J.D., & Sullivan, H. (2007) "The impact of instructional elements in computer-based instruction" British Journal of Educational Technology 38 (4), 623–636.
7. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience Back to Basics. Accessed December 6, 2008.
8. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 5, The Other 'R's.
9. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987), Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 19, Learning.
10. ^ Greenberg, H. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience, The Art of Doing Nothing. Accessed December 6, 2008.
11. ^ Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America, A View from Sudbury Valley, "Special Education" – A noble Cause Sacrificed to Standardization.
12. ^ Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America, A View from Sudbury Valley, "Special Education" – A Noble Cause Run Amok.
13. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987), Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 1, And 'Rithmetic.
14. ^ Greenberg, D. (1994), Worlds in Creation, The Meaning of Education. Accessed December 7, 2008.
active learning means active engagement and understrshijoup.
[edit]References
1. ^ McKeachie, W.J., Svinicki,M. (2006). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth.
2. ^ Jean-Pol Martin: Zum Aufbau didaktischer Teilkompetenzen beim Schüler. Fremdsprachenunterricht auf der lerntheoretischen Basis des Informationsverarbeitungsansatzes. Dissertation. Tübingen: Narr. 1985; Jean-Pol Martin, Guido Oebel (2007): Lernen durch Lehren: Paradigmenwechsel in der Didaktik?, In: Deutschunterricht in Japan, 12, 2007, 4–21 (Zeitschrift des Japanischen Lehrerverbandes, ISBN 1342-6575)
3. ^ http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/short/30/4/159
4. ^ Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ERIC Digest, Bonwell & Eison, 1991.
5. ^ a b c Kirschner P.A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R.E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41 (2) 75–86
6. ^ Martin, F., Klein, J.D., & Sullivan, H. (2007) "The impact of instructional elements in computer-based instruction" British Journal of Educational Technology 38 (4), 623–636.
7. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience Back to Basics. Accessed December 6, 2008.
8. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 5, The Other 'R's.
9. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987), Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 19, Learning.
10. ^ Greenberg, H. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience, The Art of Doing Nothing. Accessed December 6, 2008.
11. ^ Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America, A View from Sudbury Valley, "Special Education" – A noble Cause Sacrificed to Standardization.
12. ^ Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America, A View from Sudbury Valley, "Special Education" – A Noble Cause Run Amok.
13. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987), Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 1, And 'Rithmetic.
14. ^ Greenberg, D. (1994), Worlds in Creation, The Meaning of Education. Accessed December 7, 2008.
 Anderson, John R.; Reder, Lynne M.; Simon, Herbert A.; K. Anders Ericsson; Robert Glaser (1998). "Radical constructivism and cognitive psychology". In D. Ravitch. Brookings papers on education policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press. pp. 227–278.
 Atkinson, R.K.; Derry, S.J.; Renkl, A.; Wortham, D.W. (2000). "Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research". Review of Educational Research 70: 181–214.
 Bonwell, C.; Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 1-87838-00-87.
 Bruner, J.S. (1961). "The act of discovery". Harvard Educational Review 31 (1): 21–32.
 Clark, R.; Nguyen, F.; Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN 0-7879-7728-4.
 Gagné, R. (1966). "Varieties of learning and the concept of discovery: A critical appraisal". Shulman, L. S. and Keislar, E. R. (Eds) Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.
 Gerjets, P. Scheiter, K. and Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science. 32 (1) 33–58
 Kalyuga, S.; Ayres, P.; Chandler, P.; Sweller, J. (2003). "The Expertise Reversal Effect". Educational Psychologist 38 (1): 23–31.doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.
 Kirschner, P.A.; Sweller, J.; Clark, R.E. (2006). "Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching". Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75–86.doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
 Hilbert, T.S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning how to Learn by Concept Mapping: A Worked-Example Effect. Oral presentation at the 12th Biennial Conference EARLI 2007 in Budapest, Hungary
 Mayer, R. (2004). "Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction".American Psychologist 59 (1): 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14. PMID 14736316.
 McKinney, K. (2010). Active Learning. Illinois State University. Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology.
 Sweller, J. (1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning". Cognitive Science 12 (1): 257–285. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7.
 Sweller, J.; Cooper, G.A. (1985). "The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra". Cognition and Instruction 2 (1): 59–89. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3.
 Tarmizi, R.A. and Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4) 424–436
[edit]Further references
 Martyn, Margie (2007). "Clickers in the Classroom: An Active Learning Approach". EDUCAUSE Quarterly (EQ) 30 (2).
[edit]External links
 New Directions for Cooperative Education. ERIC Digest.
 The Essential Elements of Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. ERIC Digest.
 Active learning section of Geoff Petty's practical guide on improving teaching and learning.
 Active Learning and Library Instruction
 Platform for Active Learning (University of Hull). Includes bank of examples.
 Educational psychology in classroom settings. A developing open-source Wikibook related to learning as discussed in this article.
 Learning by teaching - by Jody Skinner
 Action-oriented learning area teaching at vocational schools - Rainer Gerke, Ph.D. (Weimar University)
[hide]v • d • eStandards-based education reform


Theorists William Spady • Jean Piaget • Benjamin Bloom • Marc Tucker • Maria Montessori • Constance Kamii • Rheta DeVries • Betty Zan


Theories Outcome-based education • Cognitive load • Standards-based education reform • Developmentally Appropriate Practice • Holism •Constructivism • Block scheduling • Holistic grading • Active learning • Problem-based learning • Discovery learning •Inquiry-based learning • Inventive spelling • Open-space school • Small schools movement • Inclusion


Values Excellence and equity • Achievement gap


Learning standards
National Science Education Standards • National Reading Panel • No Child Left Behind Act • Adequate Yearly Progress • Goals 2000 •School-to-work transition • Principles and Standards for School Mathematics • National Skill Standards Board


Standards-based
assessment
Authentic assessment • Criterion-referenced test • Norm-referenced test • Standards-based assessment •High school graduation examination


Standardized tests
List of standardized tests in the United States • Standardized testing and public policy


Standardized
curriculum Decodable text • Guided reading • Phonics • Whole language • Traditional education • Traditional mathematics • Direct instruction •Rote learning • Grades • Lecture • Tracking (education) • Standard algorithms



Experiential learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Experiential learning is the process of making meaning from direct experience. [1] Aristotle once said, "For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them."[2] David A. Kolb helped to popularize the idea of experiential learning drawing heavily on the work of John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget. His work on experiential learning has contributed greatly to expanding the philosophy of experiential education.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 About
• 2 Implementation
• 3 Comparisons
• 4 See also
o 4.1 People
o 4.2 Related topics
• 5 References

[edit]About
Experiential learning is learning through reflection on doing, which is often contrasted with rote or didactic learning. Experiential learning is related to, but not synonymous with, experiential education, action learning, adventure learning, free choice learning, cooperative learning, and service learning. While there are relationships and connections between all these theories of education, importantly they are also separate terms with separate meanings. [3]
Experiential learning focuses on the learning process for the individual (unlike experiential education, which focuses on the transactive process between teacher and learner). An example of experiential learning is going to the zoo and learning through observation and interaction with the zoo environment, as opposed to reading about animals from a book. Thus, one makes discoveries and experiments with knowledge firsthand, instead of hearing or reading about others' experiences.
Experiential learning requires no teacher and relates solely to the meaning making process of the individual's direct experience. However, though the gaining of knowledge is an inherent process that occurs naturally, for a genuine learning experience to occur, there must exist certain elements. According to David Kolb, an American educational theorist, knowledge is continuously gained through both personal and environmental experiences. [4] He states that in order to gain genuine knowledge from an experience, certain abilities are required:
1. the learner must be willing to be actively involved in the experience;
2. the learner must be able to reflect on the experience;
3. the learner must possess and use analytical skills to conceptualize the experience; and
4. the learner must possess decision making and problem solving skills in order to use the new ideas gained from the experience.University of Texas Learning Center - Handouts
[edit]Implementation
Experiential learning can be a highly effective educational method. It engages the learner at a more personal level by addressing the needs and wants of the individual. Experiential learning requires qualities such as self-initiative and self-evaluation. For experiential learning to be truly effective, it should employ the whole learning wheel, from goal setting, to experimenting and observing, to reviewing, and finally action planning. This complete process allows one to learn new skills, new attitudes or even entirely new ways of thinking.
Most educators understand the important role experience plays in the learning process. A fun learning environment, with plenty of laughter and respect for the learner's abilities, also fosters an effective experiential learning environment. It is vital that the individual is encouraged to directly involve themselves in the experience, in order that they gain a better understanding of the new knowledge and retain the information for a longer time. As stated by the ancient Chinese philosopher, Confucius, "tell me and I will forget, show me and I may remember, involve me and I will understand."[citation needed]
According to learning consultants, experiential learning is about creating an experience where learning can be facilitated. How do you create a well-crafted learning experience? The key lies in the facilitator and how he or she facilitates the learning process. An excellent facilitator believes in the creed: "You teach some by what you say, teach more by what you do, but most of all, you teach most by who you are." And while it is the learner's experience that is most important to the learning process, it is also important not to forget the wealth of experience a good facilitator also brings to the situation.
An effective experiential facilitator is one who is passionate about his or her work and is able to immerse participants totally in the learning situation, allowing them to gain new knowledge from their peers and the environment created. These facilitators stimulate the imagination, keeping participants hooked on the experience.
Creating an experiential learning environment can be challenging for educators who have been taught through traditional classroom techniques. Identifying activities that allow learners to understand and absorb concepts can be a new and daunting experience. In traditional classrooms where lectures with PowerPoint slide sets are standard, educators need to be creative to engage students, get them up out of their chairs, involved in an experience. However, by providing direct experience in addition to standard written and visual materials, learners with different types of learning styles and strengths can be accommodated.
Sudbury model of democratic education schools assert that much of the learning going on in their schools, including values, justice,democracy, arts and crafts, professions, and frequently academic subjects, is done by learning through experience. [5][6][7][8]
[edit]Comparisons
Experiential learning is most easily compared with academic learning, the process of acquiring information through the study of a subject without the necessity for direct experience. While the dimensions of experiential learning are analysis, initiative, and immersion, the dimensions of academic learning are constructive learning and reproductive learning.[9] Though both methods aim at instilling new knowledge in the learner, academic learning does so through more abstract, classroom based techniques, whereas experiential learning actively involves the learner in a concrete experience.
[edit]See also
Wikiversity has learning materials about Experiential learning

[edit]People
 John Dewey
 Paulo Freire
 David A. Kolb
 Carl Rogers
 Jean Piaget
 Maria Montessori
 Rudolf Steiner
 Kurt Hahn
[edit]Related topics
 Adventure education
 Alternative education
 Cooperative learning
 Outdoor education
 Ropes course
 Vocational education
 Service learning
 Adult education
 Cooperative education
 Reflective practice

 Action learning
 Active learning
 Integrative learning
 Problem-based learning
 Discovery learning
 Constructivism (learning theory)
 Appreciative Inquiry
 Sudbury model of democratic education
 Experiential learning – Farmer Field School program
 Case method
 Training Simulation
 Business game


[edit]References
1. ^ Itin, C. M. (1999). Reasserting the Philosophy of Experiential Education as a Vehicle for Change in the 21st Century. The Journal of Experiential Education,.22(2), 91-98.
2. ^ Bynum, W.F. and Porter, R. (eds) (2005) Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations. Oxford University Press. 21:9.
3. ^ Itin, C. M. (1999). Reasserting the Philosophy of Experiential Education as a Vehicle for Change in the 21st Century. The Journal of Experiential Education,.22(2), 91-98.
4. ^ Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5. ^ Greenberg, D. (1992) "'Ethics' is a Course Taught By Life Experience," Education in America - A View from Sudbury Valley.
6. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) "Teaching Justice Through Experience," The Sudbury Valley School Experience.
7. ^ Greenberg, D. (1992) "Democracy Must be Experienced to be Learned," Education in America - A View from Sudbury Valley.
8. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," Free at Last - The Sudbury Valley School.
9. ^ Stavenga de Jong, J.A., Wierstra, R.F.A. and Hermanussen, J. (2006) "An exploration of the relationship between academic and experiential learning approaches in vocational education," British Journal of Educational Psychology. 76;1. pp. 155-169.