Main » 2013»January»22 » Implementation of Experiential Education in a Traditional School Environment (some theories)
23:18
Implementation of Experiential Education in a Traditional School Environment (some theories)
“As teachers, we meet high standards if we can help all of our students achieve by constructing with careful scaffolding, the pathway to success” Linda Darling-Hammond
One of the elements of EE-based curricula is opportunities for self-direction. The importance of it is described in the article written by Druian, Owens, and Owen (1986). When comparing three EE programmes – Experience-Based Career Education, Foxfire, and Outward Bound (the ones that have a relatively long history, clear goals and principles) – the authors have singled out nine components that are present in each programme. One of these core elements is called “Learning strategies”: “All three programmes provide an opportunity for students to negotiate their own plans and to learn from unplanned experiences” (Druian, Owens, and Owen, 1986, pp. 52-53). The authors consider this to be a crucial step because such an approach prepares children for real life; promotes students’ responsibility for their decisions and actions; facilitates a beneficial learning environment because children are doing what they want to do, they can express their ideas and make their own choices; and, moreover, this tactic could be applicable not only for outdoor education, but also for a traditional school environment (ibid).
Linda Darling-Hammond, a Professor of Education at Stanford University, claims that “performance assessment is a learning tool, a tool for guiding progress, not a method for sorting students into successes and failures” (Darling-Hammond, 2002, p. 18). A mark should, therefore, be seen not as a means of punishment, but as a way of encouraging students and guiding them. Thus, changing the way of assessing students, we help them overcome their fears (the fear of failure and the fear of making mistakes). And this is fundamental for creating prosperous learning environment. As Beard and Wilson (2006, p.196) put it, emotions “can have a distorting effect on learning” because fear is often the cause of anger and aggressive behaviour. And this would result in hating school or, milder, not liking the whole educational process. Furthermore, children aiming at ‘success’ (which is high grades) “constantly set themselves up for disappointment, and such perfection may prevent them from enjoying life and even forming relationships” (ibid).
References
Beard, C. and Wilson, J. P. (2006) Experiential Learning:. A Best Practice Handbook For Educators And Trainers. London: Kogan Page
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002) Redesigning Schools: What Matters and What Works. 10 Features of Good Small Schools [Online]. Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/~ldh....10.pdf (Accessed: 18 December 2012).
Druian, G., Owens, T., and Owen, S. (1986) ‘Experiential Education: A Search For Common Roots’, in Kraft, R. J. and Kielsmeier, J. (eds.) Experiential Education and the Schools. Boulder, Colorado: Association for Experiential Education.
I am thinking critically. Almost all the time here. Just believe me))))
Well, it does. I mean, it is really benefitial. Maybe, you'd like to have look at this web-link. http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/index.html This is a link to the official web-site of Summerhill school, which is located in the UK. Summerhill school is a prime example of a educational establishment using experiential education for the beneit of its pupils. The school has completely taken on the concept of EE in a liberal and democratic format. And the example of this school simply shocked me when I heard about it for the first time. But what astonished me more is that even though children are doing at school only what they WANT to do, this school manages to show quite good and impressive academic results. It'll be really interesting for me to hear your opinion.
I actually discussed our English classes with professors in the UK, whether they belong to this broad notion of EE. And the teachers said that, yes, you've been implementing EE in our study process.
Come on! This is not about making you doubt the importance and value of EE or Outdoor Studies. I just want you to think more critically and make balanced decisions and conclusions. Since you are into this philosophy, you have experience to compare and judge. The questions are simple: Does this approach really teach you? Is this approach really instrumental in school situations? Would you like this approach to be used, let's say, in your former school 5 or would you rather not apply it? Would you have achieved similar or better results, if you had been taught with this approach in mind when you were at school? Answer these questions for youself and find supporting arguments to say 'Yes, it would have worked brilliantly! I would have learned more and faster?" Well, thanks for giving me a chance to discuss and learn about EE and Outsoor Studies together with you. When I taught you at uni, I also planned a lot of learning activities that would make you think and act, learn by doing real things through English as the vehicular language of thought and action. But in our system I couldn't plan any outdoor studies for many reasons.
Your post made me think a lot. I would say that I agree with almost everything you've written. EE is also called by some scholars and practitioners as 'learning by doing'. The idea behind this is: a child can remember things more quickly if the entire body is involved in the process of learning. So, teachers would normally let students move around the classroom, sit on the floor, etc.
I do like your example of swimming. But in EE it wouldn't be so. There would be no books. And the facilitator will swim with you. But! Don't think that he/she will be helping! No, their task is just encouraging. And if you manage to get to the shore -then yes, here you're completely right: evaluation and further development.
And I've never thought of it before... or, better to say, I have thought but I've never formulated it even for myself. As a teacher, you're planning just learning outcomes not teaching. Well. This phrase caused an inner war in my brain. But I tend to think it is true. Although this truth sounds quite bitter to me.
It'll take me some time to internalize what you've written, though I'm a bit familiar with the theories, and will respond more substantially later. However, a few words now. The EE philosophy seems to me a philosophy of an individualist, a philosophy of hiding once discovered knowledge and making the learner re-discover the same things. It's like learning to swim in deep waters, after reading a few books on how to swim and how not to get drowned. And if you reach the shore, your teacher will check your report on staying alive and will direct to a new water basin to try and improve other skills. On the social level, it means nobody cares, you should teach yourself by trial and error and turn to experts for assessment. On the economic level, it's a good idea - smaller classes, fewer teachers, no investments into pedagogy. Another thing, the EE is a type of free philosophy of education, free of what we call 'daily upbringing' or 'daily nurturing' showing and teaching how to do things, how to think, how to make conclusions, how to structure argumenation, how set goals, how to plan activities, how to understand sciences, how to put knowledge into a system. So, this philosophy is action-experience-based but unconscious since the human mind does not receive cognitive guidance or a system of cognitive mechanisms, e.g.: learning rules, reproducing and paraphrasing information, restructuring knowledge, etc. Finally, it may be a very efficient system because it doesn't require any quality teaching, it requires only quality learning. So, as a teacher I don't plan teaching, I just plan learning outcomes. Well, these are two different philosophies, then
