Traditional Learning versus Collaborative and Discovery learning in Adult Education Setting
Introduction
Learning through performance requires active discovery, analysis, interpretation, problem-solving, memory, and physical activity (Foreman, 2003). The world we live in today, with all the new information and communication technology, can be said that traditional practices of teaching are being replaced with modern alternatives that are perceived as more convenient and effective. It is a universal fact that many everyday jobs are becoming more automated. With the commercialism of the Internet and the already wide acceptance and use of Information Technologies hardware and software, tasks that are difficult and stressful to perform before are now as easy as 1-2-3 or even A-B-C. Proponents of the new technologies boast that these new systems will enable work to become faster and more accurate. For many people who have access to Web sites, it opened a whole world of discovery for them.
Meanwhile, students can be seen as more motivated and interested into a subject when daily lessons are incorporated with ICT. This implies that learning is no longer trapped with the traditional pattern of being provided by teachers. People today have the chance to explore things easily for themselves because of the many learning tools and technologies available.
The growth of technologies did not only change the way people work and function, but also the demand of business companies all over the world. For instance, employers are now on the lookout for flexible employees who can easily adapt with changes and can work with minimal instructions and supervision. This type of attitude towards how an employee should react is contrary to what traditional methods of learning implies. Companies do not always want employees to rely on instructions and commands from superiors, instead they want employees who can think for themselves. This then would suggest that there is a great opportunity to explore the practice of discovery or progressive learning. Discovery learning, contrary to traditional learning relying on classroom instructions, focuses on the learning taking place within the individual, the teaching and instructional strategies designed by the teacher, and the environment created when such strategies are used (Castronova, 2002). However, this type of learning method is not left without any scrutiny from critics, mostly proponents of traditional learning. Evers (1998) elaborated that critics of discovery or progressive education pinpoints on the fault that progressive educators decline to look at the results of their methods. Evers (1998) further explained that discovery educators elevate those methods into an object of near-religious reverence and stress methods at the expense of knowledge of subject matter. Because of continuous debate on which learning method is more effective, there is still a need to assess the subject as much as possible to reach a final consensus. Furthermore, there is a need to support the issue on a certain focus group such as adult learners.
This paper aims to review several literatures about education and collaborative or discovery or progressive learning. Specifically, it tackles previous research studies and literatures probing the effectiveness of traditional and non-traditional learning and/or teaching.
Literature Review
Today, the adult education class strives to provide adult learners an opportunity to use and apply what they have learned. It encourages the learners to think critically and to constantly redefine the content and process of the learning experience. Adult education is also expected to heighten individual awareness of community issues, motivate learners to create opportunities, embrace new ideas and give direction to positive change.
Before digging deeper into the topic, there is an insistent preference to identify what determines quality education? UNESCO answered this question when they mentioned the four pillars of quality education (EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005). The four pillars are: learning to know; learning to do; learning to live together; and learning to be. First, ‘learning to know’ means that learners should build their own knowledge daily by combining creative and external elements. Next, ‘learning to do’ is centered on the practical application of what is learned. On the other hand, ‘learning to live together’ is about addressing the critical skills for an individual free from discrimination, where all have an equal opportunity to develop themselves, their families and their communities. Finally, ‘learning to be’ emphasizes the skills needed for individuals to develop towards their full potential.
In adult education and learning perspectives, an article written by Sue Scott (1998 cited in Kagan and Meidow, 2002) identified five philosophies in adult education namely: liberal, progressive, behaviorist, humanist, and radical. With this particular fact, the argument of what kind of pedagogy will be used may be based in these given philosophies. However, Kagan and Meidow (2002) argued that these five philosophies provide a clear framework to understand the different definitions, goals, roles, concepts, methods and scholars within adult education. They noted that importance of realizing that in reality, the personal philosophies of every individual in education do not fit exactly into specific categories and that while majority of people may identify primarily with one philosophy, others may share elements of the others (Kagan and Meidow, 2002).
Just recently, the delivery of quality education is still dominated by the traditional classroom instruction approaches of education. Classroom learning is still one of the oldest forms of learning that is used today. It can up hold the four pillars of education because aside from cognitive learning, it also helps the student in the direction of creative and emotional development. Experienced teachers deliver many subtle messages and important lessons in such classrooms, which might be diminished in other types of flexible learning. On the contrary, non-traditional methods are said to decrease social and emotional learning (Donlevy, 2003). In addition, students with low reading abilities and problems with motivation may find it difficult to sustain interest in accomplishing all learning activities associated with other types of learning (Donlevy, 2003). The bottom-line is that there should be a superior figure who should monitor the progress of the students and guide them every step of the way.
However, the recent view of organizations on how the learning process can be more effective is more on the favor of informal learning rather than the formal classroom learning process. The article written by Reardon (2002) “How Engineers Learn in the Face of Organizational Change” directly relates to this process. In the article, Reardon (2002) discussed the importance of informal learning to engineers today. Reardon (2002) cited from Schon (1983) that an experienced professional does not only need traditional or technical training, because they often ‘reflect in action’. Reardon emphasized that informal learning takes place as professionals seek solutions. This type of learning is coined as incidental learning, which may take place without the learner being aware of it. The study conducted by Reardon is related with this issue as the researcher investigates how experienced engineers learned following an organizational change within their company. The study was inductive qualitative and was based on interviews of nine experienced engineers as Reardon (2002) asked them to reflect how they learned to perform their jobs after a major organizational change. The study found out that engineers learn new tasks for themselves because such tasks cannot be explained or directed by procedures. There was basically a sharing of ideas once one of the engineers learns something they would pass the information on to the next person. Learning was informal and peer-to-peer but it got the job done and enabled the engineers to adapt to change. However, the problem is that informal learning comes naturally and there were no means or methods to promote them. The engineers learned as they discovered for themselves without any teachers. The only downside of this method, according to Reardon (2002) is that it is not likely effective to inexperienced engineers because of the level of discovery is of those who have adequate experience in the field.
The study of Reardon reviewed recently is a direct example of discovery learning. It can be helpful to follow this with a review of Castronova’s (2002) article entitled: “Discovery Learning for the 21st Century: What is it and how does it compare to traditional learning in effectiveness in the 21st Century?” This article more or less completely discussed the different aspects of discovery learning and compared them with the traditional methods. Castronova’s (2002) cited Dewey and Piget, two known fathers of similar method which discovery learning refers to a learning method that “encompasses an instructional model and strategies that focus on active, hands-on learning opportunities for students”. This definition accurately fits the experiences of the engineers in Reardon’s (2002) study, which was reviewed earlier.
Castronova’s (2002) not only defined discovery learning but also cited three attributes that includes: exploring and problem solving to create, integrate, and generalize knowledge; student driven, interest-based activities in which the student determines the sequence and frequency, and; activities to encourage integration of new knowledge into the learner’s existing knowledge base. All characteristics mentioned by Castronova’s (2002) can be reflected from the participants in Reardon’s (2002) study. At first, Reardon’s (2002) engineers were fundamentally faced with problems that are new to them. By being faced with such problems, they developed the solutions among themselves to best fit their situation when traditional instruction failed them. In this type of experience, students rather than the teacher drive the learning.
On the other hand, Reardon’s (2002) participants also set the pace of learning for themselves. They did not hurry or drag their feet, but rather calculated and incorporated the correct learning pace that best suited them. Castronova (2002) interpreted this advantage as being able to achieve some degree of flexibility in sequencing and frequency with learning activities. Finally, the third attribute relates with Reardon’s (2002) engineers because this attribute implies that they build new knowledge from their existing understanding and experiences. Familiarity is an important factor in this attribute. Castronva (2002) explained that scenarios with which the students are familiar allow the students to build on their existing knowledge by extending what they already know to invent new ideas. The engineers, being the student, looked in their pervious experiences for help for them to formulate new knowledge for their new experiences.
Other than the three attributes mentioned, discovery learning also have five characteristics that are unique from traditional learning. Castronva (2002) found five characteristics such as: learning is active rather than passive (Mosca & Howard, 1997); learning is process-oriented rather than content-oriented; failure is important; feedback is necessary (Bonwell, 1998), and understanding is deeper (Papert, 2000). These characteristics differentiate discovery learning greatly from traditional learning as their combination are claimed to more learning opportunities because learners internalize concepts when they go through a natural progression to understand them (Castronva, 2002). However, Castronva concluded that discovery learning is still no match with traditional classroom learning in terms of prestige because current legislations still favor the latter. The current legislations lean toward accountability based on test scores, standardizing content-based curriculum, and maintaining higher class sizes to reduce work cost. This is clearly against discovery learning being adopted in the classroom (Castronva, 2002). Castronva also identified another current problem of discovery learning such as there is a shortage of professionally trained teachers in the market (Castronva, 2002).
One literature that tries to prove why minimally guided instructions such as that of discovery learning often fail is the article written by Kirschner and colleagues (2005) titled: “Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction does not Work: an Analysis of Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching”. Kirschner and contemporaries (2005) argued that while unguided or minimally-guided instructional approaches (such as discovery learning) are very popular and intuitively appealing, these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture. Also, evidence from empirical studies over the past half century consistently indicate that minimally-guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. Kirschner and group (2005) constantly argue that the goal of instruction is not usually to search for or discover information and give learners specific guidance about how to cognitively manipulate information in ways that are consistent with a learning goal, and store the result in long-term memory. They stated that without such guidance, novice students would have difficulty looking for problems. Kirschner and co-authors (2005) also mentioned how instructions support long-term memory. Therefore, if nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned. Minimal guidance to instruction may hinder learning; therefore, traditional learning or instructions should be favored.
The constructivist theory very much relates to discovery learning. Constructivism is a theory of knowledge and cognition that research has revealed in describing student learning. Von Glasersfeld (1996) defined constructivism as principles: “that knowledge is not passively received, either by sensing or by communicating, but is actively built up by the cognizing subject; and that the function of cognition is adaptive, and tries to increase fitness or viability – serves the organization of the experiential world of the subject, not the discovery of ontological reality”. This principle explains that the perception and confirmation of one’s knowledge in social interaction plays a crucial role in a person’s construction of his or her observed reality and is based on subjectivity. Subjectivity means that the student must explore the method according to his or her own interest. It can also provide a ‘blind exploration’ for the students. In other words, the student can enhance his or her knowledge through his or her own efforts and determination to learn.
Constructivism suggest learning can be more likely achieved when instructions are student-centered, involves more active learning experiences, different interaction between teachers and students, and more work in solving realistic problems through concrete materials (Jenson, 2001). Simply put constructivism as a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that by reflecting on our own experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in. Each of us generates our own “rules” and “mental models”, which we use to make sense of our experiences. Learning, therefore, is simply the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences (Fuuderstanding, 1998-2001). As a conception of constructivism, it is still unclear if educators will favor discovery learning in time. Literature shows both potential and stagnation for discovery learning. To further understand discovery learning and its advantage on traditional learning, there is still a need to further compare the two practices. Further research is imperative as mentioned by Castronva (2002).
Generally speaking, integrating new technology in the classroom, increase in population of students, and meeting academic standards and goals are but a few of the problems that schools today face (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Rebora, 2004). Adult education is certainly affected by the ambiguity that characterizes the contemporary global situation today. Increasingly, there are difficult questions posed about what constitutes the field of adult education and what are its values and purposes (Bryant et al., 1997). In times when a greater number of adults coming from a diversity of backgrounds enter an increasing variety of programmes, another set of problems is emerging. The difficulty in coping with the current uncertainty is compounded by the nature of the contemporary situation, which itself is difficult to characterize and interpret. Whilst there is general agreement that the world is extremely witnessing profound economic, technological and cultural changes, there is less agreement on whether these constitute a continuation of quality education.
With the problems encountered in this pedagogical arena, the debate including traditional and non-traditional learning strategies continues. The question on what is more effective – traditional learning or collaborative/progressive or discovery learning – constantly finds compelling arguments, strong evidences and truthful answers. Whether or not either approach is effective or ineffective than the other, it is still imperative to consider the inherent characteristics that differentiate the one from the other. The only thing that does seem reasonably certain is that adult educators are finding it increasingly challenging to simply take refuge in the certainties of the past. The literatures recorded in the area of this study continue to validate the fact on what kind of learning (or teaching) strategy is more effective.
Much has been written about traditional and non-traditional learning and education. Mostly, they cater to the general education perspectives. Conversely, the fact remains that most researches are neutral or even ambivalent. For instance, Scott and Conrad (1991) examined preceding research, which compared traditional and intensive course formats. The prearranged study vary from nontraditional courses developed during World War II and may be applied up to the present times. Based on the outcome of their research, there are no significant differences in student learning and no support was gathered that one type of learning format is better than the other. Consequently, Scott-Conrad (1991) concluded that, “based on the evidence, intensive courses seem to be effective alternatives to traditional-length classes regardless of format, degree of intensity, discipline or field of study – although the research seems to suggest that certain fields of study may benefit more than others” (p. 67).
According to Chapman (1999), adult learners in most situations have to plan from scratch, in other words, be self-creative. However, it is not enough that such learners are dependent to what they discover along the way. There is a need for them to validate the credibility and factualness of the knowledge they learned by themselves by using the standards of evaluation present in formal learning. Thus, the role of professional mentors in monitoring is important. Chapman’s study clearly indicates that adult education uses both traditional and non-traditional pedagogical methods and guaranteed that the combination of both can obtain more positive results.
As people move from the ‘field’ of adult education to a ‘moorland’ of adult learning, so the guiding paradigms of adult education, its theory, purposes and practices, need reconfiguring and new conceptual resources are required to make sense of the contemporary conjuncture and of the place of adult education within that (Bryant, et al., 1997). Bryant and colleagues affirmed that it would be difficult to argue that adult education can sustain itself, as it is presently constituted in the face of the challenges posed by late modernity/post-modernity.
On specific researches focusing on the effectiveness of non-traditional learning, Jonas, Weimer and Herzer (2001) compared traditional and non-traditional adult education in undergraduate business programs in Cardinal Stritch University (CSU) focusing on academic achievement through pre- and post-assessment by using the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Major Field Achievement Test (MFAT) in business. Results of the study implied that the nontraditional business students at CSU scored higher than the traditional business students on the ETS MFAT assessment. Although, related research literature concluded mixed results in favor of nontraditional learning. The findings of the research were considered as the initial foundation of CSU in curriculum and program improvement. The pitfall of this research endeavor is the presence of a limited research environment (the own university), participants (its own students) and directed only to a specific area (business).
Furthermore, Lord (1997) compared constructivist teaching to traditional teaching in a year-long study. Lord explains that constructivist educators believe that learners assess new knowledge by associating it with prior experiences, student-centered group activities, and the presentation of only necessary content in a lesson. This study is not actually focused on adult education yet it concentrates on the aspect of traditional and constructivist teaching. In his study, Lord compared two populations of General Biology students taught by the same instructor by two different teaching methods. To complete the empirical study, the same unit exams were given to each group. Results showed that the constructivist group scored significantly higher on each of the unit exams than their traditional counterparts. In conclusion, Lord justified the results by stating that the constructivist group was able to discuss and formulate their own understandings which helped them integrate and actually apply the knowledge as compared to the traditional learning experience which is strictly memorization of content (pp. 197-215).
As compared from other authors, Dinmore (1997) conducted his research focusing on the importance of interdisciplinarity and integrative learning in adult education. He deemed that experiential learning is more appropriate in adult education especially in terms of interdisciplinary studies, thus, involving interaction to either formal or non-formal learning environments. Adults learn in a variety of ways. Regardless of whether their learning is derived in a formal or an informal setting, the way in which they learn is closely connected with the diverse experiences in their life (Dinmore, 1997). Previous adult education scholars like Lindeman and also practitioners noted the apparent tendency of adult learners to integrate their experiences in an attempt to assign meaning. This fact means that adult learners are inclined to self-learning and personal discovery. Dinmore’s study proves the mutual effectiveness of traditional and discovery or collaborative learning in adult education. Similarly, he acknowledged the unique abilities of both approaches especially in terms of knowledge assimilation of interdisciplinary subjects. The individual evaluation of teaching methods particularly the teacher in traditional classroom setting was also included. Based on the findings, an important factor in many adult students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness is whether their instructor has been able to make connections between course content, the rest of their study program, and their own experience (Dinmore, 1997; Dinmore and Rohrer, 1996). At the end of his research after his recommendation for further investigation, Dinmore suggested that interdisciplinary studies and integrative learning is more appropriately match the needs of a learning (adult) population when its resources are manage carefully.
A similar study performed by Miller and Groccia (1997) also compared teaching formats: a traditional lecture-based biology course versus a cooperative taught biology course. The research process includes a traditional course that was team-taught by two instructors in a traditional teaching format. The cooperative course was taught by Miller by encouraging active engagement from the students by discussing what they were learning with others, writing about what they were learning and relating this new learning to past experiences in order to apply the new knowledge to their daily lives. To make the research more valid and credible, the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal was administered to both learning groups. As a result, the cooperative class scored higher than the traditional class on section tests assessing inference, recognition of assumptions, and deduction and interpretation. On the other hand, the traditional class scored higher on the test of evaluation of arguments. In general, none of the differences were found to be significant. Specifically, on the post-Biology I assessment of factual knowledge, both groups scored identically while on the post-Biology II assessment, the cooperative class scored significantly higher than the traditional class. With these findings, Miller and Groccia reported that the cooperative class students rated learning effective teamwork skills to a greater degree than those in the traditional class. They concluded from this study that the use of cooperative learning strategies would support the need in the professional scientific world for teamwork skills.
In some related research studies, collaborative/progressive or discovery learning guarantees effective professional development. In a study by the National Staff Development Council (2000), it showed that in the eight award-winning professional-development program public schools that they studied, the professional-development programs were characterized by collaborative structures, diverse and extensive professional-learning opportunities, and an emphasis on accountability and student results (Wenglinsky, 2000; Rebora, 2004). The proponent of this “consensus view” of professional development highlights the need for collaborative learning contexts, teacher research and inquiry, engagement in practical tasks of instruction and assessment, exploration of relevant subject matter, and consistent feedback and follow-up activities. These recommendations for training seminars are often outweighed by flexible but purposeful menu of teacher networks, study groups, partnerships with universities, peer reviews, online-learning activities, and curriculum-development projects (Little, 1994; Darling-Hammond, 1998; Smylie et al, 2001; National Staff Development Council, 2001; Rebora, 2004).
Aside from studying the type of learning to be implemented in adult education setting, it is also imperative to mention other factors such as the teacher, the learner, the subject and the others. Teachers would need time to adjust to these propositions of changing the way they instruct. This means that schools will have to provide occasions for teachers to reflect and practice on their new way of teaching. Also, the teachers must be willing to fashion new knowledge and beliefs about content, pedagogy, and learners (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995). It should be noted that not all teachers are given the same opportunity to broaden their knowledge of the subject that they are teaching. As an analogy, the capitalist in businesses need to research and develop his products so that his customers will always be satisfied. In education, the capitalist is the government, the customers are the students, and the products are the teachers. If the teachers were not developed to suit what the students are looking for to encourage them to study harder, then the business would die. Education would not be out-of-business, but if the information given by teachers and the way they deliver it would not change, then there would be no researchers or politicians or doctors in the future, because what the students know may not make they qualify for a college education.
It is important that the way teachers teach be reformed or improved. It is important because the way students learn vary from year to year. Students this year may be able to catch up with the way teachers teach today, but students next year being taught the same way may not be able to catch up with the lessons. The problem is not how the teachers teach; the problem is the diversity of the way students learns. If the teachers learn to understand this there may be a better chance that students will be able to absorb what they are being taught.
Another problem in the traditional learning method is the presence of disinterest of learners especially adults with the methods on how lessons are presented. Hipple and McClam (2002) had discussed what better teachers do in order to catch the attention of students, and how to teach topics, which students could see as boring, and turn into a more interesting lecture. But the article did not tackle what the students are expecting of their teachers. According to Davis (1999), there are students who are naturally enthusiastic about learning. But many of these students need or expect their teachers to be inspiring, challenging, and stimulating. And that, whatever motivation the students have can be transformed by what happens inside the classroom. At this case, the controversy of whether or not traditional learning (teaching) should be replaced with discovery or collaborative learning (teaching) is verified.
In conclusion, before categorically defining which effective and quiet ineffective pedagogical approach is, it is important to know that learning depends to some degree on the theoretical lens a person use to look at it. For instance, the behaviorist lens sees it as the acquisition of knowledge and skills that changes a person’s behavior. On the other hand, the cognitive theorist’s lens focuses more on the acquisition of knowledge than on the resulting behavior change. Thus, it is safe to state that whatever strategy in learning used in adult education, effects will be remain constant given the fact that the subject of application, area of study, the teacher’s and students’ factors, and other potential affecting factors are carefully studied and considered.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment