Over time education theorists, philosophers and pragmatists have looked at two types of teaching and learning, direct teaching and learning through experience. Educators seem to take turns picking one or the other to emphasize. I think it is about time to use both in the context they belong.
Direct teaching/learning is currently under the name of scaffolding. Experiential teaching/learning has more forms but the most popular in the public school setting is Problem Based Learning (PBL).
Scaffolding
Educational (or Instructional) Scaffolding is a teaching method that enables a student to solve a problem, carry out a task, or achieve a goal through a gradual shedding of outside assistance. It was first coined by researchers David Wood (Nottingham), Jerome S. Bruner (Oxford), and Gail Ross (Harvard) in their 1976 report, “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.”
Experiential Learning –
“Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Currently, scaffolding is the focus of professional development for educators. The attributes of scaffolding are supported by research and prove their worth in educating our students. Unfortunately, the side effects of only addressing learning through this method, result in apathetic students with no personal drive (persistence). Without an algorithm, they don’t know what to do. Teachers spend time identifying cues that triggers students to implement an algorithm. (If you see the word “altogether” in a math problem choose an addition algorithm.) Scaffolding does not lead to independent thinking. It leads to following directions. Following directions is not a bad thing in the correct context but it is not the best use of the human mind in every context.
Problem Based Learning (PBL) is an example of Experiential Learning. This method of teaching and learning is also backed by research and has proven it’s worth in educating our students. The side effect of using PBL is that educators have to contrive a way to use a project or problem to cover all of the standards. The projects aren’t usually chosen by student interest but by the teacher’s need to cover the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The students are usually more engaged than they are with scaffolding but have difficulty learning basic skills or making connections to real life, since the projects are so contrived. Without teaching the tools directly a roundabout way to learn basic skills has to be buried in a project to get those tools taught.
In truth, we need both methods. When teaching a vocational trade the instructors use scaffolding for actions that must be done a specific way for a reliable product or for safety. When learning to become a framer the instructor teaches how to use a hammer and saw correctly. The instructor shows the student, and then the instructor monitors the student, making corrections when needed. Last, the student is able to use the tool independently. This is scaffolding.
Learning to use the tool is not very exciting but the student knows that she/he will be involved in building something of interest as soon as they learn how to use the tools. Students can see the usefulness of the skill and probably make plans on how they can use this skill for their own interests.
This is not true for children with academic scaffolding. Most nine and ten year olds cannot see how multiplying fractions is necessary to do something they are interested in. Nine and ten year olds have limited view points and are developmentally too young to hold fifteen year goals.
After students learn to use the tools through scaffolding, experiential learning is the next step in education. In elementary school this next step needs to happen quickly. We can not keep telling an eight year old that they have to wait until middle school to apply their knowledge to something they enjoy.
The student chooses an application for their skill, with the guidance of their mentor, which is obtainable but builds knowledge based on experience. They use the tools for small projects at first, moving to more complex projects as they gain skills. Through time, they become a craftsman.
Experiential learning requires us to trust in the skills we directly taught students during scaffolding and give them the independence to experience the use of the tools. It is imperative that students experience failure when applying skills in order to build on experiences. The failure isn’t due to the incorrect use of the tool but how the tool creates change when applied.
The student knows how to hammer with precision but learns through experience that hammering can split the wood. Adjusting the hammering technique can change the outcome from negative to positive. You can’t teach a student to listen to the feel and sound of wood when it is strained and ready to split. It has to be a personal experience. New experiences built on old experiences, changing student beliefs and actions. Experiential learning requires that students are self-directed and allowed to fail. Experiences create layers of knowledge. Each layer is built on the last layer of experience.
We have been caught in a chant of, “back to basics,” over the past fifteen years. We have only taught the tools (Scaffolding) and cut out the application of those tools (Experiential Learning). A common colloquialism is, “If you don’t use it, you lose it”. I stand by this. To only scaffold without offering an age appropriate, high interest application of those tools is a waste of time. Our students will forget the use of the tools as fast as the unit test is completed.
We need both scaffolding and experiential learning, applied at the proper times in the public school environment.
