I was initially trained in experiential education and was convinced it was the best way to learn. When I saw it done poorly and soon thereafter saw a traditional classroom done really well this may have been how I looked:
Perhaps too much energy is spent arguing for one way over another, especially when it is not necessary for these ideas to collide.
The way we see it, education has universal principles. Universal is different from absolute in that they can be applied flexibly depending on different circumstances. For example, research tells us that a combination of practice and theoretical understanding is most powerful especially for transferring the practice or skill to another setting. If we are teaching a more process heavy subject such as Language Arts, we might put the ratio around 60% practice and 40% theoretical understanding. All-or-nothing conversations hold us back from tapping unlimited potential.
Why do we spend so much time arguing? How about we spend more time trying to extract the deeper lessons of one approach so we better understand when it works or what universal ideas can be applied to different situations? 🙂
Categories: Stage 1: Adult Learning and Leadership