Great article! I mostly agree with your points, but there are a couple of aspects I'd like to clarify:
1. STEAM/PBL/Inquiry-Based Learning: It seems like there's often a misrepresentation of these approaches when they’re poorly implemented, and I think that’s what’s happening here. While I don’t believe you’re making that specific point, I do feel that good implementation of STEAM, PBL, or inquiry-based learning has a lot more to offer than what’s discussed. Experienced teachers who are well-practiced in these methods can provide substantial support for students. It’s a bit like saying that all teachers using direct instruction are just reading from a script and making lessons dull, which is clearly not the case—such a view oversimplifies the approach of the many educators who make direct instruction engaging and effective.
2. Learning Intention: There’s also a question of intention when it comes to projects like designing a sustainable bridge. What’s the learning goal there? Is it to get the student to lead a city council in constructing a bridge, or is the focus on developing specific skills and understanding key concepts? In our school, we have a "Passion Project" model (similar to Genius Hour), where the goal is to engage students in critical thinking and design processes within the Tech syllabus. Students explore questions that interest them, but they still work on key skills. We guide this process through clear discussions and assessments: we explain what we’re looking for and what they’ll need to present, so students are clear on what to focus on as they work.
I agree/understand the two points you have shared.
However, the point of this whole post is that certain pedagogical approaches are effective for novice learners (young learners) and other for near expert learners (advanced or adults). Novices learn and acquire knowledge and skills differently, while advanced students can perform on the basis of those knowledge/skills differently. STEAM as a pedagogy heavily favors advanced learners.
Umesh great article as always. My only gripe is that the article headline should add “… for novices”. While I am fully in agreement with the body of your argument I feel sometimes SoL advocates have gone to the one extreme delegitimising forms of learning that may be more appropriate for advanced learners. Hope you take this in the right spirit. Thanks Anustup
Great article! I mostly agree with your points, but there are a couple of aspects I'd like to clarify:
1. STEAM/PBL/Inquiry-Based Learning: It seems like there's often a misrepresentation of these approaches when they’re poorly implemented, and I think that’s what’s happening here. While I don’t believe you’re making that specific point, I do feel that good implementation of STEAM, PBL, or inquiry-based learning has a lot more to offer than what’s discussed. Experienced teachers who are well-practiced in these methods can provide substantial support for students. It’s a bit like saying that all teachers using direct instruction are just reading from a script and making lessons dull, which is clearly not the case—such a view oversimplifies the approach of the many educators who make direct instruction engaging and effective.
2. Learning Intention: There’s also a question of intention when it comes to projects like designing a sustainable bridge. What’s the learning goal there? Is it to get the student to lead a city council in constructing a bridge, or is the focus on developing specific skills and understanding key concepts? In our school, we have a "Passion Project" model (similar to Genius Hour), where the goal is to engage students in critical thinking and design processes within the Tech syllabus. Students explore questions that interest them, but they still work on key skills. We guide this process through clear discussions and assessments: we explain what we’re looking for and what they’ll need to present, so students are clear on what to focus on as they work.
Thank you Pete for your thoughtful comment.
I agree/understand the two points you have shared.
However, the point of this whole post is that certain pedagogical approaches are effective for novice learners (young learners) and other for near expert learners (advanced or adults). Novices learn and acquire knowledge and skills differently, while advanced students can perform on the basis of those knowledge/skills differently. STEAM as a pedagogy heavily favors advanced learners.
Umesh great article as always. My only gripe is that the article headline should add “… for novices”. While I am fully in agreement with the body of your argument I feel sometimes SoL advocates have gone to the one extreme delegitimising forms of learning that may be more appropriate for advanced learners. Hope you take this in the right spirit. Thanks Anustup
Thank you Anustup. Will surely think about your take.