From Legends to Legacy 11measurably change from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side” until I began worrying
more about learning than teaching. Disciplines like the developmental, behavioral and
neurosciences always made more sense to me as an educator than the others and they have
greater concern for the learning process than teaching.
As a preface to this section I wish to honor the work of Edgar Dale from Ohio State
University. I met him while on the UCEA staff in 1971 (1969). His “ Cone of Experience”
was brilliantly conceptualized, as he ably described the continuum of learning based on what
happens to a learner two weeks after receiving new information.... 90% it is forgotten, unless
it was learned actively, rather than passively, in which case 90% is retained. He was a giant
of a man and we often passed out his “cone of learning” to students at UCD to model the
beliefs we had about student learning.
Madeline Hunter (1967), another favorite scholar-practitioner of mine, advised us when I
studied with her in the 1960’s, to have lesson plans that took into account all the ways that
people learn, and that learning was far more important than teaching, contrary to the many
misinterpretations of her ideas, which unfortunately abound. She was one of my heroes,
based on her vigorous advocacy of the sound “elements” so necessary for quality learning,
including: clear goals for learning, checking for understanding, guided practice, checking for
retention through reinforcement, and closure. They were all parts, rather than dictates of a
quality lesson plan geared toward student learning. (Hunter, 1967; Goldberg, 1990).
I think people learn best when they are solving problems and are engaged in complex
intellectual tasks—Rousseau, Knowles, Greene, Piaget, Vygotsky, Montessori, Bridges,
Slavin, and others have convinced me this makes the most sense. Greene once stated at a
school-community conference I sponsored at CU in the late 1970’s, that: “human beings
define themselves through the projects with which they become involved”. By means of
engagement with a project, the attitude of “wide-awakeness” develops, and contributes to the
choice of actions that lead to self-formation (Greene, 1995; Ayers & Miller, 1998). Powerful
thinking on her part.
Cooperative, active, project based, constructivist, action-research-based, and similar forms
of methodologies have all dramatically improved my students’ learning and my own...much
more so than other approaches. However, since learning is so personal, other approaches may
work for others! And probably do.
A quality preparation program also ought to have diverse “learning experiences” in the
curriculum, as Louise Tyler called them in her classes at UCLA. Whatever those diverse
views, we must remember that Piaget argued that activities or situations should engage
learners and require adaptations...that teaching methods should actively involve students and
present them with challenges, thus enhancing learning and cognitive development (1929;
1932). His theories are quite similar to other constructivist perspectives on learning,
particularly those of Lev Vygotsky. I would be remiss not to mention his intellectual
contributions to learning. Simply put, in his view: social interaction plays a fundamental role
in the development of cognition! (Vygotsky, 1962; 1978). Why then is “drill and kill” such a
predominant force for learning in our schools. (Durst, 2005). Thank goodness Cuban and
colleagues have found shining examples of child-centered rather than teacher-centered lessons
in the many schools they visited around the country (Cuban, 1988; 1998; 2000). (Of course
that was before NCLB!)
Montessori’s innovative approach was that “education should no longer be mostly
imparting of knowledge, but must take a new path...the release of human potentialities.”
(Montessori, 1912; Lillard, 2005). Contrary to many of the present practices in Montessori
schools, she believed learning was enhanced by: small groups, greater student decision-