Sage on the Stage, Guide on the Side, or something In-between?

This topic of “sage on the stage” or “guide on the side” is a very relevant one for anyone who finds themselves in the position of instruction or training.  There are many who heavily weigh in on lecture and the overwhelming effectiveness of this form of instruction.  But there is a growing section in education that encourages a more side-by-side instructional model referred to as “guide on the side”.  The problem that occurs with stances such as these is the pendulum effect.  This effect dates back to Galileo’s work in physics and states that ideas more often than not “swing” to opposite extremes (Pendulum, 2017).  When individuals desire change - with good intentions - they tend to pull away sharply and overreact in an effort to remove themselves from what they perceive as ineffective or detrimental.  This can be the case when trying to determine your style and portrayal of instruction.  I believe that either extreme can become ineffective.  I want to look at the benefits of a classroom saturated with guided social instruction and a smattering of lecture.  The fears of this conversion are real and need to be addressed for the sake of effective teaching.  A healthy balance of lecture and discovery learning is necessary if we are going to efficiently equip our learners.

Esther Wojcicki, vice chair of the Creative Commons board of directors, says this about instruction: “Eighty percent of learning takes place outside the classroom. Can you imagine learning to ride a bike by reading a book about it?  So why are we still teaching using lectures? We need to change the mindset and the role of the teacher from the ‘sage on the stage’ to the ‘guide on the side.’”  If her statistics are correct, we need to drastically reconsider how we present information to our students.  She calls educators to reject pure lecture-based lessons and incorporate experiential learning (May, 2016).  Now this doesn’t mean that we cannot include lecture into any lesson we prepare and deliver, but it does encourage us to readjust our priorities when constructing our unit lesson plans.  The biggest problem with a lecture-heavy instruction method is that during lectures, students are passively receiving the new information.  The mind that is most active in the classroom is the instructor’s himself.  Instructors are the ones relaying the facts, fielding questions, and engaging their minds in order to surface retained information.  The students are only recording what has been presented and will have to review on their own time in order to assimilate and comprehend.  While review and self-reflection are important aspects of learning new concepts, they should not be the major outlets for student interaction with the information.  When the class time is devoted to exploration and application, however, the students have the active minds and are building into their previously formed schema to allow for greater retention and comprehension (Bergmann & Sams, 2012).  This method also encourages students to take ownership of their learning and produces more creative and engaged minds within the classroom.  Too many times teachers believe it is their responsibility to carry their students through the course.  This may be because of fear of students failing, or their class looking badly, or not meeting benchmarks set by a district, which I will touch on later in this post.  There are many outside stimuli that encourage instructors to discourage exploration and true trial-and-error learning.  Students are spoon-fed information instead of being taught to savor the challenge and learn from mistakes (Jones, 2015).  This act of missing the mark and being encouraged to pursue mastery will be instrumental in creating long-lasting assimilation of information.  We need to call our students back to the art of discovery and the love of learning.

This idea of learning through interaction and guidance is not a new concept.  Many thinkers, instructors, and educators in history have urged the use of collaboration within instruction.  Lev Vygotsky, in the early 1900’s, greatly encouraged social interaction within the classroom.  His idea of a Zone of Proximal Development, ZPD, was essential to his pedagogy.  The ZPD stated that students learn best when leaning with peers and/or through direction of learning by a teacher or instructor (Powell & Kaline, 2009).  Students can be grouped to aid in concept absorption and the teacher can work within the groups to assist them in their goal of understanding.  This allows students to explore and ascertain information on their own and thus create a more solid extension to their previous scaffolding of facts and skills.  Students learn through experience and personal connection.  Whenever I am teaching a class and raise a generic question that the vast majority of students would have experienced, like “How many people watched the new __________ movie this summer?,” the response is reminiscent of the lightbulb experience.  They’re excited to chime in that they have seen or heard of it, and when I can connect it to the lesson we are walking through together, the concept becomes much more personal and meaningful.  This is the idea of “scaffolding.” We are building on top of already established thoughts or ideas.  If we can take things that the students already have personal connections to and connect them to the concept being discussed, the students will more likely retain that information.  They have made the concept part of their very own history.  They are taking ownership of it.  This guiding by the instructor allows for processing dialogue that helps students to naturally deconstruct and absorb information that is now personally connected (Fogarty, 1999).  This returns to the importance of self-reflection and assimilation.  Dialogue and discovery-driven learning conducted by and guided by a learned instructor is an effective, more conservative form of our “guide on the side” pedagogy.

There are many obstacles to implementing this form of instruction in the classroom.  The largest fear revolving around this teaching style is that it drives instructors out of their comfort zones and requires much more accountability on their part.  Since the class time will involve more questions than lecture, teachers must have a greater mastery of the subject matter they are teaching.  No longer does the lesson stay within the strict boundaries a lecture sets up.  And let’s face it, teachers love to talk and love to be listened to.  It is much easier to “ramble” on and enforce the fact that the teacher knows best.  It is much more humbling and challenging to set up guided parameters and allow our students to discover the answers through their own ingenuity and collaboration (Bergmann & Sams, 2012).  Collaborative work is greatly encouraged in a class setting that steers away from the standard lecture.  This framework allows students to work with their peers towards the desired goals.  This can also be frightening for teachers.  I know it is for me.  Teamwork creates a sense of freedom and spontaneity that can seem dangerous and unruly.  In the end, the results are worth the effort and “lack” of structure (Davis, 2012).  Another fear is that students will not reach the desired standard or benchmark set by our districts, as mentioned earlier.  When assessing students for state testing, there is a very specific standard needed.  Creating lessons that revolve around collaboration and exploration can cause anxiety in this area.  Will my students figure out the content before I need to move on?  I don’t want to leave my students behind.  How can I keep track of their progress?  These are valid concerns, and will take time to evaluate based on your subject matter and state requirements.  However, this should not put a stop to creating experiential learning for your students.  Some subjects may not be able to transfer as seamlessly, and some may transition more naturally.  These are possible detours, not closed roads.  Network and find teachers within your state that have overcome these obstacles.  On the subject of assessments, grading can also take a turn within this structure.  Not every assignment is going to be a fill-in-the-blank worksheet.  Determining a student’s mastery of a skill or concept may be more difficult to define, and again, may require a greater understanding of the subject area for the teacher.  This is a sacrifice of time and effort that can seem daunting for instructors, especially those comfortable in their lecturing habits.  When teachers take the plunge into this form of instruction, after the reworking of their lesson plans and the refreshing of their content, they are left with a classroom experience that will benefit their students greatly in their journey to become lifelong learners.

So are we going to stay that “sage on the stage”?  Are we going to swing disproportionately to the other extreme and rely on an unhealthy version of “guide on the side”?  Or are we going to find that coveted balance of the two to create a classroom environment where our students can really grow and learn together.  I think we all want that balance.  I think in theory we want to work hard and encourage our students to do the same.  Yet are we really going to take the time and effort to craft a learning culture, specific to our student demographic, that fosters discovery and retention?  It will not be a comfortable road.  We will be tempted to take the easy way out and hide behind our lectures.  Our students need us to encourage and model exploration.  The love for learning has escaped our classrooms.  The desire to discover is lost.  Let’s create a place where our students aren’t afraid to search, aren’t afraid to learn from their mistakes, and aren’t afraid to grow.

** Collaboration and exploration isn't just for our students. Check out this TED Talk about the importance of working together as educators.