As I research the most effective instructional approaches are for The School of Entrepreneuring, I’ve been amazed (maybe dismayed is a better word) by how much jargon, confusion and overlap there is among these philosophies.

As I talk to teachers, administrators, school founders, etc, one will tell me about the great success they’re having with project-based learning and another will talk about experiential learning and another will tell me about active learning (among many others).

In some instances, I’ll reference a teaching method in a conversation and someone will say “I’m not familiar with that, but it sounds a lot like ________” (fill in the blank with an instructional approach they’re familiar with).

Very similar approaches. Different branding.

This really specialized language & jargon makes educational discussions and literature inaccessible to non-“experts” with the aim of entrenching existing interest.

In an effort to organize my own thinking on this topic for others who might be trying to understand these teaching methods, I am sharing the various instructional approaches I’ve studied and the characteristics of each.

Below the chart, I explain each of these approaches and then also share my thoughts on why all the jargon/terms around these similar’ish instructional approaches is detrimental to improving education.

Instructional Approaches – A Quick Overview

1. Project-Based Learning (PBL)
   • Definition: Students engage in extended projects that integrate multiple subjects and culminate in a final product or presentation.
   • Focus: Interdisciplinary projects, long-term engagement.
   • Example: Building a model of a sustainable city.
2. Active Learning
   • Definition: Any instructional method that engages students in the learning process, requiring them to actively participate in their learning.
   • Focus: Student engagement, participation, and interaction.
   • Example: Group discussions, peer teaching, hands-on activities.
3. Experiential Learning
   • Definition: Learning through direct experience, often involving reflection on doing.
   • Focus: Real-world experiences, reflection.
   • Example: Internships, field trips, lab experiments.
4. Inquiry-Based Learning
   • Definition: Students learn by asking questions, investigating, and finding answers through research and exploration.
   • Focus: Curiosity, questioning, and research.
   • Example: Investigating the effects of pollution on local ecosystems.
5. Problem-Based Learning (PrBL)
   • Definition: Students learn by solving complex, real-world problems.
   • Focus: Critical thinking, problem-solving skills.
   • Example: Developing a plan to reduce school waste.
6. Constructivist Learning
   • Definition: Students construct their own understanding and knowledge through experiences.
   • Focus: Individual meaning-making, self-directed learning.
   • Example: Exploring scientific concepts through hands-on experiments.
7. Collaborative Learning
   • Definition: Students work together in groups to achieve learning goals.
   • Focus: Teamwork, communication, and social skills.
   • Example: Group projects, study groups.
8. Service Learning
   • Definition: Combines community service with academic learning and reflection.
   • Focus: Civic responsibility, real-world impact.
   • Example: Organizing a community clean-up and studying environmental science.
9. Competency-Based Learning
   • Definition: Students progress by demonstrating mastery of specific skills or competencies.
   • Focus: Mastery, personalized learning pace.
   • Example: Completing modules at their own pace until mastering a subject.
10. Blended Learning
    • Definition: Integrates online digital media with traditional classroom methods.
    • Focus: Flexibility, student control over learning.
    • Example: Online lectures combined with in-class discussions.
11. Flipped Classroom
    • Definition: Students review lecture materials at home and engage in interactive activities in class.
    • Focus: Maximizing in-class time for active learning.
    • Example: Watching video lectures at home and solving problems in class.
12. Montessori Method
    • Definition: Child-centered approach with self-directed activities and collaborative play.
    • Focus: Independence, hands-on learning.
    • Example: Self-chosen tasks with teacher guidance.
13. Reggio Emilia Approach
    • Definition: Emphasizes exploration and discovery in preschool and primary education.
    • Focus: Child’s perspective, collaborative projects.
    • Example: Children investigating natural phenomena through group projects.

Simplified Overview

The above is a lot to take in so here’s my cheatsheet of one-liners for each.

• Active Learning: Broad umbrella term for engaging students.
• Experiential Learning: Learning through doing and reflecting.
• Project-Based and Problem-Based Learning: Specific types of active and experiential learning, focused on projects and problems.
• Inquiry-Based Learning: Focus on student questions and exploration.
• Constructivist Learning: Students build their own understanding.
• Collaborative Learning: Group work and teamwork.
• Service Learning: Combining learning with community service.
• Competency-Based Learning: Mastery and personalized pacing.
• Blended and Flipped Learning: Integrating technology and maximizing classroom interaction.
• Montessori and Reggio Emilia: Specific child-centered approaches for younger students.

Why are these similar, but different terms a negative for the education world?

It’s become clear that having many similar but differently named teaching methods or philosophies is a net negative. Why?

1. Impact: Established interests (such as educational publishers, training providers, or policy makers) may benefit from the complexity, making it harder for new ideas and approaches to gain traction.
2. Creates confusion among educators: Understanding the differences and similarities among these terms is unclear at best which can make it challenging to choose the best approach for a teacher’s classroom.
3. Professional Development Challenges: Professional development programs often need to cover numerous methods but when there are so many, it leads superficial training on each rather than in-depth understanding of a few key approaches. The result of this is teachers feeling overwhelmed and underprepared to implement these methods effectively.
4. Dilution of Focus: With so many terms, the focus unfortunately shifts away from the core principles of good teaching and learning to the terminology itself, i.e., like the conversations I cited above. This ultimately dilutes the impact of educational innovations and impedes their adoption and effectiveness.
5. Resource Allocation Thrash: One of the most consistent themes I’m hearing for teacher dissatisfaction with their jobs is the whiplash they feel from changing strategies and priorities often driven by a desire to chase the new shiny educational object. This lack of sustained support and development for any one approach reduces overall effectiveness and is particularly alarming when many of the approaches are quite similar (beyond their branding). Note: teachers are already spending very little time teaching as I shared here.
6. Evaluation Difficulties: It becomes challenging and nearly impossible to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different methods when they are rebranded frequently. This hinders research and evidence-based decision-making in education.
7. Fragmentation of Educational Goals: Different methods each promote slightly different goals, leading to a lack of coherent and unified objectives within a school or district.
8. Barrier to Collaboration: Education at the middle and high school levels is a non-competitive space (generally) and so there is great potential for teachers and schools to collaborate. Unfortunately, all this similar but different terminology isolates educators and inhibits the spread of effective teaching strategies. This ultimately leads to inconsistent application and understanding of effective teaching practices.