Towards Innovative Education: Challenges and Perspectives of Active Methods in Congolese Teaching

Nebue Mpanya Marceline^1, , Kalenga Mwenzemi Jackson² and Mulwani Makelele Basile³

¹Head of work at the University of Kabinda, RD Congo

²Full Professor at the University of Lubumbashi, RD Congo

³Professor at the University of Lubumbashi, RD Congo

Cite this paper:
Nebue Mpanya Marceline, Kalenga Mwenzemi Jackson and Mulwani Makelele Basile. Towards Innovative Education: Challenges and Perspectives of Active Methods in Congolese Teaching. American Journal of Educational Research. 2024; 12(7):222-231. doi: 10.12691/education-12-7-2

Abstract

This paper explores the challenges and perspectives of active methods in teaching, focusing on improving student learning. The main challenge lies in the effective adoption of these methods by teachers and education policymakers. Our objectives are to explore these challenges, identify barriers to their adoption, and propose strategies to overcome them. We rely on active methods such as Problem-Based Learning; Project-Based Learning; Peer Teaching; Case Method; Flipped Classroom; Guided Debates and Discussions; Role-Playing and Simulations; Brainstorming; and Learning Portfolios. Our methodology is based on documents observation, and the steps include: (i) identifying relevant documents; (ii) developing an analysis framework; (iii) comprehensive document collection; (iv) analyzing the documents to identify trends, recurring themes, and gaps. The results highlight the diversity of active pedagogical methods and underscore the specific benefits of each approach. The main challenges include student engagement, the need for preparation and assessment, and classroom management complexity. In light of the above, we suggest (a) providing institutional and professional support to help teachers effectively integrate active methods into their practice; (b) encouraging ongoing teacher training on active methods; (c) promoting future research on the impact of different methods on student learning outcomes; (d) exploring necessary adaptations of active methods to meet the specific needs of learners with disabilities.

Keywords:
active pedagogical methods teaching learning challenges and perspectives teacher trainin

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L ., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
[2]	Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education. Vol. 93, pp. 223-231.
[3]	Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.
[4]	Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone. Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
[5]	Dewey, J. (1990). Démocratie et éducation. trad. G. Deledalle. Paris : Armand Colin Editeur.
[6]	Dreyfus, A., & Mazouz, Y. (1989). The perceptions of the teachers as a basis for co-operative planning of in-service activities. European Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 12, 3, pp. 197-202.
[7]	Bipoupout, J. C. (2018). Enseigner l’éducation comparée en vue de développer des compétences: Évolution des savoir agir en situation. IJRDO. Journal of Educational Research. Université de Yaoundé. Vol. 3, 2.
[8]	Freinet, C. (1956). Les méthodes naturelles dans la pédagogie moderne. Paris : Bourrelier.
[9]	Freinet, C. (1964). Les techniques Freinet de l’école moderne. Paris : Armand Colin.
[10]	Dewey, J.. (2003). Reconstruction en philosophie. Farrago: Université de Pau.
[11]	Montessori, M. (1959). L’esprit absorbante de l’enfant. s.l.: Descellée Brower.
[12]	Montessori, M. (1962). La pédagogie scientifique. Paris: Descellée Brower.
[13]	Astouric, A. (2007). Réussir vos interventions de formation: Les fondamentaux de la pédagogie des adultes. Paris: Chronique Sociale.
[14]	Osborn, Alex (1953). Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
[15]	Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
[16]	Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 68, 3, pp. 249-276.
[17]	Herreid, C. F. (1998). What is a Case? . Journal of College Science Teaching. Vol. 27, 2, pp. 92–94.
[18]	Gredler, M. E. (1992). Designing and Evaluating Games and Simulations: A Process Approach. Tennessee: LA Vergne.
[19]	Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael CA: Autodesk Foundation.
[20]	Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[21]	Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term. New York: Routledge.
[22]	Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, Or.: Alexandria, Va., International Society for Technology in Education.
[23]	Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator. Vol. 36, 1, pp. 12-19.
[24]	Rosenshine, B. (2010). Principles of instruction. International Academy of Education. American educator. Springer
[25]	Clark, R. C., et Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. Wiley.
[26]	Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
[27]	Hughes, C. A., et al. (2000). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. Vol. 15, 2, pp. 69-77.
[28]	Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A. et Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator. Vol. 36, 1, pp. 6-11.
[29]	Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.
[30]	Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review. Vol. 17, 2, pp. 147-177.
[31]	Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge.
[32]	Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2008). Looking in Classrooms. s.l.: Allyn & Bacon.
[33]	Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 64, 4, pp. 479-530.
[34]	Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist., Vol. 42, 1.
[35]	Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist., Vol. 59, 1, pp. 14-19.
[36]	Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science., Vol. 32, 1-2, pp. 99-113.
[37]	Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science., Vol. 12, 2, pp. 257-285.
[38]	Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction. Vol. 8, 4, pp. 293-332.
[39]	Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist. Vol. 38, 1, pp. 1-4.
[40]	Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education. Vol. 30, 4, pp. 159-167.
[41]	Bligh, D. A. (2000). What's the Use of Lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[42]	Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education. Vol. 93, 3, pp. 223-231.
[43]	Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments. New York: Routledge.
[44]	Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. s.l.: John Wiley & Sons.
[45]	Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[46]	Herreid, C. F. (1994). Case Studies in Science: A Novel Method of Science Education. Journal of College Science Teaching. Vol. 23, 4, pp. 221-229.
[47]	Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. New York:: Pearson.
[48]	Alessi, S.M. &Trollip, S.R (2001). Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development. 3rd Ed. Massachusetts: A Pearson Education Company.
[49]	Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 74, 1, pp. 59-109.
[50]	Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education . Washington: George Washington University, 1991. Report No. 1.
[51]	Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. New York: Routledge.