Opportunities for young people of secondary school age to learn outside of classrooms currently exist in a variety of programs, and the proliferation of such programs has been widely recommended. Their promise lies in engaging the learner more actively in learning, in contrast to the relative passivity of much classroom learning. Its proponents argue that such learning is more easily applied to real situations and that it need not rely on such extrinsic motivations as grades. However, experiential learning is also acknowledged to be less efficient and less generalizable than highly symbolic classroom learning. Its place, therefore, must be found in a set of educational approaches that includes conventional schooling. The claims for experiential learning have not been grounded solidly in research. Although unequivocal effects have been demonstrated for few educational programs of any kind, the informed creation of experiential learning programs for youth requires research that demonstrates the association of various types of programs with desired outcomes among youth with particular characteristics. Movement in the direction of this goal will require the development of more valid instruments for assessing program effects and the use of experimental designs. Experimentation is urged as an exploratory strategy more than as a means of confirming general principles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen F. Hamilton (1980) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: