Avraham Glustein is Head of School of Politz Day School in Cherry Hill, NJ. See the sidebar for this article here.

In this paper, I will outline my school community’s journey towards the implementation of Active Learning (henceforth AL) in both our Judaic and general studies departments. It was a fascinating two year journey that improved the quality of education at Politz, a Modern Orthodox day school in Cherry Hill, N.J. Using the action research model that I learned at the Lookstein Principals’ Seminar , I was able to introduce a shared language of AL into our school conversations and classrooms. I will trace why I felt we as a school needed to improve, why I ultimately chose AL, and the twists and turns that we, as a school, encountered along the path to success.

The Educational Quandary

One of the most important aspects of my job is the role of Instructional Leader of the institution. In multiple visits to classrooms I found that I was generally pleased with the learning, but also noticed that in each class, there were a few students that didn’t appear to be actively engaged in their Judaic text study. I also noticed that these lessons often tended to be taught in a conventional frontal style. Experience has shown me that these unengaged students tend to disturb other students in the short term, and are less likely to continue their Jewish education in high school. Our mission statement stresses the value of each individual student, and I felt that I could not just let this issue be swept under the rug.

The Search for a Solution

Searching for a solution I networked, spoke with experts and did reading, but I found the suggestions unsatisfying. Some suggested that we move away from text study and engage the students with the Biblical narrative or Talmudic debate, but this was ruled out because our school is committed to help the students become lifelong learners of Judaism, which requires text mastery. I wanted a solution that would better engage the students with the text while staying true to our teaching objectives.

Action research provided a focus for pursuing an approach to the challenge,. After a deliberate process, during which I considered, but ultimately rejected differentiated instruction as my focus, I settled on AL as the approach I would try. I felt that AL was relatively easy to implement, placed limited demands on teacher’s time, and would help them make the transition from frontal teaching to lessons in which “the students are actively involved in the acquisition of new knowledge.” It also presented a continuum of growth that allowed teachers to have varying entry points to the introduction of AL, with plenty of opportunity for growth. If I was correct about AL, it would start pulling in the peripheral students who were not yet actively engaged, while staying true to our educational goals.

Our First Year –2007-2008

I began by introducing the concept of and the need for AL to the Judaic studies teachers at a PD workshop in August. An open and honest debate ensued, which I believed would help enable teacher buy-in to the program. I also felt that we were trying to uncover educational truths, and that all reasonable opinions deserved an honest discussion.

One strong concern was the lack of time in a dual-curriculum school day and the perception that AL would take up too much instructional time. Another concern was the fact that it could not be used to address text – the initial impetus for the whole project.

I took the energy created by this conversation and asked the teachers to participate in an AL activity. I mentally marked the time and ran a quick Think-Pair-Share activity by posing a question about the upcoming holiday of Rosh Hashanah. “How does Hashem (G-d) accept our yearly repentance when we quickly revert to our old patterns after the High Holiday season?” The room erupted in discussion for the next two minutes. When I was able to draw them back they eagerly shared their answers. When I asked them how long they think this AL activity took, they were surprised that it only took four minutes, and agreed that it was definitely more dynamic than a typical frontal lesson.

The teachers then divided into groups and I appointed group leaders. They were asked to identify our end goals for this project, where we were at that time in terms of student involvement in the lessons and the use of AL, and the road blocks to implementing a more structured AL model in the Judaic classrooms. These were recorded on large post-its and hung in the conference room for future reference. I asked the teachers to identify their students’ learning styles and to start thinking about different AL for the classroom. I also asked them to be prepared to share their successes and challenges at our monthly teachers’ meeting. This would help them think about AL as they knew that they would be presenting to their colleagues in a few weeks time.

Our November workshop began with a presentation of data and research about the benefits of AL, and was followed by practical applications for a text-based Judaic classroom. There was also time for practice of some of the new AL techniques that had been introduced. While I did receive feedback that they would have preferred less theory and more practice of the techniques, the intensive focus on professional development went a long way in moving the teachers forward in this program. Although not all the teachers came along at the same pace, and one or two found these activities harder to embrace, the staff did make remarkable strides as they implemented new teaching strategies.

Active Learning with Judaic Texts

We found that AL was easy to use for the introduction of concepts and themes, for review and for grasping the “essential information,” but one of the most significant challenges to the successful implementation of AL was the study of Judaic texts. Because Talmud involves second and third (Aramaic) languages and can be very detail oriented, the standard activities were perceived to fall short of producing meaningful and productive textual lessons. If the primary objective was to find meaning in, and to generate student interaction with the text, it would call for an adaptation and creation of the AL methods. It would also mean that the teachers would need to collaborate to produce and collect these ideas, and to fine tune it so that it could be replicable in other classrooms. To this end we asked all the Judaic teachers to submit a brief description of the AL activities that ran in their classrooms. From those submissions we produced a booklet with over thirty activities for Judaic studies, with a section for comments after each activity. At our November workshop each teacher chose their two best activities and modeled it for their colleagues. These presentations generated intense conversations about style, substance and about how to best apply it to their classroom and subject material. The havrutah style of the workshop was appreciated, in that the teachers were really able to gain clarity in how the method worked. And because it was all in house, there was an immediate buy-in and a sense that this was theirs.

The Second Year –2008 -2009

After a successful first year, I decided to expand the program, together with our General Studies (GS) director, Mrs. Roth, to our general studies department. We began with a workshop that introduced the theory and fundamentals of AL to the GS, followed by a combined staff meeting to discuss collaboration for the year’s action research plan. We set the tone for the year with an introductory data collection that was due in late September, and laid out a schedule for the year. We also ran a workshop on defining personal styles to which I was introduced at Lookstein’s mid-winter seminar. This workshop played a significant role in helping our staff understand how staff deal with change.

By the time we completed our November workshop, it was clear that there was a fair amount of resistance to this agenda from our GS faculty. A sense of being overwhelmed charged the meeting with a high level of tension. I understood that the teachers were a bit out of their comfort zones with AL, and it was critical to have individualized follow up. Indeed, the angst did subside following the one-on-one meetings that served to offer support and clarify the project.

The GS director and I sat with each teacher and tried to map out a meaningful research question that they felt spoke to them. I challenged the more reluctant teachers to raise their greatest objection to AL and transform it into a question to be explored.

You feel that it won’t help for grammar rules of run-on-sentences. Great! Let’s divide the class in half, use AL for one segment and see if they will finally internalize this abstract rule of writing that never seems to get through.

The science teacher felt that she didn’t need to research AL because the nature of her subject dictated hands on learning. That was turned into a fascinating study of whether her activities helped the students retain the essential information over the span of the middle school grades. (It definitely did!)

Handling this situation was a learning experience that taught me how essential it was to work with each individual member of the team so that they felt that their informational needs were met. The resulting meetings produced impressive research goals, as well as an interesting turn around for some teachers.

During a two-week period during January 2009, the teachers submitted a two week informal log of the AL activities that they ran in their classrooms. Eighteen teachers averaged approximately nine AL lessons each over the two-week period. This accounted for a total of 162 AL activities that had the students “actively engaged with the acquisition of knowledge!” This log is a powerful testament to the success of this school wide initiative.

The Power of Data

There were three general objectives to our data collections:

1. To make the case that the students will learn better if they are taught through active learning.
2. To demonstrate that students will retain the essential information for a longer period of time when it is taught or reviewed through AL.
3. To give the teachers the gift of action research and data collection methods. This could then be utilized at a later date to address their own educational queries.

We ran a series of data collections over the course of the program, alternating between collecting statistics with a series of comparative assessments and the collecting of informal data that to be logged in a journal. These would help gauge our progress and determine whether the students were actually learning better.

The Comparison Assessment

One method we used to make the case for AL is to have teachers teach a frontal lesson and then test the students on the material the next day, three days later and a week later. They then repeated the sequence after delivering a similar lesson in the AL format. They were instructed to minimize any mitigating factors by keeping the duration of instruction and the number of questions and style of testing as similar as possible. We found that AL activities did positively affect the learning that took place. Our ADHD students, who were less likely to be engaged during a frontal lesson, scored between 40% and 80% higher on their quiz.

We also asked the teachers to divide the class and teach the same material to both segments with one segment being taught in a frontal manner, the other with AL.

For example, in teaching about run-on sentences, the objective of the research was, “Will active learning be effective in helping students apply this abstract concept of run-on sentences to their writing?” The class was divided homogeneously. 42% of the students that were instructed frontally had at least one run-on sentence in their work while only 14% of the AL group had a run-on sentence.

Student Survey

One of the early “culture changers” was the completion of a student and teacher survey to define the various learning styles that were part of our learning environment. We also compared the teachers’ assessment of their students with the results of an online survey in which students assessed their own learning styles.

Using a student survey we designed collaboratively with Judaic faculty, we found that 87% of the children said that they learn best when they are involved in their learning while only 13% preferred frontal lecturing. We then distributed a similar survey to the teachers to assess their responses to these questions. While the students seemed to prefer a variety of activities, six out of seven teachers favored, “Mainly regular lessons with some new ways every once in a while”.

It was a powerful eye opener for some of the teachers when they saw that the style that was preferable to them didn’t necessarily mean that it worked for their students. For several teachers that was an “Aha!” moment, which was the beginning of their sincere attempts to include AL in their teaching.

Long Term Effects

One of the most gratifying feelings associated with this program was the shared language that started appearing in the lesson plan books. A small AL next to one of the boxes meant that the teacher took the time to think of, plan and teach in a manner that would benefit the learning of our students. They also took the time to animatedly share their incremental successes with administration. True, they conducted lessons that qualified as AL activities before the program. But once we embraced the concept as a school wide project, there was a whole new awareness and understanding of how the students learned – it was as if the culture and benefits of active learning had been redefined with a clarity that was previously lacking.

In addition to facilitating student engagement, I was interested in seeing whether AL was effective in long-term retention.

In science, the teacher had used a Simon Says educational game to learn the skeletal system. When tested the following year, the class average was 86%. In tefillah pronunciation of the brakhot had been taught with active learning in the first grade. When they were tested 1-3 years later, with one simple prompt it all came back.

A seventh grade Judaic teacher who left the school this year reported that she is aggressively pursing AL in her new school and finds it very effective. She is now trying to convince her colleagues to follow suit.

Personal Growth

One of the fascinating by-products of this journey was the personal growth that I’ve experienced. It is one thing to have a vision, quite another thing to put it in to effect and have the staff come on board with the project. All change creates a sense of anxiety, at least initially, of being out of one’s element. The challenge of a leader is to help the person that is involved move into unchartered territories, make mistakes in a “safe” environment and ultimately grow from the experience. It means that the instructional leader is focused on the big picture and the end of the road, but is aware of the details and bumps along the way.

I like to refer to this process of change as the “ongoing dance of leadership”. There are times when you have to tip-toe around the issues. At times you will need to be a decisive decision maker and move quickly. Occasionally, your presence needs to make itself known and you often need to move all those involved just beyond their comfort zones in order to experience it. And, of course, you must be able to inspire and motivate, cajole and convince the audience that your interpretation of the material is compelling and meaningful.

By facilitating a project of this nature, I unquestionably left my own comfort zone at frequent intervals. I was by no means an expert on AL and hadn’t really demanded that serious change take place within the classrooms. My own background did not include many of these active learning concepts so I was also part of the learning process. It was a team approach to an educational goal.

The challenge of working with different personalities is a major part of any new initiative. It is a fascinating journey that I find to really demand all my skills in the arena of interpersonal relations. It is expanding my horizons as a leader, as I coax, inspire, cajole, challenge and reason with all the varied and wonderful teachers in the school. Dealing with the reactions to the Nov. workshop was an invaluable learning experience in the laboratory of real life. I feel like this program has launched me into the academic lifeblood of the school, a perspective that is as thrilling as it is strenuous. The wonderful mutual learning experience that paved the way for more growth, and the biggest winners are the students, who are now more engaged in their learning – the first step to them becoming life long learners.

The Lookstein Program

A large part of our success is due to the system of accountability that the Lookstein program has incorporated into the action research project. Life in school is a whirlwind of competing demands for our attention. In addition to Lookstein’s constant modeling of the importance of eliciting feedback and engaging in self assessment, the mentoring was a vital piece in helping me stay focused and move the project forward. The insights and guidance that I received from my mentor, Rabbi Jack Beiler, Dr. Deborah Court, the Director of the Principal’s Program and Rabbi Zvi Grumet, the Associate Director of the Principals’ Program, were absolutely instrumental in its success.

Surprise Findings

Of note to me was the way the different groups of teachers reacted to the project. The Judaic teachers, with two exceptions, are not college educated. I had assumed that I would meet with more resistance from the Judaic staff in realizing the action research model, with the data collection it engenders and the new direction it took. The general studies teachers, I assumed, would be more open, given their better research skills and attention to detail, and having been exposed to statistics at some point in their college years. To my surprise I found that, for the most part, the Judaic staff were more flexible than their general studies counterparts in adopting the AL model. I also found that public school veterans of twenty years or more tended to be less enthusiastic about the program, perhaps inured by having gone through their share of “new” initiatives. Interestingly, those same Judaic staff felt that the theory was superfluous. Although action research did demonstrate our two objectives of better learning and long term retention, they have not yet been convinced that it is a valuable research model that can be employed to answer other dilemmas that they may face in the future.