Active learning: a look at the perspectives of scholanovism and activity theory

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14571/brajets.v18.n4.1272-1281

Keywords:

Education and teaching, Active learning, Active methodologies, New School, Activity Theory

Abstract

Active learning is an approach that has been widely discussed in recent years. However, there are different understandings of what being active means. In view of the above, the main objective of this study is to analyze the concept of active learning from the perspective of the New School movement and the Theory of historical-cultural activity. To this end, we carried out qualitative research with bibliographic procedures that took place in the main printed and online databases in Brazil. The results show that despite using similar terms and converging on some points, the concept of activity in the New School movement differs significantly from what is treated by activity theory, predominantly in relation to the conception of the teacher's role, the concern with social issues and the type of human being who wants to be formed. However, conceptual divergences can be seen as complementary, since, in essence, both perspectives focus on active and meaningful learning for the student.

Author Biographies

  • Marcos Sérgio Carvalho Rebouças, Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Norte

    PhD student in Science and Mathematics Teaching (IFRN), Master in Professional and Technological Education (IFRN), specialist in Mathematics and its Technologies (UFPI), specialist in Teaching in Professional and Technological Education (IFES), degree in Mathematics (UFERSA) and bachelor in Production Engineering (UFERSA). Has experience in teaching at basic and higher levels.

  • Diogo Pereira Bezerra, Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Norte

    Graduated in Chemistry from the State University of Ceará (2008), has a Master's (2010) and Doctorate (2014) in Chemical Engineering from the Federal University of Ceará, and has a degree in VET Education for the Future from Häme University of Applied Sciences (2015) (Finland). I am currently a Professor at the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Norte (IFRN).

References

Aranha, M. L. A. (2006). História da educação e da pedagogia: Geral e Brasil. São Paulo: Moderna.

Coll, C., et al. (2000). Psicologia do ensino. Porto Alegre: Artmed.

Leontiev, A. N. (1980). Actividad, conciencia, personalidad. Editorial Pueblo y Educación. (Original work published 1975)

Luckesi, C. C. (1994). Filosofia da educação. São Paulo: Cortez.

Luzuriaga, L. (1971). História da educação e da pedagogia. São Paulo: Nacional.

Moran, J. M. (2015). Educação híbrida: Um conceito-chave para a educação, hoje. In L. Bacich, A. Tanzi Neto, & F. M. Trevisani (Orgs.), Ensino híbrido: Personalização e tecnologia na educação (pp. 27-45). Porto Alegre: Penso.

Núñez, I. B. (2009). Vygotsky, Leontiev e Galperin: Formação de conceitos e princípios didáticos. Liber Livro.

Piaget, J. (1990). Seis estudos de psicologia. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária Ltda.

Saviani, D. (1985). Escola e democracia (8a ed.). São Paulo: Cortez/Autores Associados.

Oliveira, B. A. de. (2010). Fundamentos filosóficos marxistas da obra vygotskyana: A questão da categoria de atividade e algumas implicações para o trabalho educativo. In S. G. de L. Mendonça & S. Miller (Orgs.), Vygotsky e a escola atual: Fundamentos teóricos e implicações pedagógicas (pp. 3–26). Junqueira & Marin.

Oliveira, M. K. de. (1993). Vygotsky: Aprendizado e desenvolvimento: Um processo sócio-histórico. São Paulo: Scipione.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Teoria e método em psicologia (3ª ed.). São Paulo: Martins Fontes.

Published

28-12-2025

Issue

Section

Article

How to Cite

Carvalho Rebouças, M. S., & Pereira Bezerra, D. (2025). Active learning: a look at the perspectives of scholanovism and activity theory. Cadernos De Educação Tecnologia E Sociedade, 18(4), 1272-1281. https://doi.org/10.14571/brajets.v18.n4.1272-1281