Sit and Get Vs Doing

Sit and Get vs. Doing: Reflections on Service Learning Through a High School Storefront

by

Anastasia Mignon Riddell M.Ed.

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Abstract

In a traditional public high school setting instruction highlights passive learning, this is when “sit and get” information comes from lectures or textbooks. While this approach can offer foundational knowledge, national data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)indicates that many high school students do not reach proficiency in key academic areas, with only 25% proficient in mathematics and 37% proficient in reading. These statistics suggest that students may struggle to apply classroom knowledge in real-world spaces. This study looks into the impact of experimental learning through a high school storefront, where students managed sales, inventory, and customer interactions. The data and research derived from student surveys and interviews, alongside NAEP benchmarks explores how hands on experiences influence student’s business skills, teamwork, confidence, and engagement. Findings indicate that students participating in the storefront demonstrated stronger application of classroom knowledge, improved collaboration and communication, and a heightened sense of school pride compared to traditional passive learning. These results highlight the value of integrating experiential learning opportunities into high school curriculum to enhance student engagement, career preparedness, and community involvement.

Keywords: Project based learning, Sit and Get, Career and Technical Education

Problem Statement

To what extent does the project-based learning (“doing”) improve student, engagement and practical understanding in high school business education compared to traditional passive “sit-and-get” instruction?

This general question leads to several subsidiary questions that help clarify the specific areas of the problem. How does participation in a high school storefront influence student’s ability to apply classroom business concepts? Does experimental learning increase student confidence, collaboration, and engagement more than passive instruction? In what ways do students perceive the differences between learning by “sitting and getting” and learning by “doing”? How do the outcomes of experimental learning align with national performance trends reflected in NAEP data?

These questions are directly connected to the broader problem of whether high school instruction adequately prepares students for authentic skill use, workplace demands, and career readiness. The issue is relevant to education and educational leadership because instructional methods influence achievement, engagement, and student motivation which all factor around school improvement and effective Career and Technical Readiness programming.

Rationale

The question is important because NAEP data demonstrate substantial national academic underperformance, raising concerns about the effectiveness of passive instruction. Business Education requires hands on practice to develop employability skills, suggesting that project- based learning may address gaps highlighted in NAEP. The topic is relevant to education and especially to educational leadership, as school leaders must determine which instructional models best prepare students for college, careers, and civic life. What I’ve derived is worth studying because business education increasingly demands practical application, yet many instructional settings still rely heavily on passive methods. Understanding whether experimental learning strengthens performance, engagement, and application can inform school leaders seeking to improve instructional practice and support CTE pathways. Insights from my research may help educational leaders design learning environments that better prepare students for post- secondary and workplace success.

Key Terms

Project Based Learning – An active learning approach in which students apply classroom knowledge in real-world contexts through hands-on experiences.

Sit and Get- A traditional passive instructional approach in which students primarily receive information via lectures or textbooks.

Career and Technical Education- Educational programs that integrate academic learning with vocational skills and real-world career experiences.

Student- Run Storefront- A hands on business operation managed by students, including sales, inventory, and customer service responsibilities.

Engagement- The level of interest, motivation, and participation a student exhibits in learning activities.

Doing- Applied, hands on learning and real-world experiences.

Teamwork- The ability of students to collaborate effectively with peers to achieve shared goals.

Limitations

This study draws upon student reflections and experiences from participating in one high school storefront. Therefore, the findings may not generalize to all schools, districts, or CTE programs on a national level. Additionally, the study uses only NAEP data, not state-level or local assessment results. Study measures immediate impact of participation, not long-term skill retention. The sample size reflections may limit generalizability to other schools or contexts.

Delimitations

These boundaries of the study will help to clarify the intentional scope of my research. This study uses only NAEP data, not state-level or local assessment results. NAEP’s data were used as benchmarks rather than direct measures of participants performance. The student’s reflections are from one high school and my not generalize nationally. This study does not include a formal experimental design. This research focused on skill application, teamwork, confidence, and engagement, not direct academic grades.

Literature Review

Questions Investigated in the Research Literature

Project Based learning emphasizes active participation and reflection, allowing students to apply classroom knowledge in practical settings. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (1984) explains that learning occurs through a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. In CTE programs, experiential learning provides students with hands-on experiences that enhance skill acquisition, problem-solving, and engagement. Some researchers have argued that experimental learning promotes deeper, understanding by allowing students to apply ideas in real contexts. (Kolb,2015) This is opposite of most passive methods which encourage memorization without comprehension.

Low proficiency rates in mathematics and reading, as shown by NAEP, suggest that traditional instruction alone may not adequately prepare students to apply knowledge in practical contexts. Experiential learning, such as student-run storefronts, allows students to integrate academic content with real-world practice, developing both vocational and academic skills simultaneously. By fostering teamwork, communication, and confidence, these experiences offer benefits that standardized assessments may not fully capture. Research highlights that overreliance on traditional lecture correlates with lower student engagement and limited long term retention (Freman et al., 2014). NAEP results further reinforce concerns about passive learning outcomes, with only 25% of high school seniors demonstrating proficiency in mathematics.

These authors explore learning effectiveness in general academic settings. In contrast, this study focuses specifically on business education and operational skill building through a school storefront. While literature examines active learning broadly, this paper applies those principles to a unique experimental business environment, enabling exploration of how these methods align with national learning trends.

Methodology

Throughout this paper let’s remember what this study asks. Does experiential learning “doing” offer meaningful advantages over passive “sit and get” instruction in high school business education. In this paper a mixed method design is used, supported by quantitative NAEP data for national comparison. Which includes Analysis of NAEP variables related to student engagement, parental education, socioeconomic status, and task application. Qualitative data was also used such as student reflections, surveys, and observations from student participants in a high school storefront program. Student reflective responses and open-ended survey comments. The sources and nature of the data are public national variables related to proficiency, task engagement, reading habits, math applications, and school context.

The observations from the storefront operations and the NAEP national proficiency scores all bring quality data around the scope of this research.

Table of Variables

Is this correct?

Data Collection

· Surveys: Students completed open-ended surveys reflecting on skills, confidence, and engagement.

· Interviews: Semi-structured interviews explored teamwork, problem-solving, and perceptions of experiential learning.

Table of Variables

Qualitative analysis included descriptive statistics and correlation patterns from NAEP data to understand relationships between achievement and engagement. Qualitative analysis included coding themes from student reflections to identify patterns in confidence, skill development, and knowledge application.

Data Analysis and Discussion

Does the experimental “doing” improve student understanding and performance more effectively than passive “sit and get” instruction? NAEP data consistently show strong correlations between achievement and instructional engagement. Student reporting higher application of skills show higher scale scores. Table 1 shows Proficiency Patterns. It shows students who reported frequent real-world application tasks scored significantly higher in both math and reading. These findings all align with the qualitative reflections from the storefront students, who repeatedly emphasized learning more effectively when actually “doing” the work.

These all have relationships to the subsidiary questions. NAEP show passive learning limitations like students with lower engagement obviously reported lower achievement. Students describe deeper understanding through doing. In my research, many storefront students indicated they finally understood concepts such as profit margins, customer service, and inventory once they performed tasks themselves. Research also showed that experimental learning boosts confidence and teamwork. The student’s consistency described growth in communication, responsibility, and decision making. The implications for leadership exemplified results support expanding experimental opportunities across CTE programs.

The control variables, socioeconomic status, lunch status, and parental education were examined to control for background effects. Even when controlling for SES, engagement remained positively associated with achievement. Both quantitative and qualitative data suggest that experimental learning increases comprehension and engagement in ways passive instruction does not.

Where I am supposed to enter my charts . I cant figure it out. Also , not sure if I used NAEP correctly?

Summary and Conclusions

This study examined whether traditional “sit and get” instruction limits students’ ability to apply classroom knowledge in real-world contexts, and how experiential learning through a student-run storefront can address these limitations. Some major findings noticed were: NAEP shows passive instruction limits proficiency, project-based learning enhanced students’ ability to apply classroom knowledge in practical tasks. Practical application outcomes exceeded national NAEP proficiency benchmarks, indicating hands-on experience reinforce academic skills. The literature supports experimental learnings advantages but often lacks direct comparison to national quantitative data. This study contributes a clearer connection between NAEP patterns and classroom instructional design. By pairing NAEP benchmarks with real student experiences, this paper demonstrates that active learning environments provide a stronger foundation for both academic proficiency and workplace readiness than traditional passive instruction.

References

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.