Page 23 - International Journal of Process Educaiton (Special Issue)

Accelerator Model (1993)
Concepts such as “raising the bar,” “raising expectations,” and “getting students outside their comfort
zone” are all part of the research behind the Accelerator Model; also included are the importance of
taking risks and accepting failure as a frequent and productive means to growth and success.
As part of Pacific Crest’s PC:SOLVE demonstra-
tions, we designed a script of activities for students
in order to show faculty how well students could
perform. These activities intentionally created
a dynamic and energetic environment in which
teams were challenged to compete at solving
problems. In such an environment, students took
risks, were aggressive in experimenting, learned
from failure by figuring things out, and showed
all the signs of thinking critically and reflecting on
their performance. We discovered that the harder
we pushed these students, the more impressive
their responses and the more confidence they de-
veloped. (Dan Apple, personal recollection)
The model of this environment—especially with its
elements of strategic risk-taking, a culture of "try it," and (pushing down on the accelerator) can lead to greater stu-
accepting failure as frequent and productive means to
success--was developed in Learning Through Problem
Solving (Apple, Beyerlein & Schlesinger, 1992). Teach
for Learning — A Handbook for Process Education
(Pacific Crest, 1993) described discovery learning as a
stimulus for prompting students to not just passively take
in information, but to actively engage by asking “Why?”
when presented with information. This same handbook
also helped instructors learn to model the behaviors
sought from students, so that students would learn to
experience the process of learning for themselves rather
than “being taught.” Instructors were advised to respond
to student questions with insightful questions, modeling
what students could ask themselves. In modeling such
questions, instructors caused a productive kind of
frustration, as most students initially prefer simply being
given an answer instead of having to assume the mantle
of questioner, discoverer, and researcher themselves.
Teach for Learning also recommended that, as with the
PC:SOLVE demonstrations, instructors should constantly
increase the challenge as students succeed with current
challenges, a strategy that increases student confidence
and engagement.
The concept of time pressured learning was introduced
in the Teaching institute handbook (Apple, 1995), noting
that instructors can achieve the desired amount of pressure
by raising expectations or limiting the time available
for completing activities. A Teaching Institute activity,
“Frustration,” gave faculty the opportunity to discover that
International Journal of Process Education (February 2016, Volume 8 Issue 1)
LD
not meeting performance criteria (failing, to at least some
degree) can provide:
 An opportunity for future motivation
 The impetus for students to improve their learning
performance by improving their learning skills
 An insight into the value of reflection time in helping
students learn more about learning
The 1998 Teaching institute handbook (Apple & Krum-
sieg) saw the first publication of the Accelerator Model
(so named because varying the level of challenge is analo-
gous to varying the pressure on an accelerator) as a way to
help faculty appreciate how raising the level of challenge
dent learning and growth. The Faculty Guidebook module
The Accelerator Model”(Morgan & Apple 2007) effec-
tively links the model to scholarship concerned with learn-
ing, degree of challenge, emotional skills, engagement,
and motivation (see especially Bandura 1997, Bransford,
Brown, & Cocking 2000, Damasio 2005, Gist, Schwoer-
er & Rosen 1989, Goleman 1997, Mikulincer 1998, and
Picard 1997), even as it demonstrates the relationships
among the pieces previous laid out: challenge, raised ex-
pectations, risk-taking, productive frustration, failure as a
motivator, and time-pressured learning.
According to the Accelerator Model, there are three
variables that regulate the growth and development of
students’ cognitive and affective learning skills: the
cognitive skill set of students, the affective skill set
possessed by students, and the degree of challenge initiated
by the instructor (Figure 1 shows these variables set as
axes in the model).
The z-axis, “Affective Skill Set” is of particular note, as
it includes affective skills such as risk-taking, persisting,
managing frustration, and handling failure, all skills that
are critical if learners are to be actively engaged and high
performing. As Figure 2 makes clear, the stronger a learner’s
affective skill set, the more effectively he or she will be able
to meet learning challenges without significant anxiety,
anger, frustration, or disengagement. Conversely, personal
growth in affective skills can only occur when a learner is
below his or her “happy zone.” This means that we build
affective skills by increasing challenge (depressing the
accelerator) either by increasing complexity or restricting
time available to the point that learners are outside of their
21