While nowhere explicitly defined and codified as a singular method, the "active and collaborative" pedagogies that were discussed at the conference had some common elements.  First, they are premised on a "constructivist," rather than an "objectivist" model of knowledge.   In the objectivist model, knowledge is fixed, "out there," and the goal of teaching is to transmit such a commodity to students.  Knowledge is thus centered on the teacher, who transmits it to students, who passively consume it.  By contrast, in a constructivist model, knowledge is actively created out of the dialogue between student and teacher.   The classroom is a democratic community of learning.  The teacher is no longer a "sage on the stage," playing the knowledge game before a group of student-spectators; rather, the teacher's role is more of a facilitator or  coach, and students are active collaborators with the teacher and with each other in constructing understanding.

 Second, the pedagogical methods that were described at the conference to foster students' active learning were  group problem-solving, discussion, and peer evaluation.  For example, to engage students active participation,  teachers could pose "compelling problems" for students to work on, both alone and in groups.  One presenter who taught physics described a project in which students are presented with current medical research in the design of synthetic blood, and asked to strategize on research methods.   Students were more engaged then they would have been with a lecture on atoms and bonding.  They are actively applying and using conceptual material.  The focus, then, is not knowledge-information as a "thing," but students' critical thinking, analytical, and communication skills.

 Third, it was assumed that active and collaborative learning is more effective.  The pure lecture mode of teaching is a relatively ineffective mode of imparting knowledge; one workshop discussant stated that after fifteen minutes of a lecture, the student's ability to assimilate new information decreases.  When students are engaged in an activity, they are likely to retain more of what they learn.  However,  some of the conference participants also expressed the view that the lecture has a place in a "collaborative" learning model:  students who listen actively can gain much from a good lecture, and the teacher-student  relationship in a lecture mode need not be "active-passive."

 In addition, students learn in a variety of ways, and therefore pedagogies need to be multi-dimensional, tapping the different learning styles of students.  For example,  one workshop participant suggested that classroom activities should include 1) concrete experience  2) reflective activities (journals, logs)  3) abstract conceptualization (reading, writing, lecturing)  and 4) active experimentation (simulation in a lab environment).  Another presenter  who taught English outlined four types of questions that teachers can pose to students, each tapping a different style of learning:  1) memory or recall questions 2) Analytic questions (how/why did the author make the argument in this particular way) 3) Divergent or creative questions, that ask students to imagine alternatives beyond the text, and 4) Evaluative questions, that ask students to make a judgement and defend that judgement (How did you feel about ___?).

 Fourth, a central theme of active learning is helping students make connections.  This was defined as enabling students to connect new knowledge with what is familiar to them, or to combine personal and academic storeis to form a sense of themselves.

 Fifth, the qualities of the teacher committed to active and collaborative learning include the ability to listen responsively to students, the ability to see and make connections for students, an excitement for the learning process and for the material one is teaching, and a faith in the students ability to understand.

 Finally, conference participants were shown a videotaped interview with the educator Parker Palmer.  In in, Palmer cautioned against a "tyranny of technique" that he felt had begun to characterize conversations about active teaching.  He pointed out that good teaching comes in many forms, and that vitally important is the "identity and integrity of the teacher--her/his personhood, passion, and desire to connect."