Although, Christodoulou (2014, p.101) states,
Consider the English lesson on Romeo and Juliet, which involves making puppets. This involves pupils spending time thinking about the mechanics of puppet-making. That is not to say that colouring in or the mechanics of puppet-making are unimportant. The problem is that the lesson was an English lesson that was supposed to be about Romeo and Juliet. If the aim of the lesson was to teach pupils how to make a puppet, it would have been a good lesson.

She states that active/object based learning fail in their objectives, that those activities take up time, are not cost-effective and leave pupils off topic for a substantial amount of time in the lesson, Christodoulou (2014, p.101). However, her reasons fail to acknowledge lessons require structure for learning to take place, as Watkins (2008, p.45) states, ‘’Active learning aims to promote: active engagement – with materials and resources, with ideas, and perhaps with other people’’. Organised lessons and demonstrations, structured through independent and practical activities, with relevant materials alongside group discussions, promotes desired learning amongst pupils, reiterating the provoking of critical thinking, imagination and creativity in the classroom. This view is supported through the works of education reformer John Dewey, (1938) who explained educator responsibilities include sourcing existing problems (within pupil capacity) for them to experience and to provoke learner curiosity. This enables future pupil participation in finding out more information in the creation of new concepts and creating a basis for future experiences and problems, (Bates, 2016). This theory supports design and technology lesson curriculum and object based learning as a ‘problem solving’ approach is encouraged to activate a sense of curiosity when objects are presented and when practical learning, such as group research projects are implemented.

In addition, active/object based learning is a stimulus in influencing design thinking, practice and making in the classroom. This is highlighted in the (Piaget, 1976) constructivism learning theory where people actively construct new skills and knowledge individually, through merging what they already know beside their own experiences (Martinez, 2016). Similar to the constructionism learning theory presented by Seymour Papert, 1986, which actually placed the constructivist theory into action and thus provided structure to the active/object based learning environment. ‘’Learning is often socially constructed. Talking and working with others is one of the best ways to cement new knowledge.’’ (Martinez, 2016). To put into action and to allow successful collaborative discussions to take place, it’s important to note what roles both teacher and pupil have and how much time both take up. When it is clear that there are multiple roles pupils are able to identify with, active/object based learning can bring to light various routes for pupil involvement. As educators, we aim to prepare pupils for the ‘real working world’ outside of educational buildings. We aim to inspire all pupils especially in the design and technology environment through inclusive learning, therefore acknowledging all pupils and their abilities is something we want to be successful in achieving. Piaget’s view’s encourages this approach as he states students’ diverse abilities are recognised and achieved in different environments. To construct meanings of learning and teaching, interdisciplinary learning should take place in schools for more widely skilled children (Piaget, 1976). As 21st century educationalists, we are aware of such diverse professions in our society that all involve various required skills therefore, implementing different approaches such as active/object based learning, e.g. collaborative research/presentations within the classroom, further pupil engagement is formed as pupils will take on roles within their groups.