Final Blog

Well, this has been a great semester! At the beginning, I was a little intimidated by the fact that we would have to answer the same two questions each week, but it turned out that there was always something different to say after reading about each learning theory. At this point, I guess it's appropriate to sum up what I've come to believe personally about learning and facilitating learning, now that I've read all the material.

Basically, I think what it comes down to is that learning (the best kind, anyway) doesn't result from didactic instruction. Rather, students must be active participants in the process. Especially where they come in with preexisting misconceptions, it is necessary to allow them to discover the incorrectness of these misconceptions for themselves. Only then will they ready to accept new ideas. Additionally, students learn better when they are able to manipulate and experiment and develop ideas for themselves, rather than simply being given discrete facts to memorize and then give back on a test.

The job of the teacher in all this is, I believe, best represented in the difference between possible titles. Rather than considering him or herself as the instructor, it would be better to instead use the term guide or facilitator. Until they fit children with USB ports on their foreheads where information can simply be downloaded, the job of a teacher is to guide them on this journey of discovery, pushing them or directing them, but not attempting to simply fill them up.

Social Constructivism

I believe this week's learning theory was my favorite of all of them. Vygotsky's ideas on the Zone of Proximal Development have always rung true for me. In complete honesty, I suppose another reason why I enjoyed this week's readings more than some is that they seemed more respectful of the profession into which I've been working and putting my heart for several years now. I like the synergy between the development of the individual and also the influence of instruction on that development.

So, what is learning? According to Vygotsky, part of learning, at least, results from being pushed just a bit farther than one is strictly comfortable and completely knowledgeable. Then, with the aid of a more experienced other, one develops new knowledge and more cognitive abilities. The teacher's job in all this is to provide these tasks and opportunities to step out of the comfort zone and into the zone of proximal development, and then to also provide the scaffolding needed once the student is in the ZPD so that the experience results in development rather than in frustration.

Bruner

I really liked the Big Quote from the reading this week: any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development. I think this is absolutely true. Learners can grasp elements of any subject matter, so long as it is presented in such a manner that it is appropriate for them at the level where they are. That puts the burden on teachers to facilitate that learning through creatively presenting the material so that it is appropriately simplified and concrete for younger learners. I've always believed this is one of the things that makes teaching an interesting challenge. After all, striking the right balance of simplicity is an art--it's much more common to either go too easy or too esoteric.

Situated Cognition

I could see what the chapter this week was talking about. Most of the time, when I've gotten new jobs, I've felt like what I learned in school had done very little to directly prepare me for it. Of course, the many skills I did learn in school have always served me well in whatever I did, but as far as being specifically prepared, even for my current job of teaching, the school courses I took didn't do that for me. Of course, I chose to take all college-prep classes in school. I was definitely well-prepared for college, which was my goal. Perhaps if students choose to study a trade in high school they get more of that culture.

The reading made the point that school doesn't even manage to teach intellectual skills effectively because they are taught theoretically and without context. To be completely frank, I feel that some of the readings we've had have been a bit condescending, and that the authors were generalizing a bit too much. This article was in that category for me. Again, I could definitely see their point, and I do know teachers at my school that are stuck in the past, but I also know a lot that are doing wonderful things.

So: according to this week's philosophy, learning happens when students are enculturated. Information drilled in without reference to how it is meant to be applied is meaningless and quickly forgotten.

Most students learn more about how to be students and play the game of school than how to actually be scientists, mathematicians, or readers. So teachers need to be examples and real practitioners, not just perpetuators of the customs of traditional school.

Case-based learning

The school of the future (as described at the end of the Schank chapter) sounds great. However, it also sounds like quite a clash with the priorities of NCLB. I won't get on my soapbox (again) but why isn't NCLB on the way out?

So: what is learning? I think I'm seeing a real theme throughout the learning theories so far, actually. First of all, learning doesn't take place independently as a simple input in, input out equation. Instead, it is dependent on prior experience, and the learner must make meaning of new input based on what his/her previous learning and experience has been. Secondly, learning is not meaningful and permanent if the learner is simply told a fact and asked to remember it. Instead, the learner must be allowed to work the facts out for him or herself. In fact, Schank kind of disparages people who do remember a lot of random facts!

I was fascinated by the storytelling idea. It is so true. I take the example of the example. Hearing a fact in isolation leaves me confused, usually. But, give me an example of what that fact looks like in real life, and suddenly I understand what it means to me. Also, isn't it always more interesting to listen to someone talk when they incorporate stories?

So, what should a teacher do? Don't try to spoonfeed it to them--make them put it together and eat it themselves. Also, make sure and incorporate stories that will make students think and also help them remember their own stories.

Beware: Star Trek reference follows! I don't know how many of you are trekkies (probably not many) but this theory made me remember an episode of Next Gen where Picard was stuck on this planet with this alien captain and Picard couldn't understand anything he said, even with the Universal Translator. Turns out their whole language was based on stories, and since Picard hadn't heard any of the stories, he didn't understand any of the references.