The main principles of the newest theory in learning, Connectivism, are as follows:
- Knowledge is an array of connections
- Making sense of the world through exploration
- Learning through social networking
- Technology integration
A theory based on these principles undoubtedly has bearing in our world today. The corporate world relies heavily on collaboration of employees, projects based on latest information, and social networking; we have all heard that it is not always what you know but who you know. But what place does this theory really have in schools among our young, underdeveloped students?
In my opinion, students need structure in all areas of their lives including learning. The idea that students now learn by making sense of chaos is, to say the least, far too futuristic if just not true. Children do not gain skills for abstract thinking until around 6 or 7th grade, respectively. Because of this, I do not think a teacher should carryout all of his/her teaching methods based on the connectivism theory of learning. I visualize an example from our Moodle conversations as an example of connectivism in action. We, as students, work together to make meaning of concepts by sharing our ideas which are primarily based on our experiences. This kind of learning is far to broad for a youngster's mind. What young children need before they take on learning in this form, is build their background knowledge or schema.
I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting students only learn through lecture during the early years. Students would benefit immensely from hands on learning and social interaction with peers. My point is that they should not just be thrown into the huge world of internet and digital resources. I think this would be nothing but stimulus overload, and have the adverse of affect of causing students to shut down.
I do, however, agree with the principles of connecectivsm if we apply them to upper high school and beyond. Schools are no longer preparing students for a lifelong career, and an education is the path to success. So students must know be taught how to be lifelong learners. They must practice their analytical and critical thinking skills, so they will know how to evaluate and apply all of the latest research throughout their careers. I think that this is where connectivism comes in to play, and serves as a legitimate theory of learning.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
After reading the words of John Dewey, I cannot necessarily say that my theory of mind has changed in any way but I certainly did find an educational philosopher with whom I agree with immensely. Dewey saw learning as the acquisition of cultural/ environmental ideas and beliefs. One of his greatest concerns was the method in which students acquire these understandings. He wrote that, "...Beliefs cannot be hammered in; the needed attitudes cannot be plastered on." This quote is very close to the quote by Jacqueline Brooks, and education specialist, I used in my educational philosophy as part of my portfolio for licensure. Brooks wrote, “….The teacher can’t give away the explanations, the teacher can’t give away knowledge, the students can’t receive it passively.”
I have never seen it as my duty as a teacher to merely full students minds with facts to be regurgitated back to me. Learning is understanding and true understanding is the product of deep thinking and reflection. I believe that Dewey was making this same point when he wrote, "...The particular medium in which an individual exists leads him to see and feel one thing rather than another." In other words, each of us is an individual, and our individualities are the reasons why we cannot be told something and immediately be expected to know it. The process going on within the mind are far too complex.
My concern, however, is no longer with the proper theory of mind. My concern is how this theory can successfully manifest itself in the classroom. To act as personal aid to each student is not possible, although it would be most beneficial. If each student had his/her own teacher available to engage them in higher levels of thinking or individual scaffolding then I believe that most issues in education would be solved instantly. But that is not the case, and until then I will continue to seek the best practices in which to apply the constructivist approach to learning, or the approach to learning that believes that students learn by forming their own understandings.
I have never seen it as my duty as a teacher to merely full students minds with facts to be regurgitated back to me. Learning is understanding and true understanding is the product of deep thinking and reflection. I believe that Dewey was making this same point when he wrote, "...The particular medium in which an individual exists leads him to see and feel one thing rather than another." In other words, each of us is an individual, and our individualities are the reasons why we cannot be told something and immediately be expected to know it. The process going on within the mind are far too complex.
My concern, however, is no longer with the proper theory of mind. My concern is how this theory can successfully manifest itself in the classroom. To act as personal aid to each student is not possible, although it would be most beneficial. If each student had his/her own teacher available to engage them in higher levels of thinking or individual scaffolding then I believe that most issues in education would be solved instantly. But that is not the case, and until then I will continue to seek the best practices in which to apply the constructivist approach to learning, or the approach to learning that believes that students learn by forming their own understandings.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Theory of Mind
On the first day of Professional Development at the school I currently work in, our Academic Directer instructed all of the faculty members to break into small groups, and work together to analyze a current issue in education, find a solution and present our solution using all of the multiple intelligences. The requirement of having to determine how we could present information in so many different ways drilled the information into our minds; we thought about it repeatedly and we essentially lived it as we analyzed how to teach it to others.
Why would did she approach the subject this way, instead of just lecturing about the issues and telling us what the "researches" have to say?
Because she did not want these subjects to fall on deaf ears. She wanted us to take these issues to heart and use our own knowledge about teaching to find constructive solutions that could be utilized in our classrooms.
She said, "We remember 90% of what we do, and about 5% of what we are told."
The reason I am telling this story is because I believe it exemplifies my own theories of how our minds learn.
I believe that people can only acquire new information if they are able to make the information personal to them in some way. Information becomes personal if we experience it, or in other words actively make meaning of it by engaging in thoughtful group work or some other hands on task. Learning may also occur when we reflect on new information and connect it to what we already know, or think about how this new information can be utilized in the future.
Optimal learning will take many forms, and vary from person to person. But it will never be passive. I do not believe that anyone will truly learn something just by hearing it. If someone does claim that they learned a fact, or string of facts, by lecture alone, then I believe this is because the person connected themselves to the facts, analyzed them and made them applicable to his/her life. The information was not just heard then stored forever.
My ideas about how learning takes place, mirror the theory in educational psychology called constructivism. According to constructivist theories of learning, "...Learners must individually discover and transform information..."(Slavin) In my personal experience, to learn a subject is to own the subject, and be capable of explaining in a multitude of ways, which can only be done once we have applied our own selves to the information.
1. Slavin, Robert E. Educational Psychology. 2009. Person Education Inc. New York.
Why would did she approach the subject this way, instead of just lecturing about the issues and telling us what the "researches" have to say?
Because she did not want these subjects to fall on deaf ears. She wanted us to take these issues to heart and use our own knowledge about teaching to find constructive solutions that could be utilized in our classrooms.
She said, "We remember 90% of what we do, and about 5% of what we are told."
The reason I am telling this story is because I believe it exemplifies my own theories of how our minds learn.
I believe that people can only acquire new information if they are able to make the information personal to them in some way. Information becomes personal if we experience it, or in other words actively make meaning of it by engaging in thoughtful group work or some other hands on task. Learning may also occur when we reflect on new information and connect it to what we already know, or think about how this new information can be utilized in the future.
Optimal learning will take many forms, and vary from person to person. But it will never be passive. I do not believe that anyone will truly learn something just by hearing it. If someone does claim that they learned a fact, or string of facts, by lecture alone, then I believe this is because the person connected themselves to the facts, analyzed them and made them applicable to his/her life. The information was not just heard then stored forever.
My ideas about how learning takes place, mirror the theory in educational psychology called constructivism. According to constructivist theories of learning, "...Learners must individually discover and transform information..."(Slavin) In my personal experience, to learn a subject is to own the subject, and be capable of explaining in a multitude of ways, which can only be done once we have applied our own selves to the information.
1. Slavin, Robert E. Educational Psychology. 2009. Person Education Inc. New York.
Friday, September 18, 2009
So we know how we don't want to teach, now lets move on... (Blog Assign 1)
The most unfortunate part of many courses on education is that they focus too much on blaming "old" teachers and traditional teaching practices. With all due respect to the instructor, I am so sick of hearing people bitch about the teachers who used lecture as their primary method of instruction. Yes it is true that lecturing and memorization are probably (or most definitely) not the most ideal or effective means of teaching, but I honestly believe that if a cure all for education really exists then it would have been discovered a long time ago. But until then, we will have to just continue to learn from past mistakes and work harder to become the most effective teachers possible. And doing this does not mean we point the finger at the past; it means we take a close look at our students and reflect upon was teaching methods proved to be the most effective.
I think the real reason that this issue irks me so much is that although I have met teachers who probably should have retired long ago, I have never met a cruel intentioned teacher. One can safely assume that most teachers were not drawn to the field for monetary reasons, but instead because they valued knowledge and wanted to spread their passion onto young minds. Perhaps the teacher never really knew the best way to do this, and was taught that lecturing and memorization were the traditional methods and should be upheld. But does anyone know how to teach every student?
What I would have liked is an expanded explanation of what is meant the by, "... Many instructional materials and much teacher behavior..." that suggest teachers believed information could just be dumped into the minds of children and then recalled for life. Surely these teachers know from their own experiences that everything learned in school cannot be reiterated for life.
But enough of my venting, and back to the question at hand: "Is teaching the transfer of information?" Well, that depends of if we mean transferring the information from the teachers mind to the student, or transferring the information into something that the student can make meaning of and enough connections to so that the information does not stand in isolation; irrelevant to the learner and therefor unnecessary to learn. Many of the ideas we had regarding "How We Learn" centered around the student thinking about the information: connecting new knowledge to old, problem solving, exploration, reflecting...
In all of the circumstances the student does not receive the information passively, which would be the case if we expected information just automatically be transferred from the teacher's mouth to the student's brain.
I have worked in 5 different schools over the past 6 years, and at each school I found a wide variety of teachers who wanted only the best for their students, and were devoted so much to their students that they continued to revise their curriculum as new research emerged. And of course I found those teachers who refused to budge from their traditional teaching methods. It's unfortunate, but it seems to be a dying breed.
I think that we could go on forever complaining about what is wrong with education, but was interests me more is what I learn when I close the education text books and allow the students to be my teachers. Because, to me, real education is experience and nothing gives me better experience than just working with the students and analyzing what works and doesn't work.
I think the real reason that this issue irks me so much is that although I have met teachers who probably should have retired long ago, I have never met a cruel intentioned teacher. One can safely assume that most teachers were not drawn to the field for monetary reasons, but instead because they valued knowledge and wanted to spread their passion onto young minds. Perhaps the teacher never really knew the best way to do this, and was taught that lecturing and memorization were the traditional methods and should be upheld. But does anyone know how to teach every student?
What I would have liked is an expanded explanation of what is meant the by, "... Many instructional materials and much teacher behavior..." that suggest teachers believed information could just be dumped into the minds of children and then recalled for life. Surely these teachers know from their own experiences that everything learned in school cannot be reiterated for life.
But enough of my venting, and back to the question at hand: "Is teaching the transfer of information?" Well, that depends of if we mean transferring the information from the teachers mind to the student, or transferring the information into something that the student can make meaning of and enough connections to so that the information does not stand in isolation; irrelevant to the learner and therefor unnecessary to learn. Many of the ideas we had regarding "How We Learn" centered around the student thinking about the information: connecting new knowledge to old, problem solving, exploration, reflecting...
In all of the circumstances the student does not receive the information passively, which would be the case if we expected information just automatically be transferred from the teacher's mouth to the student's brain.
I have worked in 5 different schools over the past 6 years, and at each school I found a wide variety of teachers who wanted only the best for their students, and were devoted so much to their students that they continued to revise their curriculum as new research emerged. And of course I found those teachers who refused to budge from their traditional teaching methods. It's unfortunate, but it seems to be a dying breed.
I think that we could go on forever complaining about what is wrong with education, but was interests me more is what I learn when I close the education text books and allow the students to be my teachers. Because, to me, real education is experience and nothing gives me better experience than just working with the students and analyzing what works and doesn't work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)