Allow me to over simplify...
Bill Kerr and Leigh Blackall have been in an interesting (long) discussion recently targeting many aspects into the future of education (and what is wrong with the system at present).
The article from Leigh was pushing learning theories to a degree (although not mentioned) and which technologies should be pushed.
I should probably really but out, however here are my thoughts....
I think learning is simplistic.
I believe in the old adage that it doesn't matter what learning theory you use, what methods etc. It comes down to the teacher.
Now this is a little out of date and the word "teacher" should be replaced with whatever suits, but the principals are the same.
The adage works because the learning occurred due to a "positive relationship" that was formed that allowed one to be guided down a pathway.
What learning theory and technology are used I feel come later in the process, having seen successful teaching occur in the different learning theories and using the different technologies.
Further I can think of a behaviourist that is a brilliant teacher (although he drives many teachers up the wall). The students learn a great deal – why? They have a positive relationship with him in which they feel safe to learn (although he would probably dispute it – he builds good relationships).
In this environment students fill comfortable to take risks and have a commitment to the relationship to do their best.
Both Bill and Leigh make good points but I really think we need to target this from a positive angle, what teachers are doing is great – we want to enhance this with technologies that meet their specific needs.
Leigh:
I don't believe school is where we go to get an education anymore, remembering that I speak mostly of a tertiary and sometimes secondary school.
posted by Jason Plunkett @ 7:29 PM
3 comments
links to this post
3 Comments:
hi jason,
I think good behaviourist teachers are good in part because behaviourism is a good learning theory.
Ditto for good constructionist teachers ...
I think there are good aspects to many learning theories - I know a teacher who grouped their class according to Gardner's Multiple Intelligences and did v. interesting lessons
My argument at school is always to accept what good teachers do, learn from it and broaden, diversify, not narrow down. I have learnt a lot from good teachers and am amazed at their skills.
So in that sense I agree with you - good teaching, good relationships are more important than learning theory in the abstract
But I think the problem with the Department is that they dress up curriculum documents which are about controlling teachers, not working with them, in learning theory and then pretend they are doing something useful. eg. SACSA claims to be constructivist but I used constructivism extensively before SACSA and don't recognise it as true constructivist
This is bad theory which is divorced from grass roots practice. It's people in a hierarchy doing the theory for the teachers who do the real work. Part of the assumption here is that teachers are not capable of picking up on their own theory so it has to be done for them. That is what worries me about your comments, it sounds like you could be discounting theory. It's a strong trend for teachers to be grounded in practice, do what works. I understand that and feel that pressure myself but I think it's a limiting outlook ultimately.
I hope your not suggesting that theory itself is not important - good behaviourism, good constructivism, good multiple intelligences is informed and enhanced by good theory.
We need radical change IMO and its v. hard to achieve that with just a pragmatic, empirical approach. We see the world through theories in our head, that have been well established. eg. we look at the horizon and understand that the world is round, we look at stars and understand that they are a v. long way away and fueled by nuclear explosions. I am saying that our everyday perception of things is theory laden. It would be a pity if we couldn't bring that general truth to education because of the confusion wrought by misapplication of theory.
I am hoping to setup a learning theory wiki this term to try to get my head around it more.
Thanks Bill an interesting response. I agree with you that theory has a place in the progress... it is an important part of learning after all.
As I mentioned I think learning theory comes later... after a relationship has been built, although one could argue that building a relationship is central to constructivism.
Don't get me wrong, I think careful consideration of learning theory is important, although I believe one would be stupid to except it outright without thrashing things out a bit.
For example I am enjoying the discussion regarding connectivism, and have been known to stir up my principal to get her opinion on the implications of this theory.
I look forward to your wiki on learning theory; I believe the more that we have engaging in this the better.
I agree that relationship is more part of constructivism than some other learning theories
One of Papert's points is that you build relationship with knowledge, not only people. He felt that learning maths with logo was more "body syntonic", imagine you are the turtle, would you turn right or left etc.
Hence, he went looking for good "objects to think with".
I think he has a theory which feels far more concrete than what we find in SACSA, to pursue my earlier point that top down theorising can destroy the good name of a theory.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home