I'm still having a hard time thinking of "learning" as more than an action word. The most successful "learning" experiences are those that lead to the six facets of understanding, eloquently laid out by Wiggins and McTighe. These six facets - explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, self-knowledge - helped shape an understanding of understanding (no pun intended?) that I hadn't really grasped in the previous reading. The last two facets in particular really resonated with me - and seem to be where educators most often drop the ball in transferring knowledge to students, perhaps because they themselves don't fully understand the material. It makes me go back and think of my most unsuccessful teaching experiences - generally it was when I had the least comfort with the material I was trying to impart, and I suspect that if I thought about whether I could apply these six facets to the material, I would come up lacking. Is it a good test then, or would it be too proscriptive?
I also loved this quote in regards to interpretation of knowledge: "meaning, of course, is in the eye of the beholder." This ties in well with the reading I've been doing on situated learning. Many of the authors of various case studies involving situated learning speak of the importance of taking in your audience of learners when approaching teaching and considering their past experiences - very similar to the ideas of interpretation - that different individuals will take different things from their learning - which is one of the facets of understanding. For example, Pitri (2004) writes, "Planning curriculum appropriate for situated learning should start with observations of children, the identification of peer culture, and more specifically, the interests, everyday questions, likes, and dislikes of children." Understanding is not concrete - and too often mainstream K-12 education in particular seems to emphasize a need for standardization.
REFERENCES
Pitri, E. (2004). Situated learning in a classroom community. Art Education 57(6). 6-12.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI too had a bit more trouble defining "learning". Like in last week's blog post, I had a hard time not using "learning", "knowing", and "understanding" interchangeably. I mentioned the six facets section in my blog post as well, because I think they do capture a continuum of learning activities and help form a general picture of what learning is and involves. I think applying all six facets as a test would be a bit too proscriptive, because not every piece of knowledge will require every facet in order to be learned. An example: Do we need empathy or self-knowledge, really, to understand mathematical concepts?
ReplyDeleteI fully agree on K-12 relying too much on standardized education. I understand why such a thing arose; there simply aren't enough teachers to tailor individual learning plans for each student. But it has led to a style of teaching that's designed to get students to get by and pass on to the next grade, whether they really absorb and understand the material or not.
EDIT: Whoops, signed in with the wrong profile.
I think teachers have a complicated job. Not only do they have to genuinely understand the content of what they are teaching, they have to understand their own beliefs and values. This is because students are influenced by these beliefs and values. Classrooms involve complex interactions among information, students, and teachers. Many excellent teachers have a reputation for being very tough. They have extremely high expectations and demand that students live up to those expectations. Their beliefs and values create these expectations. I think students like teachers who listen to their ideas and their questions, treat them with respect, and demonstrate honest caring. For teachers like this, students will likely work to the limits of their ability.
ReplyDelete