One persistent question I have might find a home for conversation in this blog, as I read this book and think about how learning really does work, and that quesiton is--what skills should the "ideal learner" have? With this question, the word "skill" is extremely important. I almost found myself typing the word "traits," only to realize that a trait is something innate and not acquired through exposure and practice. If I were to address learning abilities as traits, what would that say about my teaching?
A colleague of mine and I started talking about this today and I feel like this is a good place to expand on this idea. I'm compiling a list of things that I believe make someone a good learner, not just a critical thinker. Of course I believe both of these abilities are important in an educated person, and some skills may overlap, but some of them make people particularly receptive to information. I envision myself approaching my discussion of the book we're reading from this perspective, although I will assume that people will be reading these blog posts without having read "How Learning Works."
Let me put out there the list that I have begun to compose for what I believe makes someone a good learner in one of my classes:
1. Uses empirical work, and uses it correctly. Does the person, in making a claim, seek out/cite empirical work? Do they cite it correctly and at the appropriate times?
2. Explicity understands the dialectic process. This person understands that not everything is black and white, and that ideas are not "either/or."
3. Open to new information. Can the person, even when uncomfortable, open themselves up to new ideas and new ways of thinking?
4. Understands everything is contextual. Can the person understand that behavior is a product and not an ingredient, and that product is a result of a variety of contextual factors that may not be obvious to them?
The difficulty is that all of these things take a lot of energy. They are exciting to many people, inconvenient and possibly scary to others, but exhausting for everyone who engages in them properly. We are asking our students to exhaust themselves mentally, but I think that in order to do it right, you have to do it that way.
Great list to consider. One thing I like about online asynchronous learning is that the teacher/student roles flip to some degree. Rather than teach, I must facilitate/coach. I end up working with students mostly 1:1 which can set the stage for dialectics in a meaningful way. I will have to reflect on how well I am able to do this in a virtual environment.
ReplyDeleteDo you use these success factors as criteria in grading rubrics?
Interesting idea. I'm getting ready to teach a class half online next semester and am still struggling with the format I'm going to use for discussion.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't use these as criteria, but I think I may discuss these things with my courses--at least my grad courses--and provide some mild examples. The first chapter of this book we're reading really emphasized the fact that people will not learn unless they are in the right frame of mind, and we know that people are often not in the right frame of mind to learn information that directly conflicts with their existing mental state of affairs. So I'd like to set the stage for later learning by letting my students know that they are going to encounter material for which they will need to make mental "adjustments." For example, instead of starting the "brain" unit by telling them that they certainly use more than 10% of their brains, I'll start the semester telling them they will encounter material that they will not immediately believe, or that is counterintuitive to their preconceived psychological ideas.
I have been following your comments and your blog. When considering #4 on your list I begin to wonder how often instructors take the time to look at a variety of contextual of lenses when creating the learning assessments for their classes?
ReplyDeleteI know that in both educational literature (referring to the art and science of teaching) understanding context is the key to reworking instruction, content, and assessment to scaffold learners to the highest possible level. In my classes, I teach the students that it is the context that causes the plan to be effective not the other way around.
That said, how often in higher education do we look at the learning environment as a context, the background and knowledge base of students as a context, and the intended use of the learning as a context?
Thoughts?
This is definitely a chapter 1 question. I agree with the authors of this book in that you absolutely need to meet the students where they are, and "where they are" is a product of their background and environment. That being said, there is no way to reach everybody all of the time--it's not practical or possible. I acknowledge this in my teaching and use it as an opportunity to invite students to discussion during office hours or one-on-one time by mentioning on the first day that no explanation of a phenomenon, concept, or idea will make sense to everybody in the class--so if they struggle with one of those, they should seek alternate explanations from study groups, other texts, the internet (with qualifications), or myself!
ReplyDeleteI also have found myself trading-off quantity (vast amount of information) for quality (smaller amounts of information presented in a variety of ways). For example, instead of going over a list of neurotransmitters and what they do, I might focus on one or two neurotransmitters and provide several different examples of how they influence behavior, such as dopamine and how it is released or inhibited when using drugs, gambling, or learning new material in a class.
Let me address your question by examining each component:
(1)How often in higher education do we look at the learning environment as a context?
I struggle to interpret this question but I believe you are asking about the classroom itself. In that case, in order to use the environment as a context, you have to change up the environment every once in a while! Take students out to do observational studies. Have them close their eyes to engage in imagery tasks. Change the dynamics of the furniture to change the dynamics of the course!
(2) the background and knowledge base of students as a context?
I think I address this above, when I discuss the use of personal examples, but it is absolutely the most necessary thing. I think attitudes are almost *more* important than knowledge or background (at least in the graduate student population!). I have students come in who may put a lot of stock in a long-debunked theory, and "go through the motions" of learning in my class, only to emerge on the other side firmer in their now *thoroughly* debunked beliefs. In order for real learning to occur, you have to meet them where they are and understand why they have those beliefs in the first place.
(3) and the intended use of the learning as a context?
Again, I'm going to use the graduate student population as an example. It's taken me a while to get here and I'm still not completely comfortable in the role, but I will try to use clinical practice to spark discussion with my students, especially in cognition. 95% of my students are counseling-bound and the other 5% will engage in human interactions, so this is a useful practice. If we are discussing a tricky concept, I might ask them how the concept might be relevant in their future profession. This has created a lot of interesting discussion and has often put me on the side of "learner" (Mark's point from above might be relevant here!) many times, as a non-clinician. That's great to me, because I can then model "ideal learner" behavior *for* them.
I'm several chapters into "Thinking, Fast and Slow." I believe the book provides the basis for a strong case for using the word "traits" when talking about what makes a good learner. Numerous traits, including patience, tenacity, confidence, inquisitiveness, and ability to maintain focus influence learning outcomes. Although there may be little teachers can do to influence/develop traits, we certainly have to deal with their effects. The "right" combination of traits is likely to provide a significant advantage for those who have it.
ReplyDelete(Now its up to experts in psychology to prove it.)