From: Jose Francisco Anguiano
Email: topdog@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: Psychology 100K: Thought and Language
College: University of California at Santa Cruz
Instructor: Professor Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://ematusov.com/psych100K
ChildrenObservations: No
Date: 19 Mar 1997
Time: 21:41:45
Remote Name: crown-lab-mac09.ucsc.edu
The purpose of this paper was to provide the reader with several ideas on the processes of teaching and learning. It is safe to asume that most of us have experienced some form of "traditional education". Some of us have grown up a bit frustrated with this type of education; it may lead some of us to ask is there something better. I made a modest attempt to address this issue. Do we learn information that is of use outside our classrooms? On our jobs? What about in our daily lives? These are some of the issues I raise. In this paper I make the distinction between what I call traditional education, or I.Q based education, and life skills education that teaches E.Q. My hope is that some of this information may be of use to the reader be they a teacher, another person who works with children, has children of their own, or is considering the responsibility of teaching and learning with children. I suggest for educators not only to help children build cognitive skills, that will help them scholastically, but also to help build emotional skills; that will guide them in their lives, whatever they do.
I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand
(This is an old saying attributed to the philosopher Confucius.)
What is learning? Where and how does it happen best? How can it be improved? How do we go about teaching kids? What type of teaching is best? What types of things should we teach children? These can be very complicated questions to which we may not have very many clear answers. They are questions that can be very problematic, and have kept researchers occupied for many years. For anyone to attempt to answer these questions definitively would be asking for too much. The focus of this paper is to explore a few different ideas on teaching and learning, and to attempt to come to some approximate resolution to some of the questions we may ask about the educating process.
I found that much writing has been done on these matters. Yet, there is still much that is left to be known. With terms such as: “top down”, "Zone of Proximal Development", “self-assistance”, and “automatization”; it is sometimes unclear whether researchers are talking about childrens’ minds or about programmable computers. Sometimes theorists can get far to caught up in terminology that they lose sight as to what it is they are trying to do. Presumably, to better education for children and the public at large. Finding decipherable learning and teaching theories and being able to sort them out to achieve some degree of meaning, can be quite a challenge.
Many works have been published with the purpose of reforming our current education system, many are criticisms of the traditional methods of teaching. Traditional methods are defined as very formal, heavily structured, having a lecture format, and set in a competitive environment in which teachers and students are overly concerned with performance on tests and letter grades. Too many teachers are also preoccupied with controlling students’ behavior, but not being able to understand their behavior and guide it towards learning. Some reformers call for new and innovative approaches to teaching. To create a more free and flexible environment, concerned with the interest of the students, and their ability to attain knowledge. For an education that generalizes outside of the classroom for use in real life situations.
The examples of desirable teaching skills I found, were attributes of: caring, sensitivity, reflectiveness, and responsive attitudes towards students. Such approaches to teaching inspire effective, creative and intuitive thinkers. These skills, examples of “true teaching”, may transfer outside of the school grounds according to Tharp and Gallimore:
“The principles of good teaching are not different for school than for home and community. When true teaching is found in schools, it observes the same principles that good teaching exhibits in informal settings.” (Tharp and Gallimore, 1988).
These successful approaches are contrasted to the memorization approaches taken by many traditional educators. Many reseachers would argue that memorizing facts does little good. One such researcher states:
“Memorization does not create a need to know something. Only when students are trying to do something with a new fact will they learn it and build generalizations from it.” (The Institute for the Learning Sciences, 1994).
This author goes on to tell us why he feels memorization does not work:
“The idea that memorization is useful comes from the [old] warehouse model of memory which assumes facts can be inventoried in memory to be pulled out whenever needed.”
He argues that many of the facts taught in schools are disconnected. Students will have difficulty in trying to remember disconnected facts, in his words, they tend not to “stick” very well. (The Institute for the Learning Science, 1994).
Another source claims that teachers are apt to confuse rapid questioning and answers with effective teaching, the so called “method of recitation”. These conditions in which an adult quizzes a child who simply provides prescribed answers is not effective teaching. Worse still, it is not characteristic of an equal give and take relationship needed in order for teaching and learning to take place. In fact, studies have shown that the more questions teachers ask, which are answerable by simple recall, the fewer questions of their own children will ask. Further, when teachers asked more personally relevant questions, the childrens’ questions increase correspondingly. (Tharp and Gallimore, 1988)
Tharp and Gallimore go on to call the above mentioned teaching methods examples of “automatic” teaching. In which teachers assign highly structured worksheets and “manufactured” reading materials, in order to assess individual development. (Tharp and Gallimore, 1988) This description of past approaches towards educating children as “factory like” and “labor intensive” are consistent with what others would call,
“learning as if on an assembly line; were students could acquire knowledge and skills in one small piece at a time through drill, memorization, and lecture. They did not have to understand the structure and function of the body of knowledge they were building until they were ready for advance study.” (Learning Resource Development Center, 1996)
In many ways these arguments are very true about the state of todays public schools. Our heavy reliance on repetition and recitiation. The way students in grammar school learn the alphabet, addition and subtraction problems, the multiplication table, even how to read and write in English; add to a robot type academic structure. An argument can be made for this repetition in that it builds familiarity, but it should not be employed without the support of other strategies. Surely no one would argue that having complete mastery over the alphabet, everyday math problems, and especially the English language is not desirable.
One of the strongest attacks on our educational system, came from two inner city gang organizations criticizing the quality of education received by children in Los Angeles. They wrote an article with a list of several demands after the “Rodney King Riot”. It was a cooperative plan between the “Bloods and Crips” previously two major rivals. It said,
“with traditional teaching methods we may become encumbered by years of conforming education and bureaucratic regimentation.” (July 1992)
To me this quote means that people are tired of receiving an education whose sole goal, it seems, is to socialize and control; an education that imposes its dominate cultural values and standards on others. Maybe what these people want is an education that is more human and personal and less cluttered by paperwork, regulations, and rules. Perhaps an education that is multicultured and truely diverse with different view points, would satisfy many who are turned off by “the same old story” (a story they may not be able to relate to).
One report offers a list of nine points of action to attack what they see as flaws in the existing ways of teaching. I have included a few supporting sentences to clarify the points made by the author:
1. Learning must not be disassociated from doing. -Memorizing facts is not learning. -Learning is done when it is experienced.
2. Students should access the teachers and schools and not the other way around. -Schools must concentrate on teaching and learning, not on testing and comparing.
3. Teachers should not be judges on what is and what is not important. -They should not determine what the students should know. -The students should decide what they want to learn.
4. There are not a lot of important things one has to know. There are however, a lot of important things one can learn to do.
5. Schools must eliminate standard curricula. -Children with correct guidance, will chose and create for themselves an alive and diverse collection of ideas. -Children must be allowed to pursue their own unique paths to knowledge.
6. Students must be motivated to learn an idea if they are to use it. -Teachers must teach the students the importance of the idea. -Students need to use knowledge. It must be practical, or else it is unnecessary.
7. There should be no age based tests. -Everyone learns at different levels, and at different times.
8. Children should not feel fear of punishment. -Punishment makes children afraid to fail or to make mistakes. -Children must learn in an environment that allows them to make errors, and to learn from those mistakes. -less emphasis should be put on grades, competition, and comparison.
9. Intelligence comes from knowledge of how to do things. -Learning results primarily from interactions with the world, with ideas, and especially from peer group conversations. (Reforming Traditional Education, 1995)
A school out of the New England area goes as far as letting the children determine all aspects of their education. They decide which classes to attend. When to go to their classes. When they feel like learning to read or write. It focuses on letting the child’s curiosity guide their education. The school is run on the ideas of self motivation, self regulation, and self criticism. One of the most important components of the school is its desire to promote an atmosphere that is open, honest, trustworthy, and free of fear. (Greenburg, 1991)
Further criticisms of traditional schooling refer to it as “left brained” and I.Q based. Left brain thinking being logical, sequential, rational, analytical, objective, and “parts”; contrasted with right brain thinking which is supposedly random, intuitive, holistic, synthesizing, and “wholes”. There are calls to move away from an ideology that is called one sided and to a more “open minded” view. (The Institute for the learning sciences, 1994) Others have labeled past methods as weighted in favor of verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences, and call for more balanced instruction; instruction that incorporates arts, self-awareness, and communication. (The Institute for the learning sciences, 1994) Russell describes one possible motive for continuing to focus on I.Q and not on teaching E.Q:
"Yes, it may cost a heck of a lot more money [including time and energy] to assess someone’s EQ rather than using a machine-score test to measure IQ, but if we don’t, then we are saying that a test score is more important to us than who a child is as a human being. That means an immense loss in terms of human potential because we’ve defined success too narrowly." (Russell, October 2, 1995)
Overall these criticisms call for instruction that moves away from simplistic memorization strategies. They call for more practical skills as part of learning, learning life skills for example, such as emotional intelligence. E.Q is such things as being able to read behavior of others, being aware of our surroundings, being in tune with our own feelings, and being able to get along well with others. (Russell, October 2, 1995) The consensus seems to be to create a more balanced method of teaching and learning; here students are motivated to learn, and teachers seek to fulfill their students interests. I would like to conclude with the thoughts of Daniel Goleman on the rational for emotional intelligence:
". . . the good news about childhood is that its a wonderful palette to work with. It may look like its been painted on, but you can keep painting and eventually children can learn healthier emotional responses. The literature on resilient children, those who have grown up in the worst circumstances and yet thrived, shows that what made the difference wasn’t the terrible circumstances of their chaotic home life, but the fact that one caring adult got involved in their lives and helped them out." (O’Neil, September 1996)
References
“Bloods and Crips: plan to rebuild Los Angeles”, Z magazine, July 1992.
Greenburg, D. “Free at Last: The Sudbury Valley School”, Sudbury Valley School Press, 1991.
The Institute for the learning sciences, 1994. (http://www.gwu/~tip/)
Learning Resource Development Center, 1996.
“On Emotional Intelligence; A conversation with Daniel Goleman”, Educational Leadership, Volume 54, September 1996.
Reforming Traditional Education, 1995.
Russell, G. “What’s your EQ”, Time, October 2, 1995.
Tharp, R. G., and Gallimore, R., “Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, learning , and schooling in social context”, Cambridge University Press, 1988.