Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
This reminds me of a student in a remedial reading class during my student teaching. The student was able to accurately read over 200 words per minute but was unable to comprehend what he was reading. The student was excellent at decoding the words but was unable to construct meaning or make connections to prior knowledge while reading. Being able to decode with no comprehension seems to me to be the same as being able to memorize information with no real understanding of what it means. You can have students memorize information, but if they are unable to understand and create meaning from the new information then all the information being conveyed to them is almost worthless.
Study Question: Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
This question is relatable for me not only as a student, but also as an educator. As a student, from elementary school through college, the learning that is most memorable for me, is when the learning came to life in the form of a hands on activity, or a deep and meaningful discussion. Just as Piaget theorized, I learn best when I am interacting with my environment and using my prior knowledge to gain an understanding of the new information. As a college student, I have had classes where I go to class, and the professor reads off the Powerpoint slides as a frivolously take notes. I noticed that when I got home, I would have no idea what I learned about, and would even be surprised reading my notes back as if I had never heard that information before. There are so many differences between the times that I can recall what I learned, and the times that I can't. As a future educator, this concept is always on my mind as I am creating lesson plans. When a teacher is simply conveying information to students, it is lacking meaning. The information is not being connected to the students emotions, interests, or desires, it is simply seen as information the student needs to pass a test. This way of teaching is lacking critical thinking, inquiry, a deep understanding of material, and it also lacks meaning. I believe that when students have the chance to interact with the new material, experience it for themselves, and are motivated by their own interests, then it gives them the opportunity to make a connection between their own knowledge and the new knowledge and increases memory.
Study Question: Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here? As you talked about in the book students do not learn the content when a teacher simply stands in front of the class and pours information at them. Many students tend to day dream, think about other things, or just zone out. In order for students to learn the content they must be constructing their own knowledge. Students need to be able to make connections and be active participants in the learning process. For this reason, it is important for teachers to provide opportunities for students to engage in the lesson and reflect on their learning. This could be done through inquiry learning, hands on learning, pair shares, etc. Having students simply listen to the teacher lecture about the information is not asking the students to really make connections and understand what they are learning. I know this to be true because in high school many times my teachers would just lecture for the entire class and I would get nothing out of it, but in classes where we had to discuss and actively engage with the content I really learned and retained the information.
Study Question: Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
This question reminds me of advise my supervisor gave me when I began my first year as a preschool teacher. I had little training and no background in education, and yet, I found myself in front of 19 3-5 year-olds feeling terrified and lost. I asked my supervisor, “how do I get them to listen to me?” I will never forget his response. He said, “you just have to be the most interesting thing in the room.” I stared at him not knowing what to think or how his response was going to change anything for me. After a week or so, I began to understand what he meant.
I discovered that when I related to my students and found ways to engage with them, were the times that meaningful learning took place. Students, like all of us, need to feel connected to the content in order to care and have a desire to learn. The process that is missing when students are being “talked at” is finding the content to be relatable and meaningful. That is why relating to students’ prior knowledge and background are essential starting components for students to be able to grapple with new material. When students feel connected and find the content meaningful, students are more likely to gain a continued desire to learn and deepen their understanding of the content.
Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
I think that adults are less wiling to adapt or develop new knowledge because they have a more fully developed sense of self. Part of the self dictates how one approaches similar problems or new information. These subjective ways of approaching problems and knowledge then tend to be viewed as objective ways of handling problems and new information. Thus, many adults are less inclined to adapt and develop new knowledge. Children, on the other hand, are still in the process of developing their sense of self. Because of this, they are more willing to try new things in an effort to start building their selves.
Study Question: Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
Before reading the section a second time in hopes of finding the answer to this study question, I already had a similar answer in my head. Children have a sense of curiosity and response to openness that makes them willing to experiment with new experiences. Children have not developed the sense of care of their appearance in failure, as adults do and do not want to look foolish in front of society. As Professor Inoue states, "if you observe young children's everyday activity and play, you would realize that young children sometimes look much smarter than adults because of their willingness to try and accept new ways of doing things" (pg.84). If adults still had the carelessness to let their mind wander, than one could speculate adults would be much more receptive to learning new traits instead of their fixed mindset.
Study Question: Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
My idea is similar to Manuel’s in the sense that it has more to do with an adult’s identity than with their actual “smarts”. I do not think we necessarily lose intelligence as we grow older, but I do think that our ego grows larger. Because of this, adults are less willing to fail and try new things because there is more of an image of adulthood (ego) to protect. For children, the socio-cultural norm is to make mistakes, try new things, fall, and then get up again. For adults, the socio-cultural norm has somehow become that we are the keepers of knowledge, the finished product. This takes away adults’ willingness to adapt to new things and can be extremely detrimental to an educator’s practice. In adult ESOL learners the issue of identity and willingness to make mistakes is a very important component to language learning, and learning in general.
If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside of schools, what could educators do to use this ability in schools?
I think the easiest way to do this is for the educator to harness young people's innate curiosity. I remember my Social Studies teacher in 6th grade decorated her classroom with a cornucopia of posters and artifacts showing different pieces of art from around the world, adn throughout history. I rmeeber this because i would always want to talk to her and ask her about a painting from the Mughal empire or learning about the Sistine chapel cieling mural that she had. My social studies class was of course not learning about art history in 6th grade (that was the year we learned about the Holocaust, so not very art centric), but my teacher giving her students access to cultural artifacts around the world certainly grabbed my attention, and even when i wasn't talking to her i would ask my mom about what i saw. To me a good teacher knows that students are always learning, even when their eyes wander around class or that day's lecture isn't very engaging, so make everything around you, and in your class a potential source of knowledge, adn the students can and will learn on their own.
Study Question: If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside schools, what could educators do to help them use this ability in schools?
During my undergraduate career, I completed several hours of observation and interaction with young students (ages 2-5) in Waldorf and Montessori schools. Although different in their approach to learning and child development, I found that both these schools practiced the theory that children can learn without direct instruction, both inside and outside the classroom. As a result of that thought, both schools view their educators as facilitators of learning rather than teachers. Students are given freedom of movement and of choice throughout the majority of the school day and are provided with uninterrupted blocks of work time. Through this, students are able to explore and construct their own meaning of the world around them during school hours just as they would do outside of school. As facilitators of learning, both Montessori and Waldorf educators practice the constructivist theory it is not solely the teachers that have knowledge, but that the children come to school with their own experiences and understandings. I believe schools outside of the Waldorf and Montessori practices could greatly benefit from using some of theses practices, and in order to begin those, teachers must let go of the idea that they know everything and that it is their job to teach everything. This can change can take place with something as simple as replacing teacher-to-student lectures small group projects and reflections, or structured uninterrupted learning time.
Study Question (p. 79): If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside schools, what could educators do to help them use this ability in schools?
Teachers should let students explore the environment on their own. All too often, American teachers view themselves the sole bearers of information, and they see it as their obligation to impart their omnipotent knowledge on their students. However, formal knowledge (what is taught in schools) builds upon informal knowledge (what we learn through everyday activities). Students need to experience the world around them in order to construct knowledge and make lasting connections.
How do you collaborate ( or not collaborate) with your colleagues for improving your capacity to overcome the dark side of constructivism? What does it take for initiating and sustaining such collaboration?
In our kindergarten team we collaborate very often. The kindergarten team gets together about 3 times a week to discuss what they will be doing throughout the week in math, writing, and science. They discuss new PBL projects that they would like to try out and have the students do. The kindergarten team is very good about helping each other out and supporting each other. However one thing that I think we could improve on is taking collaboration time to reflect on what went right throughout the day and what needs improvement. I think that it is important to take the time to reflect on what went right and what needs improvement. Reflection leads to better teaching and the opportunity to develop as an educator. In order to sustain collaboration you have to be able to communicate with your teach and have an open mind. Teachers who collaborate should be able to receive constructive criticism, be able to reflect and think about ways that they could improve as educators.
Study Question: If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside schools, what could educators do to help them use this ability in schools?
This is a big focus of the flipped-classroom curriculum innovation, in which students get direct instruction at home and not in the classroom. Students watch instructional videos made by the teachers in their own home and then when they come to school they practice activities and projects that help them demonstrate comprehension of the material. Undoubtedly, students can access any information they want outside of the classroom by using the internet. However, teachers are still important in helping them further develop their understanding of the material and teaching them how to apply what they've learned. Through group projects, individual assignments and presentations teachers can help students apply what they've learned outside the classroom and increase their comprehension.
Study Question: If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside schools, what could educators do to help them use this ability in schools?
This is a big focus of the flipped-classroom curriculum innovation, in which students get direct instruction at home and not in the classroom. Students watch instructional videos made by the teachers in their own home and then when they come to school they practice activities and projects that help them demonstrate comprehension of the material. Undoubtedly, students can access any information they want outside of the classroom by using the internet. However, teachers are still important in helping them further develop their understanding of the material and teaching them how to apply what they've learned. Through group projects, individual assignments and presentations teachers can help students apply what they've learned outside the classroom and increase their comprehension.
Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a student in a remedial reading class during my student teaching. The student was able to accurately read over 200 words per minute but was unable to comprehend what he was reading. The student was excellent at decoding the words but was unable to construct meaning or make connections to prior knowledge while reading. Being able to decode with no comprehension seems to me to be the same as being able to memorize information with no real understanding of what it means. You can have students memorize information, but if they are unable to understand and create meaning from the new information then all the information being conveyed to them is almost worthless.
Study Question: Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
ReplyDeleteThis question is relatable for me not only as a student, but also as an educator. As a student, from elementary school through college, the learning that is most memorable for me, is when the learning came to life in the form of a hands on activity, or a deep and meaningful discussion. Just as Piaget theorized, I learn best when I am interacting with my environment and using my prior knowledge to gain an understanding of the new information. As a college student, I have had classes where I go to class, and the professor reads off the Powerpoint slides as a frivolously take notes. I noticed that when I got home, I would have no idea what I learned about, and would even be surprised reading my notes back as if I had never heard that information before.
There are so many differences between the times that I can recall what I learned, and the times that I can't. As a future educator, this concept is always on my mind as I am creating lesson plans.
When a teacher is simply conveying information to students, it is lacking meaning. The information is not being connected to the students emotions, interests, or desires, it is simply seen as information the student needs to pass a test. This way of teaching is lacking critical thinking, inquiry, a deep understanding of material, and it also lacks meaning. I believe that when students have the chance to interact with the new material, experience it for themselves, and are motivated by their own interests, then it gives them the opportunity to make a connection between their own knowledge and the new knowledge and increases memory.
Study Question: Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
ReplyDeleteAs you talked about in the book students do not learn the content when a teacher simply stands in front of the class and pours information at them. Many students tend to day dream, think about other things, or just zone out. In order for students to learn the content they must be constructing their own knowledge. Students need to be able to make connections and be active participants in the learning process. For this reason, it is important for teachers to provide opportunities for students to engage in the lesson and reflect on their learning. This could be done through inquiry learning, hands on learning, pair shares, etc. Having students simply listen to the teacher lecture about the information is not asking the students to really make connections and understand what they are learning. I know this to be true because in high school many times my teachers would just lecture for the entire class and I would get nothing out of it, but in classes where we had to discuss and actively engage with the content I really learned and retained the information.
Study Question: Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
ReplyDeleteThis question reminds me of advise my supervisor gave me when I began my first year as a preschool teacher. I had little training and no background in education, and yet, I found myself in front of 19 3-5 year-olds feeling terrified and lost. I asked my supervisor, “how do I get them to listen to me?” I will never forget his response. He said, “you just have to be the most interesting thing in the room.” I stared at him not knowing what to think or how his response was going to change anything for me. After a week or so, I began to understand what he meant.
I discovered that when I related to my students and found ways to engage with them, were the times that meaningful learning took place. Students, like all of us, need to feel connected to the content in order to care and have a desire to learn. The process that is missing when students are being “talked at” is finding the content to be relatable and meaningful. That is why relating to students’ prior knowledge and background are essential starting components for students to be able to grapple with new material. When students feel connected and find the content meaningful, students are more likely to gain a continued desire to learn and deepen their understanding of the content.
Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
ReplyDeleteI think that adults are less wiling to adapt or develop new knowledge because they have a more fully developed sense of self. Part of the self dictates how one approaches similar problems or new information. These subjective ways of approaching problems and knowledge then tend to be viewed as objective ways of handling problems and new information. Thus, many adults are less inclined to adapt and develop new knowledge. Children, on the other hand, are still in the process of developing their sense of self. Because of this, they are more willing to try new things in an effort to start building their selves.
Study Question: Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
ReplyDeleteBefore reading the section a second time in hopes of finding the answer to this study question, I already had a similar answer in my head. Children have a sense of curiosity and response to openness that makes them willing to experiment with new experiences. Children have not developed the sense of care of their appearance in failure, as adults do and do not want to look foolish in front of society. As Professor Inoue states, "if you observe young children's everyday activity and play, you would realize that young children sometimes look much smarter than adults because of their willingness to try and accept new ways of doing things" (pg.84). If adults still had the carelessness to let their mind wander, than one could speculate adults would be much more receptive to learning new traits instead of their fixed mindset.
Study Question: Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
ReplyDeleteMy idea is similar to Manuel’s in the sense that it has more to do with an adult’s identity than with their actual “smarts”. I do not think we necessarily lose intelligence as we grow older, but I do think that our ego grows larger. Because of this, adults are less willing to fail and try new things because there is more of an image of adulthood (ego) to protect. For children, the socio-cultural norm is to make mistakes, try new things, fall, and then get up again. For adults, the socio-cultural norm has somehow become that we are the keepers of knowledge, the finished product. This takes away adults’ willingness to adapt to new things and can be extremely detrimental to an educator’s practice. In adult ESOL learners the issue of identity and willingness to make mistakes is a very important component to language learning, and learning in general.
If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside of schools, what could educators do to use this ability in schools?
ReplyDeleteI think the easiest way to do this is for the educator to harness young people's innate curiosity. I remember my Social Studies teacher in 6th grade decorated her classroom with a cornucopia of posters and artifacts showing different pieces of art from around the world, adn throughout history. I rmeeber this because i would always want to talk to her and ask her about a painting from the Mughal empire or learning about the Sistine chapel cieling mural that she had. My social studies class was of course not learning about art history in 6th grade (that was the year we learned about the Holocaust, so not very art centric), but my teacher giving her students access to cultural artifacts around the world certainly grabbed my attention, and even when i wasn't talking to her i would ask my mom about what i saw. To me a good teacher knows that students are always learning, even when their eyes wander around class or that day's lecture isn't very engaging, so make everything around you, and in your class a potential source of knowledge, adn the students can and will learn on their own.
Study Question: If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside schools, what could educators do to help them use this ability in schools?
ReplyDeleteDuring my undergraduate career, I completed several hours of observation and interaction with young students (ages 2-5) in Waldorf and Montessori schools. Although different in their approach to learning and child development, I found that both these schools practiced the theory that children can learn without direct instruction, both inside and outside the classroom. As a result of that thought, both schools view their educators as facilitators of learning rather than teachers. Students are given freedom of movement and of choice throughout the majority of the school day and are provided with uninterrupted blocks of work time. Through this, students are able to explore and construct their own meaning of the world around them during school hours just as they would do outside of school. As facilitators of learning, both Montessori and Waldorf educators practice the constructivist theory it is not solely the teachers that have knowledge, but that the children come to school with their own experiences and understandings. I believe schools outside of the Waldorf and Montessori practices could greatly benefit from using some of theses practices, and in order to begin those, teachers must let go of the idea that they know everything and that it is their job to teach everything. This can change can take place with something as simple as replacing teacher-to-student lectures small group projects and reflections, or structured uninterrupted learning time.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteStudy Question (p. 79): If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside schools, what could educators do to help them use this ability in schools?
ReplyDeleteTeachers should let students explore the environment on their own. All too often, American teachers view themselves the sole bearers of information, and they see it as their obligation to impart their omnipotent knowledge on their students. However, formal knowledge (what is taught in schools) builds upon informal knowledge (what we learn through everyday activities). Students need to experience the world around them in order to construct knowledge and make lasting connections.
How do you collaborate ( or not collaborate) with your colleagues for improving your capacity to overcome the dark side of constructivism? What does it take for initiating and sustaining such collaboration?
ReplyDeleteIn our kindergarten team we collaborate very often. The kindergarten team gets together about 3 times a week to discuss what they will be doing throughout the week in math, writing, and science. They discuss new PBL projects that they would like to try out and have the students do. The kindergarten team is very good about helping each other out and supporting each other. However one thing that I think we could improve on is taking collaboration time to reflect on what went right throughout the day and what needs improvement. I think that it is important to take the time to reflect on what went right and what needs improvement. Reflection leads to better teaching and the opportunity to develop as an educator. In order to sustain collaboration you have to be able to communicate with your teach and have an open mind. Teachers who collaborate should be able to receive constructive criticism, be able to reflect and think about ways that they could improve as educators.
Study Question: If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside schools, what could educators do to help them use this ability in schools?
ReplyDeleteThis is a big focus of the flipped-classroom curriculum innovation, in which students get direct instruction at home and not in the classroom. Students watch instructional videos made by the teachers in their own home and then when they come to school they practice activities and projects that help them demonstrate comprehension of the material. Undoubtedly, students can access any information they want outside of the classroom by using the internet. However, teachers are still important in helping them further develop their understanding of the material and teaching them how to apply what they've learned. Through group projects, individual assignments and presentations teachers can help students apply what they've learned outside the classroom and increase their comprehension.
Study Question: If children have the ability to learn without instruction outside schools, what could educators do to help them use this ability in schools?
ReplyDeleteThis is a big focus of the flipped-classroom curriculum innovation, in which students get direct instruction at home and not in the classroom. Students watch instructional videos made by the teachers in their own home and then when they come to school they practice activities and projects that help them demonstrate comprehension of the material. Undoubtedly, students can access any information they want outside of the classroom by using the internet. However, teachers are still important in helping them further develop their understanding of the material and teaching them how to apply what they've learned. Through group projects, individual assignments and presentations teachers can help students apply what they've learned outside the classroom and increase their comprehension.