Last week in GRAD602, we continued our discussion on how people learn. We identified 3 prevailing models about how people learn:
Bloom's Taxonomy,
SOLO Taxonomy, and
Shulman Table of Learning. What got me thinking is something that Jeff said in class...he brought up the rhetorical question about whether research on teaching should inform practice. Furthermore, he mentioned that the discipline often governs which taxonomy is used in teaching. I started thinking about this and it brought me to a pretty
bold conclusion: I feel that most educators teach the way that they learn rather than how their students learn. Therefore, the students are suffering in that they do not gain the simple information and knowledge in the class and this subsequently prevents their higher-order of thinking. Here's how I came to this conclusion...
Early last week, I and a few other fellows in my program went to an undergraduate institution in the surrounding Richmond area to observe the teachers and students in science classes and labs. The SOLO Taxonomy appeals to my style of learning.
It describes verbatim the process I went through to obtain my Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology. Although this is a huge assumption, I suppose most people who love science and pursue a doctorate in the sciences learn in a similar manner to SOLO. However, sitting in on these classes last week was an eye-opening experience. These classes were required for students who were majoring either in nursing or biology. I felt as if the teachers were conducting their class in a similar manner to the SOLO taxonomy. For example, the instructors expected students to take their unconnected information (prestructural level) and to hypothesize and theorize about various phenomena (extended abstract). However, when speaking with individual students, they had no idea how to do such a thing. They couldn't connect the dots from small picture to big picture. After studying the various learning styles, this suggested to me that they were not true SOLO learners and that their teachers were structuring their classes in a SOLO fashion which naturally appeals to us scientists. To help them get from point A to B in an effort to connect the dots for them, I put a larger perspective/understanding on the assignment at hand. Once they thought about the larger picture, they made the connections with some guided help. This suggests that the students I spoke with identified with Shulman's Table of Learning.
They needed the understanding of the big picture first in order to make smaller connections and ultimately lead them to think about higher order hypotheses and theorizing about various phenomena. What was incredibly eye-opening for me was that each student was capable of making the higher level connections. However, the manner in which the information was presented was confusing for them and preventing their higher level of thinking. Now, I am not saying this is how all educators are, but I feel more often than not they teach the way they learn vs. how the student learns. Therefore, as educators we cannot assume that everyone learns the exact same way we do even when talking about specific disciplines. The goal is to get students to think on a higher level. Maybe the only way to achieve that goal is to tailor lectures or classes to how individual students learn. For example, start with the understanding first to help the Shulman learning style students while telling those SOLO learners to "zone out" from the discussion for a second. Then when the details are presented both the SOLO and Shulman learners can actively engage in the lecture together again. Additionally, an instructor could
flip the class. I would say it is hard to develop a lecture to appeal to all types of learners, but knowing that there are many types of learning styles in one classroom full of students is a start...
I agree with your premise about teachers teaching how they think that they learn, not necessarily to how their students learn. I think this informs each instructors' teaching practice on top of how their individual discipline also tends to inform their practice.
ReplyDeleteNow in the last post you talked about how it would be almost impossible to teach to what could be a combination of 1000's of different learning styles in one classroom. Here you are talking about teaching to/through different taxonomies in the same class. So do you think that by grouping people by learning taxonomies you can use that to inform your own practice and reach more 'learning styles' at the same time? Does that make sorting by taxonomies more useful than sorting by learning styles?
Honestly, I don't know which way would be more useful. With the different taxonomies, I feel as if student's could possibly be more than one. Maybe they identify with both SOLO and Bloom's. So, then in my mind you could have multiple combinations. Determining whether to let the learning style or learning taxonomy inform your practice is arguing semantics to me. Both are kind of reaching the same over-arching theme. That as an educator, I must recognize people learn differently and that I have to tailor my courses to various learning styles or taxomonies. Maybe it includes using all forms of technology, flipping the class, and telling students who are more detailed oriented to "zone" out for a bit while I discuss big-picture first and then let them "re-join" the lecture after I have concluded with the understanding/big-picture stuff within a whole course. But in the end, mixing it up can keep the student's attention which also facilitates learning. Just knowing that there are many combinations of learning styles and taxonomies is important because it reminds me that I must present lectures in a manner to reach all students rather than just tailoring my lectures in a manner than I learn which may only reach a select few students.
ReplyDelete