Behaviourism
(Note: I found this theory evoked the most amount of reflection of all the learning theories, so please excuse the length of this entry. I do not believe behaviourism informed/underpinned this particular learning activity, either the wiki or the reflection, to any significant degree)
Behaviourism is a theory of human behaviour pioneered by behavioural scientists Pavlov, Skinner & Watson. The idea is that behaviour can be observed and researched, occurring regardless of neuro-physical states. Essentially this theory asserts that (so-called) 'normal' and 'abnormal' behaviour can be learned and, conversely, unlearned.
Pavlov established this theory with his landmark dog feeding and bell experiment, with the bell being a stimulus which provoked a physiological response in his dog to salivate in expectation that food would soon be forthcoming. He described classical conditioning as: '...a type of learning in which a stimulus to evoke a response that was originally evoked by another stimulus.' (Weiten, 2001, p222) Pavlov's dog would salivate even before food was presented, and was conditioned to react to the bell as a cue. Skinner developed behaviourism further by studying and describing operant conditioning which is: '...is a form of learning in which responses come to be controlled by their consequences.' (Weiten, 2001, p.232).
But the challenge here in this course, in reflection on this theory, is 'How do teachers establish the right kinds and amounts of external stimuli in order to elicit desirable student behaviour?'. Behaviourism in the classroom places the power in the hands of the teacher to evoke desired behaviour and has huge implications for teachers in areas of behaviour management. For example, hearing the recess bell, school students would be ready to eat and then play, which is a routine positive reinforcement. Yet a negative reinforcement would a detention for undesirable behaviour. A positive remark from the teacher for doing good work also conditions students when they do well, yet a reprimand for incomplete task work would be a negative reinforcement. All of these are conditioning stimuli. Another suggestion is that if you ignore undesirable behaviour, you will not reinforce it. I tend to disagree as I find that if you allow children to misbehave without at least some degree of consternation or reprimand, then the freedom to do as they please is a positive reinforcement in & of itself!
In my opinion, a criticism of this theory lies in its generalized interpretations of 'desired' behaviour and what is definitively 'normal'. For example, some teachers accept a degree of rowdiness in their class and some do not (Have you ever observed a perfectly quiet class? I have!) For some students, other factors may be in play. Not only neuro-physical limitations (such as an impairment), but also potentially other sociocultural factors (such as difference between genders, people of different socioeconomic strata, inter-cultural differences such as body language, eye contact, facial expressions or personal-spatial awareness).
For example, I have heard reports of Pakistani airport staff getting into trouble for being 'surely' when replying to offers of gravy from cafeteria staff (even though this is not a school context, it perfectly describes the issue of defining 'normal'). The cultural diversity is such that in the place of origin within Pakistan of those staff, the inflection of a question is tonally downwards, yet in Anglo culture the inflection of a question is tonally upwards, which is the cause of the misinterpretation of the response (Gumperz, 1982, p.185). This is merely a cultural linguistic difference, so what is the norm here?.
Those unfamiliar with many Australian Indigenous cultures, as well as South Sea Island or Torres Strait cultures, direct eye contact is considered confronting and offensive to elders (authority figures). Although these above mentioned behaviours are certainly born of social habit and culturally founded reinforcements, within the diversity of students cohorts, teachers must consider the scope of the behaviour that is desirable amongst the cohort and their strategy for conditioning learning behaviour. To summarise the main point here, sometimes individual or inter-ethnic considerations must be taken into account before teachers assume a behaviour is non-conforming or undesirable.
Back to teaching & learning...I have heard teachers speak of conditioning behaviours for learning and creating calm in the classroom. For example, the students ability to sit quietly and listen without interfering with the learning of others is a conformity taught from Prep age at school so they perform the '5 L's' by conditioned instinct (Looking with your eyes, Listening with your ears, Legs crossed, hands in Lap, Lips closed). By using a raised open hand gesture from an early age, the students are conditioned into quiet and lesson readiness to the degree that even at high school, when they see a teacher/Principal hold up their hand, the students respond by becoming quiet and attentive.
To be honest, a right hand raised is reminiscent of the infamous Nazi salute, however that is my own conditioned response which is an evoked sense of revulsion. But it should not be overlooked that if a teacher in Germany started using this stimulus to evoke calm, then you might run into some problems!
Conditioning in the classroom occurs in so many ways, effective pedagogy cannot exist without it in one form or other. Yet behavourism seems to ignore the intellectual development of the student (it is a action-consequence based theory, which does not help, for example, high school SOSE/Geography/History students absorb and develop abstract concepts). But it is useful theory in dealing with chaining behaviour towards better preparedness for learning, perhaps more so in primary cohorts. However, I have a hunch that the desire for positive reinforcement can turn the teacher to towards a 'carrot & stick' approach to conditioning habits and behaviours of pupils. Students motivations to conform to teacher expectations are not founded in their own desire to learn and deeply absorb new information.
As far as ICTs for learning design goes, for example, students can actually see use of certain ICTs (such as use of interactive educational computer software) as a reward in themselves. Yet, the teacher might actually desire this response from the students as they engage in the learning experiences supported by the use of that particular software.
Another ICT that is in use at my current employers school is a classroom PA system known as a 'Sound Field' in an upper primary class. The manufacturer claims it improves student comprehension, grades and behaviour, yet it is assigned to the class because one student is hearing impaired, coinciding with a condition within the autism spectrum. If all students can hear the teachers voice cut through the space & noise without the need for teacher to yell, then it is plausible that the students responses and results may well be encouraging (this teacher loves the sound field!). If the teacher is happy that the class responds more positively with the sound field, does that imply the students are happily learning too? I am not sure as behaviour issues are not truly eliminated.
However, the hearing impaired child may move away from the school, & then the sound field will go with them. My question to consider then, in behaviourist terms, is: 'What happens to the conditioned students that remain who now associate the clarity of the sound field with the teachers authority in the class?'. I do believe a similar conundrum exists for mathematics teachers whose students have been conditioned using scientific calculators as opposed to manual calculations, i.e. 'what happens to the work of these conditioned students if the calculators are left at home or have flat batteries?'. This reminds me of the old adage: 'If you don't use it, you lose it!'.
There are many other issues for the 21st century learner and conditioning of ICTs. In music, a scenario similar to the above exists in the conditioning of students to tune instruments or voices using digital tuners vs. the important skill (an auditory literacy) of acoustic tuning, which provides much needed ear-pitch training. So too, in geography, the skills of orienteering by use of magnetic compass, paper maps and even signs from nature (solar positioning, moss on trees etc) seem to have been made redundant by the onset of GPS systems and geographic information systems such as Google-Earth, among others. Yet, I sit here writing using a blog based word-processor and I can feel myself forgetting how to write by hand! And no....I am not a technophobe, however, reflecting on behavourism in the classroom prompts me to ask that if the technology fails or is unavailable, 'How would the teacher revert to the "old school" way of operation?' Even this blog failed me last night and I had to retype a great deal of work to re-post! Let me assure you that my own behaviour changed when I realized this ICT was causing me problems and so much extra work!
Above: Some ICT choices for learning design - How does using them condition student's learning?
(Source: Microsoft ClipArt)
Constructivism
Among the learning theories discussed in this course, constructivism caught my attention.
'In the classroom, the constructivist view of learning can point towards a number of different teaching practices. In the most general sense, it usually means encouraging students to use active techniques (experiments, real-world problem solving) to create more knowledge and then to reflect on and talk about what they are doing and how their understanding is changing. The teacher makes sure she understands the students' preexisting conceptions, and guides the activity to address them and then build on them.' (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004)
Students in constructivist class settings are encouraged to constantly assess their own learning. This brings their attention to consider the experience and then transfer the learning into real world settings because their own what they learn. This is authentic learning as the natural curiosity of children is tapped and channeled towards the new ideas and information. It is incumbent upon the constructivist teacher to really get to know their student pre-existing knowledge and understandings, although this may take some time. Also, if the new information is in conflict with pre-existing knowledge, the new knowledge may be discarded. Assessment is difficult as learning may not fit traditional reporting standards. But the role of the teacher becomes more a guide/shepherd/facilitator/negotiator to the students learning, rather than a instructor or director of knowledge and ideas.
There is a risk I see in that during group activities (which are emphasized by constructivism) that the learning experience will become dominated by group thinking and will be translated by the alpha minds of the cohort. The students who determine their opinion is to dissent from the majority or strike out in some kind of independent thought or action may forced towards conforming with the greater majority or risk being alienated or marginalized as learning outcasts.
Constructivism, I believe is the learning theory that most informed/underpinned this particular learning activity, at least to a more significant degree than the others. With the drawing of knowledge from my own understandings, and relating the theory to my own experiences of teaching & learning in the real world, I am given insight into a better appreciation of constructivism in action. This learning will have meaning and better retention of the ideas presented to me and enable me to put active learning into practice in the future. I have noticed that when our lecturers and tutors observe us drawing too much on our own experiences, they then step to guide us and develop our knowledge beyond what we already understand.
An example ICTs that relate to constructivism would definitely be the use of interactive whiteboards, particularly with software in which each student can take a turn at the board activity, even as the group class group and discussion/reflection afterward. Another would be a computer lab exercise in which the class all participate in a web quest or a networked computer activity (even if each student has an individual console, a network can still support a group activity, just as the paired wikis here).
I'd like to now briefly link constructivism to both Felder's and Solomon's Learning Styles as well as Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (see previous posts). In my opinion, constructivist learning caters heavily for the kinesthetic learners among a student cohort as their learning is of and through the actual experience of the lesson. Group activities cater towards those with higher interpersonal smarts. The extension for the students occurs through reflection of the experience, and this aspect probably caters more for the intra-personally smart and promotes development of linguistic smarts. And then perhaps too, those who lean towards intuitive learning are catered for (as opposed to sensing learners), as concrete details are less important than the experience of the learning journey in the intuitive learners roundabout way to arriving at the learning outcome (new skills and broader knowledge of the core topic and usable in related areas). However, the 'non-spoon-feed' style of teaching that constructivism promotes allows a teacher to assess responses/outcomes to their questions/challenging activities and correct students if they provide incorrect answer or go off on tangents etc.
At my school (my employer that is, not my EPL) I have observed many examples of constructivism in practice by teachers. The other day a maths teacher decided to pimp up a lesson on scale and ratios, so he asked if I had any school plans (I am the School Facilities Officer) and I provided him with the plan, elevation and side view etc on the new school hall. He realized the drawings were not perfect A3 photocopies because he calculated the ratio to be 1 : 214, where normally construction plans on A3 are 1 : 200 (he checked this by measuring back calculating out the scale). I suggested that maybe the students first task could be to check the accuracy of the scale...and he said 'Oh yes, we are going to do that for sure!' :-)
Connectivism
This theory asserts that knowledge grows exponentially and time until particular knowledge becomes obsolete is becoming shorter. Connectivism emphasizes that we are constantly learning new information and learner decisions are based on foundations which are constantly altering. It is based on the understanding that; huge shifts in society are occurring, individual learning is not internal, yet the ability to access knowledge is of high importance.
The use of modern technologies that students already use in order to learn is engaging for them. Most kids today use google, but add in Skype/Facebook/Twitter etc and you have some powerful options. Today school are struggling with the ethical dilemmas of using public domain applications such as Facebook and Twitter (eg. Ed Qld blocks Facebook on their servers), but the potential for these as learning platforms is definitely strong.
If a student of history has to demonstrate his/her knowledge of a topic, a good connectivist (& ICT) tactic would be to set a task to study new content by setting up a Facebook group covering the topic or even tweet a discussion. I have seen many Facebook groups which basically set up multiple choice online quizzes and each Q&A is a piece of declarative knowledge (eg. test your knowledge). It can even be more complex by asking the student to set up the quiz so participants have to show procedural knowledge (eg. hypothetically asking 'What type of Dictator are you?' or 'What is your political orientation?') and as such gets students to advance from basic concepts to more complex.
So a Facebook quiz about Hitler isn't just about dates he came to power or invaded Poland etc, it gets students to respond to deeper complex issues such as value of human rights, dynamics of power in society, democracy vs. totalitarianism, racism and propaganda in society, etc. A funny joke my daughter Facebooked which reflected some history learnings when she says she doesn't like history much: "Hey Hitler, I think you lost something....World War Two!!" A bit of advancing English literacy in that simple joke as well I thought.
The problem I have with connectivism as a theory is in the statement about knowledge becoming 'obsolete'. Spelling, grammar, written and oral discourse, numeracy, mathematical skills, oratory and good cadence in speech, etc etc etc there are umpteen dozen examples of procedural knowledge that in my opinion will evolve but never become obsolete. If a nuclear holocaust happens tomorrow, how will we survive without language skills or the ability to build and maintain shelter and survive in the elements? If people have evolved into couch potatoes with enormous texting thumbs it would not help us survive the reality. The connectivist learning experience I believe should always hold some relevance to the context of the real world. A significant dangers lies in the technologies becoming the outcome (student thinks 'I learnt how to use Facebook today'), rather than as a learning platform (student recalls the new information that the Facebook experience brought them to understand).
Cognitive Constructivism
Piaget's theory of development underpins this theoretical interpretation of constructivism. (Note: I will not spend a lot of time reflecting/analyzing this theory as I believe it is a fairly easily understood concept.) Constructivism's active learning experiences are still the main thrust, but the other element of cognitive constructivism is that human of different ages cannot be given information, but rather they must construct their own knowledge and build it through experience. Piaget's emphasizes the role of the teacher to make a rich learning environment for the spontaneous learning of children.
An example of this at my work was with my sons Prep teacher. The kids all went 'camping' via a role play in the corner of the classroom and my son Ethan had built a 'torch' made out of an old water bottle, with 'batteries' and 'light' made out of bits of coloured paper... it all looked very cute as the kids made pretend fires and marshmallows, built a tent and generally had a great time. For an experienced person (most adults) know that stick and cotton wool aren't really yummy marshmallows for toasting, but with suspension of disbelief, the real world concept is there. This learning experience emerged from a discussion with the teacher about camping, even suggested by the kids and initiated by them with teachers permission and guidance. The role play was facilitated by the teacher (using resources from their box of old boxes and whatever they needed they found) who saw an opportunity for an activity through the kids to learn skills (planning, problem solving, interpersonal communications, good neighbourly conduct, organisation, etc). What a great way to learn! Very inspirational to see cognitive constructivism in practice. (I really hope that high school teaching experience provides just as much inspiration for my students and my teaching)
Vygotsky’s Theories of Learning
Essential Vygotsky's theory of learning is a theory that uses supportive learning structures otherwise known as scaffolding. Centred on MKO (More Knowledge Other) which means the teacher has more knowledge than the student, and suitable tools can be used which can be virtual, physical or cultural, and the 'teacher' may even be a peer or a computer. Learning occurs in a collaborative settings between students and teacher. A key preamble is the ZPD (Zone of Proximal development); the distance between a pupils ability to perform a task under guidance vs. solving problems independently.
Vygotsky penned a great deal of monumental writings about the development of cognition with insights into psychology, and how cognition develops within a social and cultural setting. He developed eight theories on: value, knowledge, human nature, learning, transmission, society, opportunity, consensus. Inter-personal and intra-personal dimensions of learners psychology are important, as past experiences are involved in the understanding developed by students of the present.
His writings & theory is comprehensive, so much can be applied in the class setting. One of the most notable points is the role of language is central to cognitive development (thought processes and therefore understanding). This in reinforced by many teachers (in my experience) who seek to teach literacy across subject areas. I saw the other day a poor example of an online modern history distance education exam, but the exam was riddled with spelling errors! This is a problem where one subject area (one I will teach) is sorely affected by deficient language skills. (Poor form I thought) Anyway, despite him being a Marxist (he only believes in Marxist psychology), his observations about the intra-personal psychological tools are correct in that language is the primary means of access to information and developing cognition. The socialization of thought and language development is key. (It is difficult to fault Vygotsky there).
The limits of cognition in different ages are asserted by this theory, and I find that another true point, but for gifted children, the limits are exceeded. We have all heard teachers say a Yr 'X' child should be able to read this or write that and it may be said that this is limiting potential for extensive beyond that. Yet a Yr 1 child at our school has learnt how to spell the word 'picturesque' which I find remarkable, so the child has developed an advanced degree of independent problem solving and can trace the root word 'picture' and develop it into a complex adjective! A challenge would be for a teacher in not blunting the extension for advanced students by adhering too religiously to notional limits in stages of development or allowing the less smart children of the collective cohort to be the focus of the work I can see potential for the smarter and less so students to be working together in tasks to produce a enhanced learning outcome for both.
A criticism might lay in his assertion that mental processes can only be fully understood if the student understands the tools and signs to mediate them....I am not sure that even advanced students are gifted enough to consciously understand the psychological tools (eg. developing language) and cognition they experience during lessons.
References
Barnes, A, Cheung, J, Moore, J, Nguyen, L, & Swift, G, amended from Prabhu, S, Clinical Supervisor, 2011, La Trobe University, date viewed: 8/3/2011, accessed:
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/hcs/projects/CALM/CALM/pdf%20links/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Hand-listening.pdf
&
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/hcs/projects/CALM/CALM/pdf%20links/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205%20Ls%20of%20listening.pdf
Educational Broadcast Online, 2004, Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning: Concept to Classroom, Thirteen Ed Online, viewed: 7/3/2011, accessed: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/credit.html
Gumperz, J, 1982, Discourse strategies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Weiten, W, 2001, Psychology - Themes & Variations, 5th Edition, Wadsworth - Thompson Learning, Stamford, USA.
No comments:
Post a Comment