Learning and Transfer :: so close but yet so far...

This section was particularly intriguing this week. There were numerous good points made throughout support by sound research that has been mentioned a few times in past chapters as well. But as the article progressed I began to notice how much research has really been done to enable the authors to support their points. So if the teaching professionals have the research data that says learning through experience and understanding as opposed to pure memorization is more conducive to transfer, and active learning is far more effective than passive learning, then why are things not being done that way in our classrooms. Why are we still teaching to the test?

Right from the beginning the author talks about how "assumptions about transfer" support the belief that a broader range of subjects taught will equal more transfer and deeper learning in a person's true interest. This goes back to class discussion a few weeks ago talking about breadth of knowledge versus depth of knowledge. In essence, these assumptions are saying that a person's breadth of knowledge will lead to a greater depth of knowledge. I am not sure I can agree there based on this chapter. The author referenced Thorndike and others when talking about tests that were given to measure students' amount of transfer. Simply memorizing meant lots of facts, no means of transfer of unrelated facts, little understanding, and inability to relate facts to the bigger picture or other subjects. Active learning, appropriate time taken to teach material, time spent applying the material, and allowing time for practice that involves creative and abstract thinking and application means decent breadth of facts without sacrificing appropriate foundational depth of knowledge, much higher potential for meaningful transfer, greater understanding, and the ability to relate knowledge to the bigger picture and other subjects. This goes back to last week's chapter on the difference between novices and experts. The author used similar examples last week including the chess example and tasks given to novices and experts and observing how each views the problem and accesses knowledge. Taking a second to clarify one point, teaching an appropriate breadth, or range, of concepts and facts rather than going "a mile wide and an inch deep" right away means learners should have the time to acquire a solid foundational depth of knowledge to accompany the range. This will help them to nurture a functional knowledge base which promotes greater understanding and higher potential for transfer.

I think what I am trying to say is this: Learning a great breadth of knowledge is not a bad thing at all. Especially when you are able to transfer much of it into knowledge that can be related to many experiences. But not allowing enough time to allow learners to go out and actively engage in applying newly learned concepts or ideas, participating in problem solving that makes learners think abstractly, critically, and creatively - ultimately creating a solid depth of knowledge to accompany their breadth of knowledge -, then all we are reduced to is having learners memorize facts, spit them back out on a test to prove they are not grotesque invalids, and send them on their way with little or no ability to relate anything they just learned to the world they live in. I remember classes like that in high school, chemistry is one of them. I cannot tell you a single thing about chemistry except that sodium in its metal form ignites in water - because I am interested in anything that creates fire in 10th grade - and that our mathematical form of calculating just about anything is called 'dimensional analysis'. I cannot apply any knowledge I gained in that class. There was no time for exploration or further research. On a macrocosmic level, look what we are doing in our schools - it has been discussed in class already numerous times. I remember complaining about it as a high school student. Teachers are rushing to stuff unrelated facts into learners' heads in order to pass the PSSA! Therefore, I argue time is key. Based on all the discussions, research, and readings done so far, all the evidence points to time. Teach, then allow time to explore and let the mind make connections that leads to transfer. Curriculum should build in time and activities that encourage such learning. We mentioned last week in class that experts say we have not yet explored the full capacity of the human brain. Why do think that is? I beginning to formulate my own conclusions as this class progresses. So why are things being done contrary to what years of research and instructional design suggest? I don't know. How do we as educators and future educators change that? I don't know that either.

Expert or Novice: What does that mean really??

What am I? The author was very good at laying down differences between experts and novices, however managed to do so without actually defining the terms. The first place I checked was the Webster Dictionary. "Novice" immediately sends you to the definition of "beginner" which is defined as 'one who is inexperienced'. After reviewing the entry for "expert" I found that to be defined as 'one who is experienced'. Immediately it comes to mind that degrees of experience absolutely have to exist and vary even among the so-called "experts".
According to DeGroot's research, expert chess players did not think through all possibilities and opponent counters though the experts did show greater breadth and depth of analysis, but the experts did think through the most important possibilities and opponent counters unlike the novice chess players. The physics experts were able to supply laws and principles to physics problems and explain how each would apply to the problem while beginners (students) would think of formulas and equations and explain how to manipulate the numbers. In both scenarios, is it possible that the experts were experts of a lower degree. By this I mean, are there higher degree experts out there who would in fact think through all the possibilities and opponent counters? Furthermore, in the case of the novices, "inexperienced" is defined as 'lack of experience'. Based on the reading and DeGroot's findings, I am not convinced that even the novices were 'inexperienced'. Someone who knows enough to think through any possibilities or opponent counters during a chess game shows even a little experience. Perhaps the physics experts that were immediately able to relate laws and principles of physics to the problem at hand are the true experts.
I love rollercoasters, always have, always will. Put me on the biggest, baddest, most twisted machine you can find, and I'll ride it. I have done my own amateur research and keep up with the industry constantly. I do not have a degree in roller coaster history, or in physics or engineering. But, I do possess a great deal of knowledge both about the amusement industry and trends, as well as roller coaster designs, mechanical makeup, engineering techniques, and design/programmable controllers. Does this make me an "expert"? I hardly consider myself a true "expert" however, I certainly do not consider myself a "novice" - or even an "amateur" for that matter. Perhaps this is not relevant to teaching entirely, but it sure raises a few questions in my mind. But I am also an accomplished musician, and when it comes to piano I would consider myself an expert. I have wanted to start teaching piano lessons for the last few years but I do not believe I can do it just yet. I have not found a way I am completely comfortable with to relate the material to a novice. I have not found a teaching method where I can teach effectively without losing my student in music terminology I have been using all my life. Even when I talk about music with my friends, generally my friends do not listen with the same active ear that I do. I often say this is my life, and I cannot listen to music as a novice. I listen for form, structure, undertones, overtones, harmony, meter, underlying messages in the lyrics even. I'm so used to being around friends at the renown music school of West Chester University where everyone speaks the same technical language.
This brings me to another great point the author made. This was the idea that an expert is not necessarily a great teacher - or even a good one. Perhaps this is why I have so much trouble relating music material to novices. I know the material, but because I'm so immersed in it, it is almost impossible for me to understand what it is like to be a musical novice. I am also taken back to calculus class during senior year of high school. My teacher was no doubt an expert, and a brilliant mathematician at that. Unfortunately, he could not teach at all. The author of our reading commented that experts often forget what is understandable and easy for students - or novices - or those inexperienced. My calculus teacher could not relate the material to us at all.
How does this apply to learning? Simple in my mind, we need to take into consideration who we are teaching. Are we teaching novices, experts, 'accomplished novices', etc.? If we lose sight of who we are teaching, how can we expect our students to learn. If we speak over their heads, how can we expect them to be able to acquire the same knowledge we have? If we speak down to them, how can we expect them to be challenged? I do not have a great answer being the 'inexperienced' teacher that I consider myself. But remembering who my audience is, certainly is a great place to start.

McLuhan, The Horizon Report, and My Brain

My initial response to McLuhan's Wake was that of much thought and a good deal of confusion. I spent much of the drive home thinking about what I had just seen and heard, trying to make any sense of it. From reviewing the four questions I began to think of examples and was able to see some patterns in the real world. Perhaps these questions are meant to keep our use of technology in check. In each example discussed in the first class, radio, tv, film, etc. all were over-extended and many teachers and school districts reverted right back to where they came from.
As I read the Horizon Report I began to think about some of the emerging technologies discussed within in terms of McLuhan's questions. For example, mobile phones extend our feet, ears, and voice even farther than land line phones. In fact, mobile phones are making landlines obsolete. A stronger sense of connectivity among communities, social networks, fellow students, and people as a whole. But, if phones are really used in most classes for everything that textbooks, pencils, and even laptop computers used to do, will people revert back to seclusion? I cannot say I have a good answer for that. One very good point the Horizon Report brought up was our need to be concerned with ownership and copyright of content, research, ideas, and publications. With much of the technology turning to open-source platforms and other technology allowing anyone to contribute what they know to the overall knowledge base of the world, is copyright really that important to EVERYONE? Even for myself, a very serious amateur historian of the Bethlehem Steel, if I posted content about my findings and my ideas, I would not be as concerned with copyright of my material like I would one of my songs. The information I gather I want people to know and be able to readily access.
As I began to think further about readily accessing information I realized that it is a fundamental human condition to want to know everything about where we came from, who we are, why things are the way they are, etc. For me, it's knowing how the Bethlehem Steel came to be, how it came to end up as it is today. For others, the topic may be something else. But being able to readily access all the information that we as humankind know, is something all people from all across the globe desire and can value. So in conclusion as I think about McLuhan's questions - while they prove valuable when looking at individual technologies - in terms of the bigger picture, in the end, there is nowhere to revert back to. What human being would want to give up all we have learned by putting our minds together using technology to store all the knowledge in the world, and go back to not knowing and understanding? Then again, there is also an argument to be made for those 'simple times' we all hear about in history.