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.