Manifesto
I believe that being human means being creative. I believe the best learning is engaging, fun, and collaborative. I believe digital education allows learners to become their own teachers and that self-teaching is just as valid as any formal education. I believe it's valuable to explore something new even if you're not great at it. I believe that students cannot be challenged without being supported. I believe we are all still learning. |
My Learning philosophy.
Behaviorism and Cognitivism and Constructivism, oh my!
When I was being trained as a teacher in the late 1990s, I remember learning about different learning theories. But interestingly, I don't remember my professors asking us to weigh them out against each other, poke holes in them, or even evaluate them against our own values or beliefs. It was more like: here's a theory. Here's the scientist who proposed it. Here's what he said. How could that be capitalized in the context of a lesson or classroom?
Behaviorism
According to Dr. Tony Bates, author and researcher who has worked with over 40 organizations in 25 countries, "Behaviorism still dominates approaches to teaching and learning in many places, particularly in the USA," even though it was developed nearly 100 years ago. He says, "Underlying a behaviorist approach to teaching is the belief that learning is governed by invariant principles, and these principles are independent of conscious control on the part of the learner." The work of B.F. Skinner in the mid-1950s supports this theory, along with his "teaching machines," results-based lessons, and quantitative outcomes that take the form of those all-too familiar bubble sheets. It is most valued when it comes to facts and memorization that may be necessary in specific fields in the military, engineering, medicine or the sciences. This learning theory also may rely on rewards or punishment.
Cognitivitism
Perhaps as a reaction to Behaviorism, in 1981, Fontana defined a cognitive approach to learning in that it "lays stress not only on the environment, but upon the way in which the individual interprets and tries to make sense of the environment. It sees the individual not as the somewhat mechanical product of his environment, but as an active agent in the learning process, deliberately trying to process and categorize the stream of information fed into him by the external world." The key word here, used twice nonetheless, is *individual.* This theory focuses on each student having a unique, and therefore unpredictable, response to information.
Constructivism
Both of the above theories purport that the learners may have very little control over their response to learning stimuli. Conversely, Bates points out "constructivists emphasize the importance of consciousness, free will and social influences on learning." In 1969, well before Fontana's work, but after Skinner's, Carl Rogers stated that "every individual exists in a continually changing world of experience in which he is the center." We as humans understand and empathize with others, but ultimately, we do see our own point of view best. Beyond that, Bates says, "Constructivists argue that individuals consciously strive for meaning to make sense of their environment in terms of past experience and their present state."
My Thoughts...
When you put together my big-picture beliefs about education, zoom in a bit and see my background and personal story, then lastly, you could perhaps zoom in even more to see how my own brain works and perceives education and this thing we call learning. From what I can tell, there are students who work because they're "doing the right thing" and students who work because they are engaged. We can all agree the latter is better, and it's literally the teacher's job to create that lesson, build that supportive environment and grow that trust with the student so that they will become engaged, not just go through the motions. (Let's save the students who aren't working for another discussion, another day.)
I want to say that it's my job to create lessons that will engage students. Period. If I have students who are on-task, but they're doing the work from a sense of obligation, AKA just because they're in robot mode, that's not ideal. Because I also consider it my job to connect with those students to tap into where the breakdown is happening. I see social-emotional learning as a good starting place. But the breakdown may also be happening because my lesson could be better, the way I delivered it could be clearer, the project choices could be broader, etc. etc. If I have more students than not who aren't responding positively to a lesson, I feel like that lesson *must* be evaluated and re-imagined. There are lessons I've changed over the years, and there are lessons I've changed over the course of a day. I see myself as a cognitive constructivist, in that my students will all have their own individual, unpredictable responses that are sometimes not up to them, but most of the time are. Just like my responses. We are all working together, doing our best with what we have.
When I was being trained as a teacher in the late 1990s, I remember learning about different learning theories. But interestingly, I don't remember my professors asking us to weigh them out against each other, poke holes in them, or even evaluate them against our own values or beliefs. It was more like: here's a theory. Here's the scientist who proposed it. Here's what he said. How could that be capitalized in the context of a lesson or classroom?
Behaviorism
According to Dr. Tony Bates, author and researcher who has worked with over 40 organizations in 25 countries, "Behaviorism still dominates approaches to teaching and learning in many places, particularly in the USA," even though it was developed nearly 100 years ago. He says, "Underlying a behaviorist approach to teaching is the belief that learning is governed by invariant principles, and these principles are independent of conscious control on the part of the learner." The work of B.F. Skinner in the mid-1950s supports this theory, along with his "teaching machines," results-based lessons, and quantitative outcomes that take the form of those all-too familiar bubble sheets. It is most valued when it comes to facts and memorization that may be necessary in specific fields in the military, engineering, medicine or the sciences. This learning theory also may rely on rewards or punishment.
Cognitivitism
Perhaps as a reaction to Behaviorism, in 1981, Fontana defined a cognitive approach to learning in that it "lays stress not only on the environment, but upon the way in which the individual interprets and tries to make sense of the environment. It sees the individual not as the somewhat mechanical product of his environment, but as an active agent in the learning process, deliberately trying to process and categorize the stream of information fed into him by the external world." The key word here, used twice nonetheless, is *individual.* This theory focuses on each student having a unique, and therefore unpredictable, response to information.
Constructivism
Both of the above theories purport that the learners may have very little control over their response to learning stimuli. Conversely, Bates points out "constructivists emphasize the importance of consciousness, free will and social influences on learning." In 1969, well before Fontana's work, but after Skinner's, Carl Rogers stated that "every individual exists in a continually changing world of experience in which he is the center." We as humans understand and empathize with others, but ultimately, we do see our own point of view best. Beyond that, Bates says, "Constructivists argue that individuals consciously strive for meaning to make sense of their environment in terms of past experience and their present state."
My Thoughts...
When you put together my big-picture beliefs about education, zoom in a bit and see my background and personal story, then lastly, you could perhaps zoom in even more to see how my own brain works and perceives education and this thing we call learning. From what I can tell, there are students who work because they're "doing the right thing" and students who work because they are engaged. We can all agree the latter is better, and it's literally the teacher's job to create that lesson, build that supportive environment and grow that trust with the student so that they will become engaged, not just go through the motions. (Let's save the students who aren't working for another discussion, another day.)
I want to say that it's my job to create lessons that will engage students. Period. If I have students who are on-task, but they're doing the work from a sense of obligation, AKA just because they're in robot mode, that's not ideal. Because I also consider it my job to connect with those students to tap into where the breakdown is happening. I see social-emotional learning as a good starting place. But the breakdown may also be happening because my lesson could be better, the way I delivered it could be clearer, the project choices could be broader, etc. etc. If I have more students than not who aren't responding positively to a lesson, I feel like that lesson *must* be evaluated and re-imagined. There are lessons I've changed over the years, and there are lessons I've changed over the course of a day. I see myself as a cognitive constructivist, in that my students will all have their own individual, unpredictable responses that are sometimes not up to them, but most of the time are. Just like my responses. We are all working together, doing our best with what we have.