The TEDtalk video that I had posted onto my blog (see previous post) prompted my light-bulb moment about the Curriculum for Excellence Principle of Depth.
It's fascinating to listen to Sugata Mitra discuss his research and to read more about how it was conducted and the conclusions drawn from this. My first reaction to Mitra's work was acceptance: I've always believed that children can be the best guides in their learning and I initially thought that this proved it. The children were clearly finding their way around the computer systems and through trial and error they were able to progress through their learning identifying where they could go next.
Learning in this manner is the form of learning that occurs every single day of our lives. This, of course relates to the work of John Holt (1982) who describes the process of early childhood development as an intuitive process. We know from the work of psychologists such as Spalding, Lorenz, Schmidt and others that there are some key factors that must be in place for this intuitive learning to develop. Montagu would further state that there is no human process that can take place without learning " and, of course, Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs' which was developed from the viewpoint that in order to reach full potential one must have a range of needs met.
So how does this relate to the Sugata Mitra video and the principle of depth? As a novice teacher it is all too easy to observe the classroom practice of an experienced class teacher and underestimate the role. When time comes for development practice it becomes clear that there are a multitude of factors which you were simple unaware of. As a novice teacher looking at Mitra's work it may be easy to believe that, given the right resources, children will teach themselves but put into practice and the multidimensional process of this becomes apparent. Children may engage with new and exciting equipment and they will, undoubtedly, learn from the experience but our role as the teacher is to develop this into a growing understanding; to build skills that can be applied in many areas. What research has shown us is that children can be extrinsically motived to learn but it is our duty to take that motivation and nurture it. Children may provide the learning but we must provide the depth to make it worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Interesting post Jen and what is one man's meat could be poison in the hands of the inexperienced or simply not 'there approach'. I suppose that is what makes us all unique otherwise teaching and learning would be boring if we all took the same role and became robotic.
ReplyDeleteYou mention some theorists by name which would be advantageous, for the interested reader, to find out more. Are Spalding, Lorenz, Schmidt and others theorists who focus on intuitive learning'?
I do query the notion of children learning how to use the computer system themselves. This is still a large sweeping statement as they might learn some aspects through trial and error but there are still many gaps in their knowledge and skills. This has been proven time and time again whilst I have worked with children and young adults - they can do what they can do but not the larger picture. They want technology to just do rather than sometimes see to get to the goal you need to problem solve. I know you and I do this but the majority don't and that notion of explore, which is part of problem solving, does not transfer when instant results are desired form an increasing impatient society.
Something for you to ponder Jen.
Spalding was an animal behaviourist and one of the first to describe the concept of 'imprinting'. Spalding's work was extended and developed by Lorenz, who related the theory of imprinting to innate human behaviours. Schmidt looked at how people learn actions and developed a schema of motor learning. http://moon.ouhsc.edu/dthompso/mtrlrng/schmidt.htm
ReplyDelete