I had intended to incorporate my reading reflection into my previous post, however it was growing too long and I decided to break them into two entries. Here are my thoughts on the first two chapters of How People Learn.
Ch 1 - "Learning: From Speculation to Science"
The first chapter establishes a need to shift education away from merely factual knowledge (that is, only focusing on being able to remember and repeat information) towards focusing more on the "process of knowing" and a new emphasis on "learning through understanding." The idea is for education to go beyond focusing on concretely what they think students should know, to also incorporate our knowledge of how students learn to provide a richer learning environment with more depth and surface. They propose this can be done through a new frame work for learning and teaching. This new framework consists of: addressing and engaging students' preconceptions of the world; helping students develop factual knowledge, while organizing and understanding this knowledge within a broader conceptual framework; and employing a "metacognitive" approach to help students set and monitor their own learning goals.
Reflecting on my own academic experience, I certainly encountered a wide spectrum of teaching and learning techniques, largely depending on the subject, teacher/professor, grade or level of advancement, etc. Focusing specifically on my K-12 public school education, the vast majority of classes focused more on imparting factual knowledge. I attribute this largely to two factors - standardized testing and large, mixed-academic-level classes. The exception to this always seemed to be the Advanced Placement courses, which were exempt from standardized tests (at least at that time) and had a more homogeneous group of students. The framework proposed in How People Learn seems difficult to implement with full force without a large restructuring and rethinking of how public schools currently work. Teachers cannot focus on addressing students' preconceptions, providing depth of knowledge, and focusing on "metacognition" when their performance evaluations depend on State-mandated factual knowledge their students must demonstrate at the end of the term. Additionally, teachers often must deal with large classes of students who may have academic skill level anywhere from remedial to advance, therefore I am sure it is sometimes necessary to focus on more one-size-fits-all, concrete, fact-based knowledge. While I agree that a classroom built around this H.P.L's framework could make for a more interesting and engaging learning environment, it is hard for me to imagine implementing it in throughout most of my primary and secondary education.
What I would like to know is: how can this framework be put in place in the majority of real-world classrooms? And, perhaps for the purpose of this course, what would this looking like on a day-to-day basis in libraries?
Chapter 2 - How Experts Differ From Novices
One of the questions that stuck with me throughout the chapter was: should we always be striving for expert-level growth? It is impractical and unnecessary for each of us to be true experts in all subjects and areas of life, but is it beneficial for educators to promote expert-level growth even if true "expert" status will never be achieved?
My last technology course was SI502, which was certainly focused on novice-level growth. Since 502 is a course required for all incoming SI students, each of whom have varying levels of technical expertise, I think it was appropriate for the course to be based this way because the majority of us were novices. I do believe, however, the course also attempted to lay a foundation for expanding to expert-level growth in the future. We were provided with overviews of topics to be explored in more depth in other courses, and I do believe there was an attempt to provide us with some sort of conceptual framework around which all the components fit together. The purpose of the course was not to provide expert-level knowledge in any of the topics presented, but rather to lay a foundation for later expansion and growth.
I think that libraries and librarians can perhaps follow a similar model in their own instruction. For instance, in a one-time instructional period or a single reference interaction, there is not an opportunity for in-depth expert growth. However, by incorporating small ideas from the "Six Principles of Expertise" into each of our interactions with users, we can help them lay a foundation for expert level growth. One example of this might be taking the opportunity to explain not only the nuts-and-bolts of how a database works, but also explaining the concepts and logic behind constructing an effective search that can apply across platforms and will eventually become more automatic in all searches a user performs. The ultimate goal is not that we need to teach students how to solve every problem or answer every question, but that students must learn how to teach themselves (pg 50). Therefore, while we cannot address ever aspect of expert growth in every single instructional opportunity, we may be able to look at it as more of a puzzle to be put together over time, or a building to be built on a solid foundation of basic concepts, with the end result being students/users learning how to continue to learn.
With regards to SI501 and "Adaptive Expertise," I believe the goal of the course leans more towards emphasizing "Virtuoso"-type skills. Once again, we were rarely given hard-and-fast rules or guidelines about how to perform a task - we were not to become "merely skilled" Artisans of applying concepts of contextual inquiry. Rather, we were given tools to look creatively at any type of information process, identify strengths and weaknesses of the process, and generate ideas for improvement. These are rather flexible, general skills that can be applied across a wide range of problems we may encounter in our day-to-day work. While I do not now claim to be an expert in project management or method of contextual inquiry, I do believe the course helped lay a foundation for applying those types of skills to new challenges. Only through repetition and practice will any of us ever become "experts" or "Virtuosos" in the sense describe in the "Six Principles of Expertise."
Overall, I think it is alright to start with novice-level growth. Everyone has to start somewhere, and we cannot become experts immediately. However, it is helpful to understand how experts think about problems, their skill set and ways of adapting to new situation, and how educators (librarians included) can begin to lay the foundation for future expert-level growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment