How People Learn - Chapter 3 "Learning and Transfer"
Once again, our text does not disappoint with a smorgasbord of learning research and theories, this time to help us better understand "transfer" - that is "the ability to extend what has been learned in once context to new contexts" (p. 51). The basic set-up is:
- Initial learning is necessary for transfer
- Knowledge that is overly contextualized can reduce transfer
- Transfer is best viewed as an active, dynamic process
- All learning involves transfer based on previous learning
There was also another discussion of the importance of metacognition in learning, this time with respect to transfer. The "reciprocal teaching" model (p.67) particularly caught my eye due to its application in reading comprehension. During our Week 3 class, we discussed the similarities between reading comprehension skills and information literacy. Though as I mention in my previous reflective post I had not previously considered this comparison, it really makes a lot of sense to me. Therefore, the reciprocal teaching model may be something librarians can consider when designing basic information literacy workshops. Particularly in K-12 and academic libraries, I think there are some creative ways we can integrate this model into our standard curriculum, either in one-shot situations or through repeated exposure. I think the most difficult-to-implement aspect of the reciprocal teaching model would be "establishing a social setting that enables joint negotiation for understanding." What does this look like? To me it implies some level of trust and common ground. Can this be accomplished in a one-shot situation?
"Put Understanding First" - Wiggins and McTighe
The premise of this article is to suggest better ways that education in high schools may promote learning for understanding, with the end goal that this will produce learners who are not just good at "doing school," but instead are prepared for "the world beyond school." Wiggins and McTighe suggest curriculum must help students to acquire and make meaning of information in the classroom, as well help them learn to transfer new knowledge to new situations.
It's difficult to disagree with the authors on this, as I feel many of my own K-12 (and even some college) experiences mirrored their observations - that schools stress acquiring large amounts of information before students are asked to apply or making meaning out of that information. By the time an "appropriate" amount of information is a acquired, many students have lost interest or there simply is not time to include the "make meaning and transfer" tasks before moving onto the next unit (perhaps an example of education being "a mile wide and an inch deep?"). Additionally, I really liked the idea that "the textbook should serve as a resource, not as the syllabus." Teachers (and librarians) spend a significant amount of time and effort to learn their trade; why then do we end up letting the textbook determine course of study?
Perhaps the idea I appreciated most in this article is the emphasis that traditional teaching and instruction methods are not inherently bad, but rather they are limited in the scope of their usefulness and have a tendency to be over used. They do not advocate for lectures, quizzes, and standardized tests to be thrown out the window. Rather, they suggest the use of these tools needs to be thought of as only a few of the very important methods by which students should learn and be assessed. It's not so much about finding the *one* right instructional method, but rather learning how to use a variety of methods depending on the purpose of the teaching/learning activity. Also, moving through teaching and learning should be considered an iterative process - students can cycle through acquisition, meaning, and transfer in a non-linear fashion.
We should also consider how we can use these tools in library instruction. How can we use a variety of activities to help learners move through acquisition, meaning, and transfer during information literacy development? I think this goes beyond "If I show you how to access ProQuest through SearchTools, then you should also be able to find PsycInfo," to something more abstract about the context in which a database is appropriate to use (this is also related to HPL Ch 3, which helping students understand problems at a higher level of abstraction promotes transfer). Once again, it is becoming clear to me how difficult it must be to integrate all of the necessary components of "learning for understanding" into a coherent curriculum or single instructional period, and even more difficult without foresight and planning.
You make really good points in this post. First, I too find the book to be bursting with useful techniques and information. Questioning how the reciprocal teaching method would translate to library services and one-shot workshops is important to consider. Also, discussion about traditional teaching methods and tools hones in on the authors's view that learning stems from a variety of tools and teaching methods, assessment only being one of many that should be used to help understanding and transfer. This point didn't jump out at me during the reading but giving it a second thought, it is an important aspect of that article.
ReplyDeleteI like that you brought up the idea that the textbook should be a resource and not the syllabus. I remember seeing a big difference from high school to college, and that all my high school teachers relied so heavily on the textbook. We read it from end to end, completed all the exercises, and never went out of order. In college, however, we only read certain chapters that our professors really wanted us to know, and we skipped around according to what they wanted. Now here at Michigan, we rarely buy textbooks because our professors find what articles suit them best, instead of the other way around. I think that is a very powerful point.
ReplyDelete