why we learn

There’s a significant amount of buzz around the idea of integrating social networks and the principals thereof into “school 2.0″. What seems to be missing is an acknowledgement that the teacher is still the person that sets the tone, chooses the material (or, at a minimum, provides some sort of guidelines in terms of what can and cannot be investigated), assesses work. They are the master, if you will, in the age old pairing of master and apprentice. If they cannot assume this role, than all else is for nought.

It is the nature of the teacher is what matters. It is not solely pedagogy nor mannerism, materials nor embracement of technology. The totality of the individual, their “essence” if you will, that is the determining factor in what is learned and the amount of growth that is observed. Haven’t we all seen the teacher that knows their instructional methods, works late laying out lessons, yet struggles to maintain order and therefore fails to make any meaningful progress throughout the year? These things are forgotten in the rush to embrace a technology than promises to bring us together yet, by it’s very nature, devalues face-to-face human interaction by making itself it’s equal.

Why is it that you can find scholarly work supporting direct instruction, differentiated instruction, problem based learning, and inquiry based learning (the list goes on…)? If one method of instruction was inherently superior to the others, would this be the case? Is it shoddy experimental design, or is there something else at work here? We have endured years of arguments, erudite individuals on all sides documenting why their chosen method works better than the others, pointing to academic work as evidence for their technique’s supposed eminence. And what have we learned? Have we learned? We have not. Pedagogy has been discarded and replaced with the promise of the medium.

I have an idea. Why don’t we give teacher’s less? If I’m presented with a plethora of (web-based) tools, I’ll naturally try to use each one in some way. Each year new tools are created, and each year I try to implement lessons using these new tools. Have we read the literature related to expertise? Ten years, on average (I’m not going to reference anything here, but I’m close in terms of the number of years), is how long it takes to become and expert in a “field”. So, we have a cyclical pattern of new tools being available, and teachers subsequent attempts to integrate those tools into their curricula/repertoire. How does this cultivate the qualities of a “master”?

What would happen if, instead, we give everyone one tool. And, we say that they aren’t allowed to use anything but that tool.

What would we see then?

Ingenuity?
Creativity?

Maybe. But we’ll never know. The technological advance of the web is too rapid. It’s momentum too great. And teachers are left trying to assimilate each now advance in real time, while mastering only the art of survival.

I just finished reading a wonderful article¹ on expertise. Ericsson et. al present a convincing case as to why “deliberate practice” is the primary indicator of whether or not an individual achieves a high level of expertise. They note two exceptions, height and body mass, which they relate to athletics (one assumes basketball and football). There rationale, considering the research they use to support their argument is persuasive, and in a fate versus free will type of way, uplifting.

After reading the words “deliberate practice” several times, I was struck by the similarity between the descriptions of these actions, and Sweller et. al² discussion of germane cognitive load. There is, I think, a connection here, in that in both cases the learner is committed and pushed. That is to say that they’re applying themselves fully, and that the task at hand is challenging.

1. Ericsson, K. Anders, and Roring, Roy W., and Nandagopal, Kiruthiga. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: an account based on the expert performance framework. High Ability Studies 18(1), 3—56.

2. Sweller, John, and van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G., and Paas, Fred G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10(3), 251—296.