As I go back over the sessions we had in VOC I, here I report on what my findings were, what the groups presented and how I find it relevant to my own pedagogical learning and working life. All of these session reports will also be found here, from my own blog's VOC I page.
Session 1, 17.9.2013
Session 1, 17.9.2013
For the first session, we acted as the Chair Group, which simply meant that
we had to supervise the other groups in terms of timekeeping and making sure
that things flowed technically. For me, it wasn’t difficult and I even found it
enjoyable as there was no heavy burden to present anything, so in that sense it
was an easy start. At the same time, I was able to follow and participate in
the other groups’ presentations.
Team Dewey: What is learning?
This proved to be a wide-ranging look at many different theories and
theorists. We learned about Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences, David A.
Kolb’s Experimental Learning, Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs, Behaviourism &
Cognitivism and Humanism & Constructivism. To cover so much in such a short
session was ambitious, but there was still space to discuss and digest these
ideas. A lot of things at this stage fall into the category of being at the
same time new and familiar, because they are grounded in common sense, so we
can immediately understand what is being discussed and why it is relevant.
Multiple Intelligences is one subject we covered during the contact session
and that’s also something that I have some to appreciate in my own teaching. I
think I am keeping it more firmly at the front of my mind that students just do
have different ways of learning and that there’s real empirical value in
tailoring the studies to best fit different styles. For me, the significance of
this cannot be overstated.
References:
http://www.bgfl.org/bgfl/custom/resources_ftp/client_ftp/ks3/ict/multiple_int/index.htm
(an interesting site where you can take a test to see what your own style of
intelligence is)
Team Freire: The role of learning styles in teaching/tutoring
After covering some basics of education/learning theory, Team Freire
concentrated on developing an understanding of McCarthy’s 4mat Theory of
learning styles.
To summarize, this involves four basic styles of learning as follows:
Imaginative Learning–Feeling and watching, seeking personal associations, meaning, involvement.
Making connections. Key question: Why?
Type Two
Analytic Learning–Listening to and thinking about information; seeking facts, thinking through ideas; learning what the experts think. Formulating ideas. Key question: What?
Type Three
Common Sense Learning–Thinking and doing. Experimenting, building, creating usability. Tinkering.
Applying ideas. Key question: How?
Type Four
Dynamic Learning–Doing and feeling. Seeking hidden possibilities, exploring, learning by trial and error, self-discovery. Creating original adaptations. Key question: If?
Again, for me this is something I can accept without friction. If I had to
bracket myself into one of these styles, I think I would go along with either
Two or Three. I always want to know what the smart folks have thought about
the issues before, so I want to be quite academic in my reseach and read lots of
books. Then, I find real value in playing with subject, experimenting,
tinkering with ideas and testing things in (sometimes very tight) frames, to
see how they work under pressure and if I can really get my head around them.
One real challenge in here is finding out what makes the students tick and
that can often be a case of trial and error. I think it’s important, especially
when you don’t know the learners well enough, to present a wide variety of
different styles and then pay close attention to what they seem to respond best
to.
References:
Team Vygotsky: What is progressive learning?
The last session, from Team Vygotsky was just as interesting and
informative as the other two. To tackle this issue, we looked at Kai
Hakkarainen’s model of Progressive Inquiry and compared it to Kolb’s
Experiential Learning.
Below you can see roughly what it looks like and how it seeks to mirror the
same methods employed in the scientific community. This is especially useful in
learning when it takes place within a
group and the target is problem solving and knowledge building. In my
own experience, I have employed something similar when working with groups of
students in game design project and it’s much better (and I feel much more
confident with it) if I have a concrete theory to fall back on and a good
working plan.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment