Task 1:
Pre-Posting – Read all of the Freeman & Freeman, Chapter 4 (How Do People Learn and How Do They Acquire Language?)
Posting – From all of the questions at the end of the chapter (pg 101), Key Points, identify 2 you would most want to explore/take up/discuss. What theories or research supports resonates and could be used to bolster your teaching philosophy? What is your own personal and professional rationale for choosing these questions?
Key Point #2 | Vygotsky claims that people learn when instruction is targeted to their zones of proximal development.
ReplyDeleteThe Zone of Proximal Development is my favorite theory. Last year in Heidi’s class, when we were researching educational psychologists, class my group did a brief presentation on Vygotsky and Bronfenbrenner. Sean introduced an activity in which each member of the class was given a sheet of numbers which seemed to be randomly organized. It was the class’s job to find each numeral in order. The exercise was difficult for many, no one was able to finish within the time limit, until Sean revealed that there was a method to the madness, and the numbers were actually organized from right to left; once the class had this information, the exercise was much easier and many people were able to finish within the time limit. Coincidentally, this relates very closely to the same “tour guide” learning device Sean introduced to us last week in class: it is much easier to navigate a new place with a tour guide; we are able to explore places and information on a much deeper level when we have the knowledge of someone who has “been there before” helping us along. Thinking of ourselves as “more knowledgeable others” or a “tour guides,” is just one more way we can use to help us process information in a variety of different ways, which in turn helps us assist students in processing the same information.
Key Point # 6 | Teachers can mediate learning through direct instruction, modeling, and scaffolding.
Sometimes, in the art room, I feel like I do nothing BUT model. Most of the things I teach are “how to” demonstrations showing students exactly how to complete a project step-by-step (from helping 1st graders learn how to cut out circles for alligator eyes, to teaching 5th graders how to mix tints and shades within a monochromatic color scheme, to showing high school students how to install 5’ x 5’ sculptures without damaging the walls). For me, and in the art room in general, direct instruction and scaffolding are often weaved into the modeling process. I often give students the opportunity to directly participate in modeling, and frequently incorporate scaffolding questions into introductory presentations. Without realizing, I have used Figure 4.1 from page 81 to organize almost every lesson I’ve created/taught within this license program. I think this organization/these three types of teaching methods are the most important, because they encourage learning through a variety of contexts (verbal, written, visual, hands on, etc.). As a result, they help us create lessons that can be easily modified to fit the needs of each student.
I also wanted to add this quote from page 73:
Delete“While it is generally accepted that children go through a process of creative construction as they form and test hypotheses about academic content subjects and language, the learning they do is always social…learning does not happen exclusively inside the heads of learners; it results from social interactions with others that enable learners to participate by drawing on past and present experiences and relating them to the specific context at hand in some meaningful way.”
We spend a lot of time in OUR classroom, here at MNSU, talking about the ways we learn, and understanding the needs and processes of a variety of learners. I think the more we are able to think of learning just as it's described in this quote, as a social process, the more we will be able to communicate our learning goals to our students. In the end, it's the student's learning that we're concerned about, not our personal understanding of every educational theory or method that's ever been researched and practiced.
Karin, I just wrote an updated personal teaching philosophy for my ESL theories class...which was a semester long class talking about language acquisition theories. Anyway, my point is that even after learning many different theories, I still strongly believe in Vygotsky's zone of proximal development. I love that you tied in Sean's "tour guide" reference, because that's such a relevant example!
DeleteKarin, I like how you point out that the three methods (direct instruction, modeling, and scaffolding) help us tailor our lessons to our students. In these courses and in some of my content courses, we've talked about the need to teach our students according to their needs and learning styles. You're clearly getting a lot of experience in this in the elementary school classroom, since the needs and styles of 1st graders will be so different from fifth graders, and then the high school will be a different world yet again. The significance of this three-tiered approach to instruction was what made it one of my key points, too.
DeleteThanks for reminding me about that Vygotsky lesson! I had forgotten about it. Vygotsky is very influential in my outlook, too. We read a little about Stephen Krashen for this week, and his theory of "comprehensible input" includes a "level plus one" concept that is basically scaffolding within the zone of proximal development. Essentially, he reinforces Vygotsky's theory with some specifics for language learners.
Your two key points complement each other nicely. Thanks for the thought-provoking write-up.
Your follow-up post about the social aspects of learning and the importance of clear communication are spot-on, too.
Somedays I also feel like all I do in the art room is model. I worry that their isn't enough varied instruction going on, but then we go to art methods courses and it's like, "you always need to model." It just seems like an effective method, especially with younger students. Anyway, Vygotsky is my man too.
DeleteI was thinking about the social aspect of learning you mentioned and wondered how this relates to online coursework. I personally get a lot out of direct interaction with others, but not so much in the digital environment. Is part of this because it isn't as social? When I think about it, I guess that isn't the case. I know plenty of people who thrive online socially, but I am not one of them.
I also wonder how this relates to language learning. It seems something like online interactions require more language skills (or at least a different set). Is this a boon to language learning or an even bigger obstacle to over come? I mean, this isn't even a college trend, but a high school trend. What about ELL kids in online learning programs? I'd be interested to read about digital shift in education and how it effects english learners. Anyone have insight into the benefit/disadvantages of language learning via the computer?
I’m actually going to break the rule here and talk about just one point, but I have a lot to say about it, so I hope that is okay.
ReplyDelete“Vygotsky distinguishes between spontaneous concepts acquired through everyday experience and scientific concepts developed in school.”
I have a ton of opinions about this key point and I think this could make for a good discussion. First, this statement ties back to the discussion about academic language and Laura’s graffiti artist from way back when. I don’t know if you all remember that discussion, but the purpose/validity of academic language was brought up. The question was whether it was really necessary outside of the academic world. For example, the artist Laura mentioned didn’t have any formal training in academia, but was as successful as some of his contemporaries who had been trained.
My response to this was that while he may be successful, maybe he could have gotten to where he is faster if he had training. I also believe that he is limiting his potential by denying him access to academia. If he chose to further his abilities by looking to what others have done, he may not have the kind of access that someone who knows how to navigate the academic world would. Essentially, at some point his growth could be hindered by his lack of experience with academics.
Now going back to the key statement, I think Vygotsky makes a great point about spontaneous learning and an untrained artists development. Sure they may have skill and they might arrive at a certain point conceptually and technically, but it will involve a lot more skill. School in this sense is about weighing the odds in your favor. Instead of rolling the dice on experimentation, instruction develops skills intentionally. I find this is a far more efficient way to learn in life. Don’t get me wrong, experimentation is important, but it can’t be the only way (just as instruction can’t be the only way). I suppose (like most things) moderation is best in that a blend of spontaneous discovery and intentional learning can let a person access more of their true potential.
Of course this is all anecdotal on my part. I don’t have any research backing up my “to educate or not to educate” idea, but that brings me to my next point.
Another interesting idea that is raised by this key statement is the notion of “scientific” concepts. I am tired of viewing learning through the lens of science. I know you are all probably tired of hearing about learning in relation to art (maybe not Karin) because you’re in a group with artists, but the entire system of education seems to be focused on learning as a science. I find this odd when a lot of points (including some in this reading) suggest that it is a far more fluid, natural process. Clinging to one theory is discouraged and a more holistic approach seems to be the favored approach in our own education, yet things continue to be presented in terms of science. I mean we are working toward a Masters of ARTS in Education, but everything seems fixated on science. Maybe it’s just higher education’s (or education in general) need to classify and evaluate everything. I mean, I understand the importance of rubrics and charts and everything, but at some point, there is a component of feeling that can’t be quantified.
So I would like to say that while I agree with Vygotky’s statement in spirit, I would modify the statement to “distinguishes between spontaneous concepts acquired through everyday experience and academic concepts developed in school.” I know it seems like a simple issue of semantics, but I think that the word “science” sends the wrong message. Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox.
Feel free to stay on your soapbox, Ian! You make a really good point. I think the authors could have done a better job clarifying Vygotsky's idea applies to all disciplines, and that effective academic learning doesn't need to be narrowly defined as what is scientific.
DeleteAs for being tired of art, I actually relish hearing what you and Karin have to say from the perspective of your discipline. So much of what Molly and Erik and I have learned in our ESL classes has been about teaching in the "content areas," but that is almost always limited to Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies. The other components of a well-rounded education (art, music, theater, phy ed, etc.) are often left out or else discussed very, very briefly. As a teacher of ESL, we are constantly being told to think of our students' education in the holistic sense you described, yet the voices telling us to do that aren't always balanced in their description.
This was a thought-provoking post and your choice to go with only one topic was worth it to me.
...and if that last part sounds as condescending as I am suddenly afraid it might, it wasn't meant to be that way. It was meant to be a complement.
Delete(I'm tired; so tired.)
Ian I really like your deconstruction of the word “science” and appreciate your re-wording of that particular statement. "Science" is one of those words that's really similar to "art" in a lot of ways. They’re two words that are used to express both very specific, and very broad ideas. Science may relate to the subject we teach in school, but it also applies to the systematic way of doing things in general. Art also relates to a specific content area, but we talk about “art” when we’re referencing a HUGE number of things (the art of cooking, the art of conversation, the art of teaching, etc.) When I'm teaching ACT students about English rules and concepts I often talk about the difference between the "science of reading,” when referring to mechanics and grammar rules, and the "art of reading,” when referring to issues in eloquence, clarity, ambiguity, etc. One of the most important things I’ve taken away from this course, is the reminder that semantics is a huge issue in education; the words we use make a difference. It’s our responsibility to choose words carefully, and be crystal clear when using ambiguous terms, like “art” or “science” (or “study guide, or “test,” or “assessment,” the list goes on!), in order to be sure students are interpreting our lessons the way we intend (or at least in a productive way).
DeleteIan, GREAT reflection on viewing learning as a "science". Once again, coming from the ESL perspective, we've viewed language acquisition from about every approach possible and it's so important to look beyond just one aspect. We talk a lot about differentiated instruction to fit the various learning styles in our class, but I think differentiated instruction can be used with theories and methods as well. Perhaps try one approach for a certain situation or group or students, but switch it up with another. Can't we just take the concept of teaching as a natural fluid process and not always be backed by a "scientific approach"? It seems the most influential teachers are those that have paved their own way.
ReplyDeleteI just finished a semester long class on the theories of English language acquisition, so I’m going to go off on a little tangent on random theories to support my teaching philosophy. Total Physical Response is a theory that is based on the idea where memory is enhanced through association with physical movement. This idea is based on the communicative skill of listening to understand messages and to learn the structure of the language. The Communicative Approach is a personal favorite, which focuses on societal influences and interaction. Specifically in secondary grades, Content-Based Instruction can play an important role in providing second language learners instruction in content and language. Through content, learners are exposed and engaged in language learning activities. Steven Krashen developed the Natural Approach, associated with his “monitor model” where language is learned naturally in a stress-free classroom, focusing on comprehensible language input before output. If you are talking about theories and language acquisition, the man to know is Krashen for his many influential ideas. The last theory I chose to focus on is Cooperative Learning, where social interaction and academic learning experiences combine. This particular method combines positive interdependence, face- to-face interaction, individual/group accountability, social skills and group processing. All of these theories, as well as many others, are analyzed to develop theoretical awareness and promote research-to-practice learning.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I can’t go on without discussing scaffolding. The zone of proximal development is a critical component of scaffolding, letting students learn through the support of a peer or instructor. Scaffolding can be used in a variety of settings from one discourse to the next, creating many opportunities for fostering cognitive development and language learning. The student must problem solve by themselves, continuing to build and construct new knowledge.
Molly, this was a great summary of the many language teaching models we discussed in Vlad's class. Where were you when I was writing my final paper? (Ha ha!)
DeleteIn all seriousness, though, I think a lot of these models could be applied to other disciplines as well. I am thinking especially about Content-Based Instruction. One thing that I wish we had discussed more in our KSP courses was an integrated curriculum. What I mean is, all teachers in all the different classes having the same theme, whether that be the Renaissance, and studying the Renaissance in terms of art, history, science, literature, and math. Or the Roaring 20's, and studying it from all those different angles. Obviously, my examples are using historical periods as the focus, but I think an approach like this might better contribute to a well-balanced, holistic approach to education where what the students learn in one discipline complements what they are learning in all the others. That's the kind of school that I think would be awesome to work in.
Total physical response sounds interesting. Do students act out meaning or is it more like incorporating specific movements to language to help recall? I'm thinking of sort of physical mnemonic device. Is that right? I could see students having a lot of fun doing something like this either way.
DeleteI am surprised these theories are not a larger part of our curriculum. I know we have a lot to do as it is, but it seems like the things you're learning in your other classes related to ELL could be useful to non-ELL specific teacher candidates. It would have been nice to sit down and have everyone share specific information they think would be beneficial to other teachers outside of their content area. I think there is still a lot we could learn from each other's experiences.
Anyway, thanks for sharing these strategies.
Thanks for sharing these strategies Molly. My cooperating teacher uses total physical response a LOT for younger students. It's a fabulous way to help students remember directions and types of lines (students curve, straighten, wiggle, etc. their bodies to match certain types/shapes).
DeleteAlso, I agree with Ian. I really wish we would have spent more time in the classroom learning about what our fellow classmates have to offer in their content areas as far as these specific teaching strategies or research. I liked when we shared lessons last semester in Heidi's class! It would have been helpful to be taught a lesson by a few ELL teachers, especially since we ALL have ELL students in our classes.
Alright. The two key points I want to focus on are the fifth and sixth: Learning is a kind of cognitive apprenticeship and that teachers can mediate learning through direct instruction, modeling, and scaffolding. The whole book is about second language learning, but they use a lot of examples of math in chapter four, as well as other fields like linguistics. I think the research the authors cite (Brown for the fifth point, and Cazden for the sixth) shows us how we can make our content accessible to our students, and I don’t think it applies just to English Language Learners.
ReplyDeleteI think the four of us are all in our specific content areas because they are fields we are passionate about, even if we aren’t teaching. That makes us excellent candidates for welcoming newcomers “into the fold.” Whether it’s students learning English and adapting to life in America, or students from a minority culture with a different home language trying to stay up to speed with their English-speaking peers, or students entering an art classroom with little more than a vague expectation of what they might be doing, we will all be at the front of a classroom of students who feel like outsiders in one way or another. So, how do we reach them?
I think the notion of learning as an apprenticeship is really helpful. When I think of apprenticeships, all I can think of is this Nova episode where some guy made a Viking sword according to some recently rediscovered method. I can’t imagine that guy learned how to make swords by just grabbing a piece of iron and a hammer. It was a long, gradual process of trial and error, with a (hopefully) patient master teaching him the basics first. He probably did a lot of watching and then gradually did more and more hands-on activities, until finally he was able to become such a renowned smith that Nova came to film him in his smithy. Smithy. What an awesome word.
Anyhow, my whole point is that kids will enter our classrooms and be unfamiliar with what we have to offer them. Some will be really excited and want to grab the iron and hammer and start swinging away. Others will be shy or uncertain and will try to fade into the background and just get by. Both of these types of students, and those in the middle, need our patience and guidance.
First we show them, then we let them copy some of what we are doing. Then we develop a plan for them to gradually do it on their own. Then they are doing it on their own, and the next group of students comes in.
I think the idea of an apprenticeship goes hand-in-hand with direct instruction, modeling, and scaffolding. If we make sure our students can access our content and know when to use the tools at the right time, they will have success.
I am all for differentiated instruction. At this point, we all know the importance of having a variety of strategies to reach different kinds of learners. At the end of all things though, I think the ideal is this kind of situation. The student-mentor system has been done for generations all over the world. I really believe that is how humans are meant to learn. In my perfect world, every student would have a single mentor for everything they study. Of course, that would be an impossible system, but if mentoring can happen on any level then I think it is worth it.
ReplyDeleteI know everyone isn't going to learn like me, but I always learn more from working closely with a mentor. I don't know if it is the specific feedback, the proximity of teacher to student, or my attitude towards this style (maybe it is a combination of those things), but it always works for me.
Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but I am kind of sad there aren't as many apprenticeship systems left in the workplace. I've always been intrigued by the idea of working and learning under a master and then taking over their place when they retire. I guess I find that legacy aspect to be very romantic.
Hahaha Mike I loved your "smithy" comment. The same kinds of scenes play through my head when I hear the word "apprentice," except my nerd brain usually turns to Star Wars.
DeleteAnyway, the mentor/apprentice thing is huge, and I wish we spent more time going through this kind of process in teaching. We learn SO much from our cooperative/mentor teachers, and always talk about how learning in the field is so much more relevant and applicable (and FUN) than classroom learning. For me personally, I always better understand a subject after I'm forced to teach it. I always felt like a better server after training in a new kid. I always feel smarter after teaching a new ACT teacher helpful hints and organizational methods. Thanks for reminding me of this, because it's great information to try and apply to my classroom: students learn volumes from teaching and mentoring