Learning Philosophy

 

To be a good educator, you must know what your students need to be successful learners. In my Learning Manifesto, I discussed what I needed to become a successful learner, and what I wanted to give my students. In my follow up blog post titled “More Manifesto” I talked about what our learners need to have a meaningful learning experience. In my learning philosophy, I will discuss the learning theories I believe need to use to deliver a quality education to my students. 

​

I began my investigation of learning theories by thinking about how we, adults and children alike, learn. This reminded me of a conversation with my daughter where I was left thinking, “Why does she have to learn everything the hard way?” The reason is because she must experience things for herself. She will never understand the lessons I’ve learned in the way I’ve learned them because our experiences are different.

​

This led me to find others who have asked this same question. A Quora forum user asked the question: “Why do we always have to learn everything the hard way?” Another user, Dan Summerhill, answered this question with the best response:

 

Because once you have learned it, it gets easy.

​

It has a lot to do with the way teachers like to teach. The way that is easiest for them. Rote. This does not actually teach you something but may imprint it to memory. The difference is that a two-year-old may recite an algebraic equation but would have no idea what it meant.

​

Learning something the hard way means that even though you may know that steel turns a copper color at about 700 F and that the epidermis is instantly violated at 162F, you won’t learn what that feels like without experiencing it.

​

Mr. Summerhill is correct. The learning is more meaningful when we experience it. We stumble, we make mistakes, we connect prior knowledge to new discoveries, and it makes the knowledge easier to access the next time we need it.

So why isn’t school designed so that students can have these hard experiences? Why do teachers teach “rote” when they know it’s only committing facts to memory without the deeper learning only experience can provide? Because for more than a century, it is what teachers have been taught, too. 

​

We need a teaching revolution to address the needs of our learners

​

In my Learning Manifesto, I described how, after I found a reason to learn math, I fought for my learning, directed my pace and the path, and found resources on the internet that made the learning meaningful to me. I played with concepts until I had the experience needed to deepen my understanding. This is the type of learning my students need. They need a reason to learn, the ability to direct their pace and path to the learning, and the opportunity to play with the concepts to gain experiential knowledge.

​

I describe my calculus teacher in my Learning Manifesto and the type of teaching he did: sage on the stage. He lectured lessons where we needed to commit the formulas to memory without knowing why we use them. This is an example of the objectivist style of teaching.

​

The objectivist style of teaching believes that students are empty vessels and teachers are there to fill them—basically just knowledge transfer. It assumes that learners with significantly different experiences and prior knowledge than the teacher will understand the transferred knowledge in the same way as the teacher (Jonnessan, 1991). 

​

Objectivism assumes students are robots where we can share a file via a thumb drive and upload our knowledge to them. But knowledge and learning do not work that way. The way I describe a process to one student, may not work to describe the process to another student. This is because they do not have the same past experiences, and they are not working from the same well of prior knowledge, so you must connect with their thinking and prior learning differently.

​

Objectivism also assumes knowledge is stable and relatively unchanging (Jonnessan, 1991). This is categorically untrue and very unscientific thinking. For an example of the shortcomings of objectivism, just look at the changes in our scientific understanding of the world in the last 100 years. It wasn’t until 1977 that the theories of plate tectonics and continental drift were fully accepted by the geoscience community (National Geographic Society, 2013). These theories are now considered common knowledge. But according to objectivism, we would still need to believe as our forefathers believed. This is a flawed way of thinking. Without scientists asking the question “why?” when they didn’t know the answer, we wouldn’t have any of the scientific advances we have today. 

​

I knew objectivism wasn’t what I wanted for my students. I wanted something that could reach my students and make the learning meaningful for them.

​

I currently teach using a cognitive model of learning originated by Richard Meyer and expanded upon by John Sweller (Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer) 2020); Learning Theory Project Team, 2018). I plan my lessons around content units, starting with basic concepts that scaffold back to learning students have seen before. The lessons build on each other and get progressively more difficult. I’m able to add in projects where the students have the freedom to show their learning in their own way, but ultimately, I’m still the sage on the stage and the learning is transferred to the students.  The lessons are taught in a neatly constructed sequence decided at the district level, not by what each learner needs. This model of learning may be better than objectivism, but we can do better.

 

Our students need learning that meets their needs. They need a learning model that allows them to safely engage in the messy process of true learning. They need to be able to uncover knowledge through play and making mistakes. They need to discover the reasons that lessons are important to them. And, they need a teacher who facilitates their discussions and encourages them to ask questions that do not yet have answers.

​

The learning theory of Constructivism, based on Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development, addresses these needs and encourages the questions that don’t yet have answers.

​

Constructivism believes that every student learns in a different way based on their past knowledge and experiences, and that when learning new concepts, students put all new information through the filter of their world view. (Jonassen, 1991; Learning Theory Project Team, 2018). 

 

It is necessary to learn facts about the world, but the learning is more meaningful when it’s discovered through play and investigation. Students can scaffold new ideas on top of prior information to make the learning deeper and richer without needing a predetermined sequence of lessons.

​

The problem with currently employed learning theories

​

Marty Nemco Ph.D., in his series “How to Do Life” in Psychology Today was asked for advice by a high school senior terrified of life after high school (Nemco, 2015). She wasn’t prepared for her next steps. She didn’t know where she should go to college, what she should major in, or even if these were the right next steps. Her 13 years of education told her she had to go to college next, but didn’t prepare her for what she should do once she got there, or after. Dr. Nemco gave the student advice about how to approach her issues, but what struck me most was that, after he coached her about college and major choices, he suggested she take an internship to gain experience.

 

This is the advice I took as a college student, and the advice I’ve given to so many students myself. But, why? Why do we spend 13 years in primary and secondary school, to then go to college, which we pay for, to then have to work for free just to get experience we need to get a job? Why can we not do those internship activities as students - even students in high school?

​

So how can I prepare my students for the future?

​

I would like to employ the discovery learning method, a type of constructivist learning developed by Jerome Bruner (Discovery Learning (Bruner), 2020), in my classroom. This learning model encourages experimentation and collaboration between students and aligns with my Innovation Proposal. My Innovation Proposal calls for my students to interact with their lessons and allow them to play with the concepts they need to learn, then discuss their learning with each other to deepen their learning. In math, some lesson sequence structure is needed - you can’t use trigonometric functions to find side lengths of a triangle until you know things such as right triangles, how to measure angles, how to use a ruler, how to solve for a variable, how to divide and multiply, etc. But the sequence should be determined by the needs of the individual student and not by a one-size-fits-all solution. 

 

This model closely resembles how we learn in life outside of school. We investigate, we play, and we ask questions to deepen our learning. As we move through this process, we connect our discoveries to what we already know which makes our learning meaningful. 

 

The discovery model learning also provides an opportunity to get real world experience so that our students are prepared for their futures. Using this model, they are not told or even shown what knowledge they will need. They discover it for themselves. This model gives them the experience they need without having to seek an additional internship.  

 

Discovery learning encourages the questions that don’t yet have answers and provides a safe environment to learn the hard way, with investigation and play. It provides students experiences that prepare them for life after high school.

​

What are the teachers doing while the students are learning?

​

Using the discovery model of learning, students are fully engaged, they’re asking questions, and they are directing their learning. The teacher’s job is arguably harder in this model, though. Instead of a teacher planning a predetermined lesson and a path, they guide students’ discussions and research to help them learn the best ways to learn. Teachers need to be comfortable with the messy, chaotic process of learning, and their students taking different learning paths to reach their educational goals.

 

This process is different from what many teachers know. Our challenges lie in how to reeducate ourselves to better educate our students, and how to change our educational systems to support the learning modes our students need. The process of changing our educational system to best serve our students will be messy and chaotic, but that is how we as humans learn best.

​

​