Donate Now

I absolutely should be sleeping right now, but my mind is on fire. I think I may have finally found the words to articulate what I have been trying to express for the past two weeks. This is not a simple beast. Bear with me.

LEARNING THEORY AND ITS CONNECTION TO TEACHING THEORY
Learning theory. Someone accurately pointed out that we DO, in fact have a section on learning theory in our curriculum. All of the learning theory that is presented to us, however, assumes that a student’s level of “learning” can be measured by a certain “behavior.” The curriculum does not discuss any learning theory that deviates from this assumption. Let me know if anyone would like me to be more specific about this idea and I can take the time to elaborate on it. I believe it is absolutely necessary to be well-versed in multiple learning theories, not just the different aspects of behaviorist theory, to be a competent educator. Note: I am a far cry from well-versed, but I’m working on it First, to outline learning theory: learning theory (or, theories as to how humans learn) can be seen as a continuum, ranging from behaviorist theory to constructivist theory (both of which I’ll discuss momentarily). There is another continuum that parallels the continuum of learning theory, and this is called teaching theory. Teach for America discusses teaching theory extensively (Teaching as Leadership, or TAL) without focusing on which learning theory underlies it. As our rationale, TFA says that research has shown that the most successful teachers follow the model of Teaching as Leadership. But successful in what terms? Are our test scores reflecting the teacher’s teaching or the student’s learning? To clarify this point – it is important to note that in the context of both the parallel learning and teaching continuums, it is always easier to demonstrate that TEACHING has occurred than LEARNING has occurred. So, “key idea” one, if you will – learning and teaching are not necessarily equivalent.

TEACH FOR AMERICA’S LEARNING THEORY
So, let’s unwrap TFA’s teaching theory (TAL) a little bit. TAL is entirely structured around the behaviorist model of learning. In a nutshell, the behaviorist model posits that learning depends on behavior and consequences, and that learning is essentially the same as behavior. (Think of our “I do, we do, you do” structure – the “do” is the behavior, which is allegedly equivalent to learning). More about the behaviorist model: since learning is considered to be a behavior, school curricula are centered upon behavioral goals and objectives. As such, curricula “have been tightly sequenced according to a belief that the best way to learn is to master small bits of knowledge and then integrate them into major concepts” (Learning goals broken down into objectives broken down into key ideas, anyone? Sounding familiar?) I have expressed earlier frustration with the objectives with which we are working – the objectives are ALL behavior centered. The student will identify the place value of a digit through 9,999. I have tried to articulate that this is not my goal – my goal is not that my students will simply identify the place value of a digit, but that my students will understand the concept of place value. Problem with this objective? Understanding is not measurable. Behavior, however, is.

And so, in the behaviorist model (which IS what Teach for America’s model of teaching is founded upon), our students can demonstrate that teaching has occurred empirically (measurably – “all effective goals are measurable”), by manifesting enduring change in observable behavior. Assessments within the behavioral model focus on measurement of knowledge and skills, with little emphasis on performance and understanding. The behavioral changes themselves are the objectives of the the TAL teaching model. As such, behaviors (and what is viewed as learning) remain reactive in this learning model. The behaviorist model is entirely monodirectional – the teacher teaches, the student imitates. The teacher imparts behavior and learning to the student. The student receives the knowledge from the teacher. The student passively receives knowledge from the teacher, and has little to no entitlement in his or her learning. Further critiques of the behaviorist model: “Learners are passive. Cannot adequately explain higher-order functions such as language. Much of what we do is not learned through reinforcement of small, specific, decontextualized items of information.”

I would like to offer up a critique of the behaviorist model, and suggest that the behaviorist model (and particularly, passive learning and the student/teacher dichotomy) have very, very serious implications in preparing ANY student to become an active, contributing participant of a democratic society. These implications are magnified even further when the students are already oppressed. Before I do this, however, I want to give a very specific, very real and tangible example of my qualm with the behaviorist model.

EXAMPLE OF THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE BEHAVIORIST MODEL (AND TAL)
The first lesson I’ll be teaching my 2nd graders (this Monday!) centers around place value. The objective is “SWBAT (student will be able to) identify place value through 9,999.” If this was really my own personal objective for my students, I could have them passing the assessment in no time. Let’s say my number is 1,234. If they wanted to find the place value of the tens digit, they would simply 1.locate the digit that is second to last in the number (so, 3) and add a -0 to it (so, the value would be “30″). They could repeat this step for each digit in the number, adding -00 to the hundreds digit and -000 to the thousands digit, and so on and so forth. This is a behavior, and this behavior would allow students to successfully meet the objective of “identifying the place value.” This would be a successful strategy according to the TAL model.

Problem with this? My students would have absolutely no comprehension of digits as representations of units and groups of units. Understanding, truly understanding and conceptualizing place value (rather than the behavior of identifying it) is a critical and foundational skill upon which all numerical mathematic concepts rest. And so if students do not understand place value, they will encounter serious conceptual and logical difficulties in later mathematical instruction, and they will be put at a great disadvantage in respect to their peers who do have that conceptual understanding. And as an addendum to my example: it is also very anti-intuitive to attempt to segment the concept of place value from the other objectives of expanded notation, different representations of numbers, and other mathematical concepts. These concepts are incredibly interrelated and some element of deep comprehension is lost when they are broken apart into separate objectives and separate lessons. The idea of numbers as a system of representation, as well as the process of learning, is much, much more holistic than learning goals, objectives, and key points would have us believe.

Two main points of this example: 1. successful assessment of BEHAVIOR does not necessarily correspond to comprehension, and 2. TFA’s teaching model is clearly not pushing me towards teaching in a way that ensures comprehension within my students. It only ensures a behavior, in this case “identification,” which as I just outlined, does not always correspond to understanding.

THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF THE BEHAVIORIST MODEL
Now, my biggest critique of the behaviorist model (and consequently, Teach for America’s TAL model) before I go on to touch upon what I believe is a more effective (albeit more complex) teaching model. A few points to remember that will help tie this all together: 1. A democratic society is a dynamic organism, and it requires the constant participation of its members to survive. Further, in order for a democratic society to progress, its members must be constantly assessing the status-quo and demanding changes as necessary. 2. The purpose of the school is to act as an agent of socialization for the society – and so, for our case, to prepare students to become active, contributing members of our democracy. 3. The students we will likely be teaching are not fully participating or reaping the benefits of our democracy. However you want to look at it, our students are oppressed.

And so, within our schools, which act as microcosms of society, students are being granted knowledge and skills (embedded within behaviors) by their teachers. What do I mean by granting knowledge and skills? Well, it is only the teacher who has this knowledge and these skills, and in our TAL model, the teacher must model the behavior independently (“I do”) before the student imitates it. The student plays no role in procuring the knowledge or the skills for him or herself. As such, students are being taught at the micro-level that they are changed by their environment. They learn when a teacher offers up new knowledge or skills, and they accept it. Not only are the power politics incredibly intense within this dichotomy (particularly with a white teacher and a minority classroom), but students are learning that they are changed by their environment. They have no role in manipulating their environment to procure knowledge for themselves, and because students are not developing entitlement to their environments or to their locus of control (because knowledge and learning is something that is GIVEN and MODELED), on the very tangible level, they do not develop the abilities they need to assess or manipulate the status quos of their own environments or of society at large.

So what is the big deal, then – a large majority of public schools in the United States are following the behaviorist model, so why shouldn’t our students be taught in the same method?

If anyone needs to develop a sense of entitlement and control over their environment, and if anyone needs the skills to procure knowledge for themselves and continue learning when their only support system finishes the two-year commitment, if anyone needs to actually understand rather than just go through the motions of the behavior, if anyone needs to assess their own status quo, it is our students. How we teach is just as important as what we teach in priming a student for democratic assessment and consequent progress, and what we are teaching our kids is passive reception. The effects of how we teach and how we treat knowledge (as either static facts or manipulable and fluid) are far less theoretical than this language may suggest. In the real world, on an every day basis, the way in which we teach changes students expectations of themselves as well as the way and to what extent they will participate in society. If anyone needs to be actively creating, it is our students. We need to give them the skills, the tools, to carry out this movement themselves.

AN ALTERNATIVE?
“Our task, then, is to understand and nurture the learning and development of our students. We must not do for them what they can, and must do for themselves.”
J. G. Brooks

Constructivism is….

It is a theory about knowledge and how we learn — not a theory about teaching.

Speaks directly to the central issues of school reform.

Views the learner as a thinker, creator, constructor.

Creates settings in which students are encouraged to develop hypotheses.

Encourages students to test their own and others’ ideas.

Makes connections among “content” areas.

Assesses student learning in the context of teaching because real problems are inherently interdisciplinary, and interdisciplinary problems rarely have one, easily accessible, correct answer.

Explores issues and problems of personal relevance, both existing and emerging.

Forms in students the disposition to be life-long learners.

CONSTRUCTIVISM IN THE CLASSROOM
At the opposite end of the learning theory continuum is constructivism. I’m going to copy, verbatim, a great article that illuminates the concept of constructivism much better than I can:

http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/v09n03/practice.html

Constructivism’s central idea is that human learning is constructed, that learners build new knowledge upon the foundation of previous learning. This view of learning sharply contrasts with one in which learning is the passive transmission of information from one individual to another, a view in which reception, not construction, is key.

Two important notions orbit around the simple idea of constructed knowledge. The first is that learners construct new understandings using what they already know. There is no tabula rasa on which new knowledge is etched. Rather, learners come to learning situations with knowledge gained from previous experience, and that prior knowledge influences what new or modified knowledge they will construct from new learning experiences.

The second notion is that learning is active rather than passive. Learners confront their understanding in light of what they encounter in the new learning situation. If what learners encounter is inconsistent with their current understanding, their understanding can change to accommodate new experience. Learners remain active throughout this process: they apply current understandings, note relevant elements in new learning experiences, judge the consistency of prior and emerging knowledge, and based on that judgment, they can modify knowledge.

Constructivism has important implications for teaching. First, teaching cannot be viewed as the transmission of knowledge from enlightened to unenlightened; constructivist teachers do not take the role of the “sage on the stage.” Rather, teachers act as “guides on the side” who provide students with opportunities to test the adequacy of their current understandings.

Second, if learning is based on prior knowledge, then teachers must note that knowledge and provide learning environments that exploit inconsistencies between learners’ current understandings and the new experiences before them. This challenges teachers, for they cannot assume that all children understand something in the same way. Further, children may need different experiences to advance to different levels of understanding.

Third, if students must apply their current understandings in new situations in order to build new knowledge, then teachers must engage students in learning, bringing students’ current understandings to the forefront. Teachers can ensure that learning experiences incorporate problems that are important to students, not those that are primarily important to teachers and the educational system. Teachers can also encourage group interaction, where the interplay among participants helps individual students become explicit about their own understanding by comparing it to that of their peers.

Please take the time to check out the rest of the article – it has some absolutely great suggestions for how to incorporate constructivism into your classroom. The significance of constructivism here, then, is the student’s active role in their learning experience. When they see that they have the ability to assess a situation and procure knowledge from it, and when they practice that ability within a structured environment, they will gain the confidence they need to take and practice that skill everywhere. They will carry their ability to teach themselves outside of our classrooms (maybe it really does all come down to the old adage, if you give a man a fish…). Further more, when students see that it’s not just the teacher that has all the answers (and the access to the resource of knowledge), some of the unfathomably complex power politics that exist between teachers and students (and in many of our cases, between races, between socioeconomic statuses, between genders), will begin to fall apart.

I really have faith in constructivism, and honestly, my faith is wavering with the behaviorist model, and with TAL. Constructivism is essentially the very opposite of backwards planning – I want students to build up to new knowledge based off their own experiences, rather than knowledge being handled down to students from the teacher. Of course, in some circumstances, students will need to be provided with certain tools they need to order to build up to that knowledge. We live in a systemized, representational world, and not all knowledge can be inherently constructed. In these scenarios, I have no problem with behaviorist models. But most of the big things, the big ideas, the big concepts – at the second grade level, phoneme patterns and math skills, for example, are much better comprehended when constructed through experience.

I have a very, very specific example of the wild success of constructivism versus behaviorism in literacy development (specifically, phoneme awareness and phonics). Keep an eye out for my next post and I’ll outline it.

I’m not sure if there is any room for constructivism in the TAL model, but honestly, I am not sure if I can go through two years’ of teaching with methods I do not believe in. Even my very first lesson feels very contrived and focused on a behavior, not a certain level of understanding. If I could teach this lesson the way I want to, my kids would be exploring manipulatives with my guidance, before I modeled anything. Would it be less structured than the TAL lesson? Absolutely. Would my kids have a much better understanding of place value if they were provided with a directed, hands-on, experential environment, rather than a passive “I do, we do, you do”? I believe, strongly, that they would.

I want to be clear that I have a tremendous amount of respect for TFA, and our potential for serious impact is unlike anything I have ever experienced. I have no doubt that TFA put, and is putting, tremendous amount of time and research into teaching AND learning theories, and exploring their implications on a number of levels. However, as much as TFA pushes us to question status quo and as hard as we strive, as an organization, to act as the democratic society we envision, I am a little put off, however, by the almost complete lack of learning theory alternatives to the behaviorist model in our curriculum. TAL is presented as if it is THE only effective way to teach, and no merits of any other models are offered at all.

I’m feeling incredibly torn right now. I am honestly loving institute because of the people, the energy, and of course, the kids, and I feel something somewhere deep that I am cut out to teach. In the same breath, however, I can’t not question what I am doing, and I can’t mask the fact that I don’t have faith in our methods. Sure, I think TAL may get us test scores, but is it the best way to get these kids to the points of cognitive development and deep comprehension (and not just behaviors) they need to be truly successful in the long term? I do not believe so. I’m not sure how willing I am to continue to break down knowledge artificially and teach in a way that forces my kids to be passive in their learning environments. I’m not sure, doing what TFA is asking me to do, that I feel like I am part of any solution at all. I am not comfortable, and I want to discuss this with someone within my institute, but I am not sure who to turn to – any suggestions? CMA? Fellow corps members?

Some more constructivism resources, FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)#History

http://cte.jhu.edu/techacademy/fellows/ullrich/webquest/mkuindex.html

http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/under.htm

http://www.miamisci.org/ph/lpintro5e.html