Myers, Ken (kmyers@netg.com)
Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:06:08 -0500
From: "Myers, Ken" <kmyers@netg.com> Subject: In response to constructivism and learning culture Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:06:08 -0500
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is good to see that the primary focus of the dialog on constructivism is
focused on the classroom delivery of instruction. Everyone seems to accept
the dynamic of that classroom as a 25 to 30 students for 45-50 minutes
reality. However real that description is, the limits of teaching in this
environment are not a constructivist approach or a traditional approach.
upstate New York. The learner population was middle school 7th and 8th
grade students. These students used "their" music as one of the key
attributes that made them different from "us." At the time, this junior
high school was using a tracking system to group learners into sections by
relative ability (A groups, B groups and C groups [A being the highest level
achievers]). Because I was involved in a masters program in instructional
design, I applied for and received a grant to develop an objective-based
curriculum in music composition to be used in this classroom environment.
This curriculum consisted of a series of highly interactive modules with
accompanying examples that presented, provided practice and produced
deliverables for a series of composed pieces of music that taught some of
the basic tenants of melody, harmony and counterpoint. The classroom
facility allowed learners to work in multiple locations both in the room and
in adjecent practice rooms. The atmosphere was a lot like a study hall with
groups of students working on various parts of the curriculum -- sometimes
alone and sometimes with their peers. To demonstrate mastery and to receive
additional help, the learners met with the classroom instructor as required.
This resulted in direct contact with every student on most days in this 45
minute class. The results were that most learners completed all the modules
at a specified level of mastery. Some students moved from the role of
learner to the role of tutor to assist other learners who were making slower
progress.
One amazing and significant result was that this system destroyed the
tracking system for many of these students. While mastery was the intended
goal for each student, in reality everyone was ultimately evaluated by the
number of modules they were able to successfully complete. Students in the
lowest tracks were able to perform at an equal level with students in the
upper tracks.
What problems were presented by attempting to use this type of instruction
in a traditional classroom institution. The first thing learners had to
understand is that there were no comparisons being made with their fellow
students. Each person achieved or did not achieve based upon the task
specified. This was a contradiction to what they experienced in every other
class in the school. There was no negotiating a percentage of correctness
nor was their any alternative assignments. The absolute of pass-fail was
the first lesson they mastered. Some were able to shift gears and others
had the expected problems you might anticipate.
Highly motivated learners were able to achieve all the specified modules
with time to spare. Those that did not want to tutor others required extra
curriculur activities to occupy their time while the rest of the classroom
completed the course. Other faculty in the building were amazed that the
free association they observed in the classroom was actually a learning
environment. How could you let the students get up and talk with one
another. How could you let groups go off and work in practice rooms.
The structure of a traditional institution was certainly an obstacle to this
attempt at demonstrating another approach in the classroom. Doing a follow
up with some of these students might reveal just how beneficial this
technique was in communicating musical skills to these students. However,
one thing was certain. For every moment in that classroom each learner knew
exactly how they were doing and what was expected of them to be considered a
top performer. That fact alone guaranteed that the vast majority could be
motivated to achieve at the highest level possible. Even though they were
in a classroom, they were being taught as individuals. Not a constructivist
approach for sure. However, for one brief moment, education was being
delivered that followed the basic research on learning that we have all
encountered in our education travels. When I left, the young man fresh out
of teacher's college who took over the position looked at what I was doing
and buried it in a folder.
Why bring up a less than scientific experiment from the past. Until we
consider using the emperically proven theory that has been around for the
better part of this century, we will continue to put a new spin on an old
problem - Why Can't Johnny Learn. Johnny learns even if we do not know why
or what he learns. Are we really inventing new approaches or polishing old
excuses.
Ken
Ken Myers
Ken Myers
Senior Instructional Designer
NETg Research and Development
630 637-8903
Kmyers@NETg.com
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 16 Apr 1999 - 20:56:20 MET DST