What does teaching consist of? My primary English teachers said never end a sentence with a preposition. Yet the authors do. Or, in the question beginning this paragraph they did.
The answers offered by the authors are: 1.) We assign some reading material and ask students to write answers to questions about it. And/or 2.) We offer presentations, either lecture or a lecture-discussion, during which students are required to take notes. These are methods that have been around forever and are part and parcel to every teacher's lesson delivery bag. But, do they work? They both use writing. They attempt to engage students with the material. The test is then, did they remember and understand what they read? Did a transfer of meaning occur? Was knowledge acquired?
Just as Confusius said, "I do and I understand," students too must act upon ideas in order for the learning process to occur. The authors argue that hearing or reading words is not enough by referencing Edgar Dale's cone-of-experience model. This sixty year old, intuitive model sounds a bit like Confusius. He believes that students and indeed all people generally remember
10 percent of what they read
20 percent of what they hear
30 percent of what they see
50 percent of what they hear and see
70 percent of what they say and write
90 percent of what they say as they do a thing
What does this all mean? It seems like reading is a loser, listening isn't much better and seeing doesn't help unless it is accompanied by writing. Students have to act upon what they have seen, heard and said. Did the authors mean act out? I hope not. I saw enough acting out by mid-schoolers during my first semester of student teaching. Bad humor asside, the authors mean acting upon what is seen, and heard. Acting upon they argue, begins with writing. Specifically with writing to learn (WTLs). Therein resides the power of the WTL-it is the start of the writing process that solidifies learning. It makes all the other things teachers do to help students acquire knowledge to gel, to stick to their enquiring minds. Yes, don't we wish that were so?
So, how would we know if we were successful? Ahhhhh the time honored tradition of the test. Now known as assessments, they can be formative or summative. We can stop and see how the students are coming along (formative) or we can subject them to end of unit exams which are usually written. The authors come out against most forms of testing (excuse me assessment) except writing. Specifically writing-to-learn.
They really come down on fill-in-the-blanks questions that are bolstered by preceeding chapter text that is highlighted multiple times and ways for important points and arranged in order of contextual importance. I have to throw a big raspberry at the authors over this position. When I was in the military I encountered a knowledge transfer process called programmed learning. It looked an awful lot like what the authors described. All types of content was successfully absorbed by military students using this method. HMMMMM ....... military, discipline, expectations backed by sanctions, students aged 18, 19 and 20. Yes, maybe not the education model we are working within.
I agree with the author's point of view. I always tend to remember my presentations more than the readings of some clsses. in term of writing , I have the same level of remembering in readings and writing.
ReplyDeleteThat's really the problem, isn't it? Writing to learn is the best way to teach but the hardest way to assess. And say we abandoned Core Curriculum and standardized testing starting this very minute: can our students actually write? Can our teachers actually teach in this way? The pendulum truly needs to swing back to this type of instruction, but the transition is going to be so painful.
ReplyDelete