This week’s
article summary is The Effects of Telling
First on Learning and Transfer.
A pedagogical
conundrum for teachers is how often do we directly instruct students and how
much to we let them self-discover.
While I
support the ideal of self-discovery, I must admit I often struggled to provide
enough of it in my classes as a history teacher.
About 7 or 8
years ago, I visited a public high school that had totally committed to
self-discovery and project-based learning. Teacher lecturing was frowned upon.
I visited a few classes—science/math combos—in which the students were tasked
with completing group projects with minimal background information or
explanation from teachers. Teachers moved around the classrooms observing
student groups working on projects and often offered comments, but they weren’t
supposed to share their expertise with the students. It was pretty evident the
students were frustrated: they knew where the project was supposed to go (if I
remember correctly, it was something to do with determining how to land a space
craft on Mars) but they were adrift with how to get there (they didn’t know the
requisite math or physics). I saw a lot more blank stares than idea generation.
I finally asked a student how she enjoyed this new type of self-discovery, DIY,
project-based learning teaching, and she whispered conspiratorially so not to
be overheard, “I wish the teacher would call the whole class together and give
us some direction. I miss lectures and I’m probably going to transfer to the
district’s other high school.”
As teachers
we all know that prior knowledge is a significant asset in supporting
subsequent learning, and sometimes it’s the teacher who has to supply that
background content in order for students to then acquire new knowledge.
As such, I’ve
always been skeptical of project-based learning as a means of learning new
knowledge. It is often fun and can be used to apply what you’ve learned, but to
me it’s always seemed an inefficient and ineffective way to learn new content.
With all that
said, I was surprised by the findings in the article below that reveals that
self-discovery in fact does support long-term learning better than direct
instruction. The article provides a number of reasons why which to me all involve
the learner being more actively engaged.
Due to
confirmation bias, it going to take more than one research study for me to
change my opinion, but this article did make me reconsider my thoughts on
self-discovery.
Joe
The most common pedagogical sequence
in U.S. schools it to tell students the important principle or skill up front
and then have them practice on a set of well-designed problems. This approach
is a convenient and efficient way to deliver accumulated knowledge.
Nevertheless, many scholars are
working on instructional alternatives, for instance, having students wrestle
with a problem through a project, inquiry, or guided discovery and only then
revealing the “answer” or underlying principle. The mechanics of these
alternatives withhold didactic teaching at first lest it undermine the
processes of discovery. The theory is that students first need to experience
the problems that render told knowledge useful.
But is the experience-first approach
effective?
In a recent study, researchers
compared eighth-grade teachers who used telling-first and those who used an
experience-first approach. Students’ initial recollection and test performance
was the same in both groups, but long-term transfer was significantly better in
the experience-first group. Why?
The researchers believe it’s because:
- Telling-and-practice
pedagogy prompts students to apply solutions, one problem at a time, which
reduces their chances of seeing similarities across cases.
- Giving
students the end-product of expertise too soon short-cuts the need to find
the deep structure that the expertise describes.
- Without
an appreciation of deep structure, students are less likely to see the
structure in new situations that differ on the surface, and they will fail
to transfer.”
No comments:
Post a Comment