BP3_2009101_Anti-Teaching

Last month, we read about the need for education to shift its paradigm from the Industrial Age to the Digital Age. Regeluth (2009) argued for customized, flexible progress--where students move at individualized paces. They don't move onto a new goal until they've mastered the current one, nor are they made to wait for classmates if they are ready to move on before others are.


This makes sense. But how do we do it? I think that virtual learning environments or PLEs could be an answer, but not necessarily the only one, and not even always the right one. I believe that technology can help, but I believe even more strongly that good teaching and successful learning can happen regardless of what technology is or isn't available.


More than anything, I think the answer is in making connections between content and the real world. Last month, my group based our project around the instructional design of thematic learning. The main argument for this theory is that it allows students to make connections between what they learn in school and the real world (Beatty, 2009).


This ties in directly with month 2 and Brain Based Learning. Jensen (2008) said that the brain is best equipped to remember content when it is delivered within a real-world context. This engages multiple senses and therefore multiple memory pathways (p. 163).


Personally, I like the way Educause (2009) stated it: "The goal for the student shifts from a need to collect information to a need to draw connections from it" (para. 12). The idea that simply acquiring facts constitutes acquiring knowledge needs to be put to rest. We need our students to actually think. And, if we're going to ask that of them, then it is our responsibility to engage them.


PLEs could work for some students or schools. I don't think they'd necessarily work for me. (More on that in a moment.) Technology can be extremely helpful, because it can bring the real world into the classroom. But I think the real key is that teaching can't be lecturing. Learning can't come from a textbook. Teaching should be facilitating students' ability to explore content and make connections. I think that, as teachers, we've fooled ourselves into thinking that students need us more than they really do. Why do we have to lecture before we let them try anything? Do they really need all that information before they start? The truth is that we should let them jump in, explore, learn on their own, and then we can be there to fill in some gaps when its necessary. If we do this, then what we say will be meaningful and relevant to them. Is it now?


We should create games and simulations (virtual or otherwise). We should allow them to choose the topics they want to research and explore. And we should help facilitate their learning rather than try to dictate it.


That was pretty easy to write. But the truth is, I can't always see how to fit what I think on a philosophical level with what I actually do in the classroom. I want to, and I'm searching, but I won't pretend even for a second to have all of (or even some of) the answers. Part of the issue is that what I do is different from what "core" teachers do. There is a lot of "doing" in my class already. But I won't hide behind that to say that I don't need to change what's going on in my classroom.


How does a middle school orchestra teacher facilitate customized, flexible, progress? I'm so torn between the fact that when I read this I think, "Yes! Students should be able to learn at their own pace!" and the fact that I believe that orchestra is a "team sport" where each member has an obligation to contribute to the good of the whole, and thus occasionally make personal sacrifices. (I'm thinking here of the kids that tell me that the music is "too easy." For some of them, this is absolutely false anyway. For a few, it might actually be true. But shouldn't they still be asked to play this music with us and be challenged through leadership roles or technical things that they can be working on regardless of what music they are playing?)


With technique, individualized pacing and goals seem like a possibility. Certainly, there must be a way to restructure beginning strings so that students move through the method book at their own pace and I am their consultant rather than their leader. This is a new way of thinking for me, but I can wrap my brain around it. I think it's, at the very least, worth a try.


But what about with the actual development of the ensemble? We have to work as a team. (Right?) No team sends its stars off to do their own thing for fear of them being bored with what the others need. (Right?) So I need to find a way to address the needs of individuals within the context of the group. Sometimes, I think I'm good at this. At the very least, I'm the queen of keeping all of my students occupied even when I'm working specifically with a small group. (I teach middle school. That's a teacher-survival skill.)


The truth is, the current structure of my classroom is very teacher centered. I look at what I do as wearing two hats--I teach individuals how to play their instrument, and I teach a group of musicians how to work together as an ensemble. But right now, I'm wearing both of those hats in essentially the same ways. As I learn more in this program, I struggle with how much of what is "traditional" for on orchestra classroom should continue to be done. I don't think I will ever completely abandon it. But I think maybe I need to wear two hats in terms of how I deliver instruction as well. When we're working on ensemble skills, I think that's time for everyone to be a team player--we can all work together and if you are "advanced" then you can be a leader within the context of what we are all doing. But I think it's time for me to re-evaluate the technique side of my teaching. Here's a place where it seems very appropriate to have students work at their own pace, and for me to facilitate rather than lead their learning. How do you create a PLE for learning new technique on the violin? I'm not sure. But I'm going to think about it a lot this month.

References

Beatty, B. (2009). Fostering integrated learning outcomes across domains.
        
          In C.M. Reigeluth & A.A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design

          theories and models (pp. 275-299). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Educause Learning Initiative. (2009, May). Personal learning environments.

          Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7049.pdf

Jensen, E. (2008). Brain based learning: the new paradigm of teaching.

          Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Reigeluth, C. (2009). Instructional theory for education in the information

          age. In C.M. Reigeluth & A.A. Carr-Cehllman (Eds.), Instructional-

          design theories and models (pp. 387-399). New York: Taylor &

          Francis.