After class today I've been thinking a lot about learning theories and learning styles and issues related thereunto. One idea I have is related to the common complaint I here among students, How is this going to apply to me after I graduate, or What is useful about this subject required by my degree?
As a supporter of the concept of liberal arts education, I have usually responded with, We're not teaching you specifics so much as we are teaching you how to learn effectively in the future. Indeed, if we are going to be successful, we need to be lifelong learners. But then what about all those complaining students? If they disagree should they drop out of four-year institutions and get a certified in whatever program certifies people for their chosen profession? Maybe, but maybe not.
Why can't liberal arts be embedded within professional programs,
where students are actively engaged in work, real work with real expectations and outcomes, but the learning model is still multidiciplinary and broad-based? I've cited this before, and it seems cheesy I know, the I really like the learning model presented in the movie The School of Rock.
Not that Jack Black's character in the film was primarily concerned with the kid's learning--he wanted to win a battle of the bands contest, but he created a curriculum in which kid's were able to choose what they wanted to learn, how they were going to approach the tasks assigned to them based on those choices, and what level of understanding they needed to accomplish their goals. At first the kid's questioned and resisted the curriculum change, but eventually they had a happy ending, as any Hollywood movie should, because they took on the tasks and performed very well.
What learning is lost when students are given hands-on practical work to do, work that could possibly benefit society in some way?
In my Video II class students are making PSAs (public service announcements) for local non-profit agencies. They investigate a menu of agencies to choose from and find one they are interested in. They meet with representatives from the agency and discuss the project including the group's immediate needs for advertising--whether they need recruitment, funding, or volunteers. They work with the agency to come up with a concept for the production--hopefully a metaphor that will stick in viewer's minds that reflects on the group's core values. Then they schedule shoots of the agency's activities, shoot testimonials of clients or participants, or shoot according to the metaphor being used. They edit the materials together, present them to the client, and if accepted by the client, we broadcast the PSA on our cable TV airtime and the agency can buy airtime for the spot on network TV as well.
Some other student's are receiving credit for doing a local version of Fox Sports' Best Damn Sport Show or ESPN2'sCold Pizza. In the past student's have produced several comedy shows and a somehwat successful late-night talk show. Are they learning anything? I really, really think so, because they are doing something they want to be doing. I also have some kids coming over from Howard High School working with me getting HS credit. Its all pretty recent and unmeasured, but I think these kids are going to get a lot out of the experience.
Again, I believe that learning can and should be fun. Sure there are concepts and groundwork courses that must be taken. Kids should know how to read and do math. They should be able to express themselves both orally and with writing by the time they get to college, and certainly by the time they get to my class. But what incentive are we dangling in front of them to get them to push themselves to learn these things. Grades? For many students this isn't working. I have had enough students ask me what the minimum was they would have to make on a final to get a passing grade--D, to pass my course to know that grades are not motivating students. We have a huge population os students who are happy doing the bare minimum, heck, I'm one of them, unless it's something I want to do or learn. Wouldn't they do more if they thought their work was to be used in some way.
What if they don't learn calculus? What if they don't ever read Shakespeare? They obviously don't care about the value of these things, I wonder why do we? What is the harm of allowing a student to choose to explore conceptually their own areas of interest--within the broad categories prescribed by a liberal arts education?
I have a couple of suggestions for "learning by doing" that I want to investigate further:
1. English 121 and 122 need to be embedded in some kind of real-world experience. They do this on MTV's Real World every season now, the housemates have to work together on some project. Working for a recording studio, starting a business, producing a documentary. Let's face it, the kids are watching the MTV anyway, let's model some of our curriculum after the popular culture the kids are more concerned with anyway.
2. Every subject should involve some hands-on learning. EVERY ONE. Science courses have a 1 hour lab requirement for every 3 hours of lecture. Shouldn't that be the other way around? Math doesn't have any lab requirement, yet its one of the most practical day-to-day applications we have. Get those kids to an accounting firm, or auto shop, or a hair boutique, or anywhere and show them the VALUE of using math skills on the job.
3. Create assignments whose end-results are shared. If kids write a speech on MLK, post it online. If they are learning history, hold a discussion on how whatever topics are applicable today. Kids/students/learners need to feel like they are moving toward an established goal and more and more the goal of making an A has less value for kids. It does for me, but I would sacrifice any A on something I could care less about for a D in something that actively engaged my interests. My thought is though that the potential for success is much higher in the latter situation.
I have a friend who is an admitted C student in Biology and Chemistry but who is highly regarded at the Tennessee Aquarium for being somewhat of an expert in how to treat chemical problems around the fish. Is he learning? Of course, but the application of the textbook knowledge is what drives him, not the grade. He likes fish, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Most of this falls under the Cognitive and Constructivist learning theories, though I would argue that Motivation has EVERYTHING to do with student's learning. I'll keep exploring this idea to see where it leads me. Any suggestions or other examples of this would be appreciated.
Posted by cmwillis at February 11, 2006 1:42 PM | TrackBack