#Change11 #CCK12 The goose and the egg problem!

If you ask a teacher what is most important to him/her? Would he/she likely say “Teaching”? Likely. This is similar to asking a doctor what is most important to him/her.  It is about the practice of the profession, and so most people would give a similar answer.  However, if we reflect on why the profession is there and who to serve, would the answer be more than that?  I reckon the most important for any teacher is the practice of the profession to serve whom they would serve – the learner and may be himself too.

If you ask a learner or student what is most important to him/her? Would he/she say learning?  Likely. However, a lot of learners would add that they require a teacher to learn, at least when they are novices, without much skills and experiences.  So, some learners would say teaching, or teachers are most important to them, apart from the learning resources they need, and the learning environment or spaces provided.

Isn’t teaching and learning a goose and egg problem?

Here Vinod argues

Education 2.0 (it’s early, but Altius, Khan AcademyCK12, Udacity): “Education models that dramatically reduce the cost and increase the availability of quality learning.” The puzzling question is why education has not already changed. My guess is we have not experimented enough with non-linear, rapidly evolving, out-of-the-box approaches but have instead tried to force-fit ‘multi-media textbooks’ and other traditional (often broken) ideas into the “computerized” model. We have also had too much punditry from experts in education instead of just trying hundreds of new ways of doing things.

In response, Keith says in this post

But what resources like Khan Academy provide is instruction, not teaching/learning. Anyone who has been lucky enough to experience good teaching will know the difference, but it’s a sad fact of American life that most people’s mathematics schooling consisted entirely of instruction and exercise sheets. They simply do not know what teaching is, or what it feels like to learn from a good teacher. They watch a Khan video and think “That guy is doing it at least as well as my teacher (often a lot better) and I can play through his explanation as often as I need.” And they are right.

In the flipped model, teachers devote most of their class-time to the important activity that no technology can provide (at least today): helping students to learn in the same way a golf coach helps beginners (and not-so-beginners) to learn how to play golf.

I am particularly attracted to these sentiments and reasoning by Keith: “Vinod is probably like me. We learned in spite of not being taught well. Some of us figured out early in our education that the most efficient way to progress was to skip, or at least pay little attention to, classes we found boring or pedestrian, or even incomprehensible, and “teach ourselves,” seeking out help from more advanced colleagues or, in my case, the teacher whose classes I largely ignored.”

I am somewhat a teach myself person, so yes, these are resonating to me.

For the flipped model, I have such experiences even in my University days, when I read most of the books, papers at home, and then joined in the discussions and activities in class.  In other words, the class is like a workshop, where experiences are shared, and active participation, engagement and discussion is encouraged.  Not all the classes were like that, and so there were lectures, workshops, tutorials etc.  I did often try that myself too, in my early days of teaching, in various subjects.  On some occasions, there were presentations for certain subjects, or in the case of “projects” units, the project is the hands on unit.  There isn’t any need to lecture.  All learning is centered around a project.  The teacher would be there to support, encourage the ongoing development of project, and provide feedback in the formative and summative assessment.  So, flipped model is not entirely new, at least for me.  May be if the teaching method is based principally on the instruction, without hands on learning, or actual practice and reflection (or the authentic learning approach), as Stephen has kept on emphasising in a connectivist learning ecology, that is the problem.

I agree here with what Stephen says: “All very well, but there’s so much more to the world of Ed Tech than Sal Khan.” How about the various initiatives that have been launched in the past few years, especially the MOOCs?  Why aren’t these (like CCKs – CCK12, CritLit, PLENK2010, Change11, LAK12, ds106) even mentioned in those posts?  May be people have only been informed on some initiatives and aspects of online learning, but not all.

Here George has posted on MOOC:

Teaching and learning: Isn’t that a Goose and Egg problem as I once mentioned here in the Golden eggs in the MOOCs?

Is teaching essential in the learning equation? I could say it is like the 2-sides of the coin, and you need to teach and learn for the learning to be balanced.  How one is going to teach and learn is dependent on the context and experiences.  Some people may be more comfortable with their teaching by themselves, whilst others may be more comfortable with their learning through being taught by others.

Here is the recording of the presentation on MOOC – The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC.

How about your verdict?  I reckon teachers and learners may give different responses.

Postscript: Refer to Stephen’s slides on Knowledge, Learning and the Community – elements of effective learning.

Picture: from wikipedia on Goose and the golden egg.

About these ads

7 thoughts on “#Change11 #CCK12 The goose and the egg problem!

  1. Clearly, teaching is not required for learning, as you have noted that Keith, possibly Vinod, and yourself, self-teach.

    What are the qualities of this ‘good teacher’ concept that you are talking about? Are there a lot of this type?

  2. Pingback: write again on #change11 « connectiv

  3. Some useful points about expert teachers here. In the case of self-teaching, a good teacher is likely to have high emotional intelligence, good social and interpersonal skills, inquisitive, a good knowledge in one’s domain, and most important of all, a willingness to learn, to support and help others to learn in the learning journey. Are there a lot of such type? I don’t have the statistics, but it would be nice to know. How about your views on those qualities? Have you found a lot of them? Yourself? John :)
    Some more useful resources here. What do you think?

  4. I am disappointed with teachers. I think that all teachers should have passion for teaching, compassion for learners etc. I haven’t found many if any of this type. The best teacher I ever had wasn’t even a professional teacher, rather, he was a co-worker in a profession not connected with teaching. I think most (professional) teachers just go through the motions of teaching, without the passion for it. It is just a job for them. Learners need to accept this, and self-teach.

  5. Interesting to learn – your best teacher you ever had was a co-worker. So passion for teaching, compassion for learners is important for all teachers, so true. Learners need to self-teach. Yes!
    John

  6. Hi Ken,
    I am still thinking about the paper. Providing incentives for good teaching is a good management practice. But if we focus too much on monetary reward (i.e. extrinsic motivation), then soon this would encourage people to look for reward in order to teach well. Besides, there are potential issues, like teaching to the test, or even providing answers to students to all test questions, so they could remember the right answers – like the multiple choice questions, or drilling over and over again on test questions to ensure students’ mastery of the learning content, in order that the students could achieve high scores in test or examinations. Is it good teaching? May be, that is a reactive teaching strategy if the teacher wants to keep his/her job, as the students’ performance would determine whether the teacher is good or poor. Are these assumptions truly reflective of the reality? See this post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-astore/what-does-studentcentered_b_948403.html?ref=tw “Putting the most talented in front of our students, and empowering them to stimulate the intellectual and especially the moral growth of students” What is the assumption behind this? Who are the most talented? John

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s