A Word for Learning. The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer
“Give yourself time.”Time is one factor, educators and students in this computer age claimed they do not have. Teachers rush to finish the syllabus. Students rush to finish their homework and study for that test on Tuesday. With all those work done, students still do not learn. Ironic isn’t it? Papert (1993) gave the example of psychiatrist M. Scott Peck who conducted a mini experiment whilst trying to fix his patient’s car problem. Peck gave himself time to be in a comfortable position, took time to look at the situation and in a no hurry state, was able to focus and fix the problem. His feat elevated his status from a mechanical idiot to master mechanic. According to Peck, one can “solve any problem, if we are willing to take the time”. Sometimes, we just need time to reflect on what we have learned or to think through a problem. Time is essence to learning. Hence, as educators, it is imperative that we give time to our students to reflect and discuss as a good discussion promotes learning.
Jerome Kagan in his study found that some students are characteristically impulsive while others are reflective (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). Kagan discovered that the impulsive students who quickly responded to a question made more errors than the reflective students. The latter spent more time collecting information and analyzing its relevance to the solution. Often dismissed as slow learners, these students tend not to voice out in fear that they are wrong. Papert commented on how people do not like to appear “ignorant” or just plain wrong, especially in the presence of bosses and teachers who have power. Educators should nudge those “quieter ones who seems to be daydreaming” to speak out their thoughts. They may just be surprised at the intelligent answers these reflecting students will dish out.
In his quest to learn about flowers, Papert engaged in frontal rote learning such as learning from textbooks, going to the flower shop and on field trips to the botanical gardens. He would remember some flower names but his paroxysm of flower learning died soon after and he resigned to remaining flower illiterate. However, he soon discovered that his understanding and recollection of flowers improved when he made personal associations and connections to those flowers. It did not matter that those associations seem absurd; the bottom line is that he was able to facilitate his own learning through those connectivity. Students should be encouraged to make personal connections to their learning through whichever method that best suited their memory. I remember how as a student I had difficulty remembering some mathematical equations. I resorted to using images. One such image was the “topsy-turvy heart”. Whenever I think of polynomial equations; I will remember the inverted heart-shaped graph of r=1-sinQ (theta) and the rest of my Math understanding fell into place.
I smiled when I recalled Papert’s anecdote about Frank, the third grader who was labeled as having a learning disability. Frank who unfortunately learned to let “them think that he was doing it their way” just to belong to the culture of School, should instead be encouraged to express himself. His ability to pick up Papert’s insinuation of “Did you think about your teeth?” and used his teeth as an abacus to calculate, is undoubtedly not a characteristic of a slow learner. Given time and a proper nurturing, I am certain many Franks will come up tops.
Jerome Kagan in his study found that some students are characteristically impulsive while others are reflective (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). Kagan discovered that the impulsive students who quickly responded to a question made more errors than the reflective students. The latter spent more time collecting information and analyzing its relevance to the solution. Often dismissed as slow learners, these students tend not to voice out in fear that they are wrong. Papert commented on how people do not like to appear “ignorant” or just plain wrong, especially in the presence of bosses and teachers who have power. Educators should nudge those “quieter ones who seems to be daydreaming” to speak out their thoughts. They may just be surprised at the intelligent answers these reflecting students will dish out.
In his quest to learn about flowers, Papert engaged in frontal rote learning such as learning from textbooks, going to the flower shop and on field trips to the botanical gardens. He would remember some flower names but his paroxysm of flower learning died soon after and he resigned to remaining flower illiterate. However, he soon discovered that his understanding and recollection of flowers improved when he made personal associations and connections to those flowers. It did not matter that those associations seem absurd; the bottom line is that he was able to facilitate his own learning through those connectivity. Students should be encouraged to make personal connections to their learning through whichever method that best suited their memory. I remember how as a student I had difficulty remembering some mathematical equations. I resorted to using images. One such image was the “topsy-turvy heart”. Whenever I think of polynomial equations; I will remember the inverted heart-shaped graph of r=1-sinQ (theta) and the rest of my Math understanding fell into place.
I smiled when I recalled Papert’s anecdote about Frank, the third grader who was labeled as having a learning disability. Frank who unfortunately learned to let “them think that he was doing it their way” just to belong to the culture of School, should instead be encouraged to express himself. His ability to pick up Papert’s insinuation of “Did you think about your teeth?” and used his teeth as an abacus to calculate, is undoubtedly not a characteristic of a slow learner. Given time and a proper nurturing, I am certain many Franks will come up tops.
References:
Papert, S. (1993). A Word for Learning. The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, (pp. 82-105). New York, NY: BasicBooks.
Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2006). Psychology applied to Teaching. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
posted by Hidayah Amin at 8:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home