I was inspired to teach high school based on experiences I had throughout my own time in high school. Several teachers left a lasting impression and these were almost universally due to their ability to tell stories and connect with their students. My teachers loved their content and they just seemed to love life. They had hobbies and interests that often intersected with their content, and they weren't afraid to share it. Discussions were facilitated by my teacher, but were live and always changing based on students comments and interactions. Some days we did end up talking about one teacher’s Harley-Davidson motorcycle between research methods and biology, but in the end, we learned the content that was needed. Little did I know that my teachers were using the learning theories of constructivism. These conversations allowed us to develop ideas into our own schemas. According to Piaget’s theory, schemas are the way that we process new information by categorizing it without our contextual knowledge and learning happens when new ideas challenge our schemas. (Cherry, 2019). By allowing us to share our ideas, we were sharing our learning categories with our peers. Lev Vygotsky’s theory of sociocultural learning suggests that learning is a collaborative process that is prompted by our culture and the people around us challenging our ideas (McLeod, 2019). This was also in play, as we were empowered to interact with our peers, share ideas, challenge each other, and genuinely learn from one another. I carried this idea into my own classroom. I wanted to be personable. I wanted to share enthusiasm for the material and connect it to me and my interests. I wanted, above all, to be a person who loved my content area, and loved talking about it with students so I could get their opinions, ideas, and perspectives. I wanted to learn with them. I have been in the classroom for 10 years and it didn't take long for me to consider that they grew up in a vastly different world than I did. My childhood was pre-internet, slower, and patient. My hobbies and interests were enriched largely through my friends and family. Now, my students have the world at their fingertips. Their sphere of influence is vast and the potential for hobbies and interests must be overwhelming. I am always curious about how they find their interests and these conversations quickly connect to material. When considering my personal theory of learning, I decided to ask my former students about what they experienced in my class. I asked them, “How do you describe learning in my classroom?. Please enjoy their responses in the video below: I was not surprised at the sheer amount of students who mentioned discussion. Nearly every day, I attempt to open with some questions that get them talking. This may or may not be attached to the current content, but it will usually get there. These conversations are in the spirit of Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning. I believe that facilitating discussions is one of my strengths, and I was happy to see the students mostly respond to the discussions in a positive way. Discussions allow students to frame their understanding within their experiences, and then, ideally, learn from other ideas that are presented. By having students share their perspective and challenge other ideals, students learn to empathize and understand situations in a more complex way (Cherry, 2022). As new ideas push the boundaries of our schemas we begin to learn (Cherry, 2019). By allowing students to use their context to discuss and connect with the material, they start the conversation empowered, and hopefully, leave the conversation challenged by other ideas and opinions. I want my students to be challenged by ideas and then given a venue to play with this new way of thinking. In addition to the question above, I asked my students, “What is one specific thing that you learned in my class?” I was curious what specific items stuck with them over the years, and I figured it would give me a sense of what my approach to sociocultural learning is yielding. Their answers are provided in the video below: I allow unlimited revision to empower a spirit of play in my classroom. The revision process was inspired by Papert’s constructionism, which focuses on play and making ideas sharable and tangible (Ackerman, 2001). Through the revision process my students share their information with me and their peers. The process is iterative and collaborative. We work together to make the work better, and putting your ideas out there in a public space is key to Papert’s constructionism theory (Ackerman, 2001). I stress the idea that learning doesn't always look like an A on a test or a successful essay and it often is seeing something in a new light, and those significant moments don’t always come from me. I also continue to consider Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning, which theorizes that we learn best when supported - and challenged - by our peers (Cherry, 2022), and discussions and revision work well to respect what students know, make them feel welcome, and then challenge them to grow through successes and failures. We need others to challenge our understanding and ideals. To fully teach my students, I need them to challenge my understanding of the content and the best way to reach them. I allow unlimited revision to empower my students to understand that mistakes are where the learning happens. Each group of students that graces my presence is made up of different experiences, culturals, and contexts, and they help me guide the discussion to ensure we all learn something. References:
Ackerman, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 1-11. Cherry, K. (2019, September 23). The role of a schema in psychology. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-schema-2795873 Cherry, K. (2022, June 3). Sociocultural theory of development. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-sociocultural-theory-2795088 McLeod, S. A. (2019, July 17). Constructivism as a theory for teaching and learning. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/constructivism.html
0 Comments
Week two MSU MAET Hybrid face-to-face is in the books, and I am thankful for my peers, professors, and others who joined me along the way. During the two-week experience we participated in two conferences:, the Michigan State University Educational Technology Summit, and EdCamp MACUL, hosted by the Michigan Association for Computer Users in Learning (MACUL). These conferences focused on ways to leverage technology in education spaces. Despite the similar theme, the approach was quite different. The MSU Ed Tech Summit was traditional with speakers presenting via Zoom, and offered a question and answer session. However the Edcamp, was presented as an “unconference” where professional peers get together, establish themes, and then talk about those themes within their professional and personal contexts. Both of these conferences were firmly within Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory. Vygotsky claimed that we learn through social interaction and pushing ourselves slightly with the help of others. Called the zone of proximal development, he defined it as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” (Cherry, 2022). It is the gap between what a child could learn on their own, versus what they need a bit of help with. This help comes from a parent, mentor, or peer who has that more advanced skill - a more knowledgeable other. I love the presentation of these mentors as peers. Peers are people on the same level, yet Vygotsky, recognizes that we all have specializations and strengths. In my mind, it limits the power hierarchy. We are all on the same level and all learning from one another. During the MSU Edtech Conference, I shared my experiences using design and creation tools as both a student and a K-12 educator. See our collected slides, here. Despite the limitations of being on Zoom, there were a variety of great questions and suggestions from the audience that led to more two-way learning. We were not presented as experts, but simply those that had experience using the tech. This same philosophy carried into Edcamp but due to it being face-to-face, it led to more organic conversation and learning. Facilitators were simply meant to introduce the topic and then let the participants discuss in an open fashion. Maybe because of us all being there due to interest and our professional role as teachers, the free form model worked. We all shared our experiences, challenges, successes, etc. I feel we walked out of there with more ideas and confidence to try new things, or look at aspects of education with a fresh perspective. Below is a montage illustrating edcamp MACUL. I was immediately interested in how I could use this model in my classroom. Edcamp works because participants are able to define the discussion topics, but given that it is through the lens of education, those topics were linked to the theme of the event. How could I get my students to facilitate big ideas from a text? What incentives would be needed to participate? Despite my love of sociocultural learning, public school students are still driven by points in a very behaviorist way. Would they be able to pick a core theme from a text and then spitball ways to connect it to their lives? The outside world? What about writing? Could we break into groups about the various components of an essay and then discuss ideas, evidence, etc.? I don’t have the answers to these questions, but it is clear the conferences, and hybrid as a whole got me thinking. I see these approaches as the future of education. As we get more understanding of cultural background and the influence it has on education, it is important to metaphorically open your door to others and their perspectives. We need to be willing to learn from everyone in a classroom, and we need to ensure that we are pushing ourselves slightly out of our comfort zone but within the zone of proximal development. Challenging ourselves can be intimidating, but it is possible to have fun while doing it. Sharing your expertise is awesome, but so is listening to others and amending our ideas. In a world where we are apt to shut out the outside world and keep ourselves in our own bubbles, we need to approach learning by understanding the importance of the whole class. References:
Cherry, K. (2022, June 3). Sociocultural theory of development. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-sociocultural-theory-2795088 Dillman, B. (2022). Ed Tech Summit: MSU Graduate Student Perspectives of Spartan Ed Tech [PowerPoint Slides]. Google Slides. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jBXFSNcQEu9MWTmWGHJn-oOZkGei82Ovc2HtDg7f4eY/edit?usp=sharing Michigan Association for Computer Users in Learning (MACUL). (2022, August 7). EdCamp MACUL 2022 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ne5WyUTZZ8 We were asked for one word to define the first week of our hybrid MAET face-to-face experience, and without much thought I said “whirlwind.” While seemingly negative, I intended anything but. This week has been loaded with experiences and information that, at times, has been overwhelming, but the experience has also been a whirlwind of inspiration. From reflections on learning theories, to creative play, we have been put through a week of rigorous fun. While discussing learning theories, we’ve discovered that we are all a bit of a behaviorist, cognitivist, and critical in our learning. We all know the feeling of positive reinforcement, learning from others, and questioning long standing traditions. Ideally, we know the importance of seeing things from multiple perspectives, showing respect for cultural differences, and going into learning situations with an open mind and an eagerness to be better. Whatever better might mean for you within your context and experience. The course has seemingly been designed to reinforce these theories throughout the week. From field experiences to the Michigan State Capitol Building and even ice cream from the Michigan State Dairy Store incentivizing us to soldier through the more content heavy research portions, behaviorism is alive and well. This was combined with fun creative exercises that allowed me to play with pipe cleaners for the first time since elementary school. I gravitated to the pipe cleaner due to childhood memories of using them, and while my products were pretty bad, they were met with enthusiasm from my peers and professors. My context of having nostalgia for the medium allowed me the comfort to take a risk and that was supported by my peers and professors. Sociocultural learning was in full effect with the people around me inspiring new ideas, and challenging me to push forward, even with my elementary school art supplies. Professionally, I saw the value of thinking of concepts through play. While seemingly “simple” these creative abstractions allowed me to see my professional role in a way that could allow students time to “play” with concepts. The acceptance of mistakes and expectation to simply try new things has allowed me to consider how I can redesign lessons with this same philosophy. What relevance is there in students memorizing plot points and regurgitating those back in a typical multiple choice test when they could make something that connects themselves to the plot, characters, and themes. Isn’t that a more rich learning experience as they seem themselves in the text versus me simply telling them what is important and asking to hear it back? These connections are less point driven and punitive. This week has reinforced how much of a pleasure it is to learn in a low stakes environment while having fun and making connections with the content. I have always been self conscious of putting pen to paper. My handwriting is terrible and borderline illegible, my art has always felt underbaked and lacking in representation of what I set out to capture, but in the spirit of constructionism, and the social backing of my peers, I put caution to the (whirl)wind and just went for it. That is what I mean when I call this a week of rigourous fun. Rigor in that I am often outside of my comfort zone and fun in that the environment welcomes play, mistakes, and growth. People are many things, their context matters, their interests matters, and their prior knowledge matters. We are all whirlwinds, and with the help of others, we can hopefully figure ourselves out. References:
McGregor, D. (2022). Experiences [Photo collage] McGregor, D. (2022). Creativity [Photo collage] |
David McGregorI am an English teacher and cat lover from Genesee County, Michigan who is eager to learn new things. Archives
August 2022
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. |