The Learning Network
Solutions
Get
Connected|
|
The Learning Network
Solutions
Get
Connected |
|
||||
|
Online discussion with Brian CambourneTranscript © 2008 by Richard C.
Owen Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. |
||||
|
|
|
Richard Owen Good evening friends and welcome to another online author discussion. We are honored to have Brian Cambourne with us for the next four days. Brian is an Australian educator and researcher who has had a decades-long interest in exploring the environment where learning can occur. If you have not yet read the article he wrote for The Reading Teacher in 1995, please do. You can access it at http://www.reading.org/publications/journals/rt/selections/abstracts/RT-49-3-Cambourne.html. IRA has graciously agreed to keep the article at their website for the duration of the conversation. The article provides a useful introduction to the components Brian articulated more than 20 years ago. Please keep in mind that Brian is writing from Australia. It is now late morning Monday in that part of the world. Brian is eager to talk with us about any questions or challenges you have with understanding and applying the conditions of learning to classroom practice. I would like to offer an opening question that I hope is broad enough to allow Brian room to express thinking that will give some general ideas about the conditions and prompt other questions. I appreciate the historical background that is included in the article that appeared in The Reading Teacher. What I am wondering is how you came to describe the components in the way that you did. Can you talk a bit about coming to clarity in your views and language. What was it that helped you "see" immersion as immersion and demonstration as demonstration and so on? At some point this evening Brian is sure to see this message and to use my question to share some insights with all of us about his views regarding conditions of learning. For all of you, please feel free to post your question(s) to the listserve at any time. If you have a burning question there is no need to wait for Brian's response to this opening message. If you have a question you prefer not to post personally, write to me off the listserve. I will be happy to help. We are very pleased to have Brian with us. Please welcome Brian Cambourne to the TLN listserve. Richard Owen |
||
|
|
|
Brian Cambourne Hi Richard and all members of the TLN network. It's 12.53 pm, (nearly lunch time) in the part of Australia I'm writing from. It's a wet summer's day. I've just been outside in my yard trying to unclog a drain so that the excess water building up around the motor which drives the air conditioner for my office can run away. My fingers are wet and are sticking to the keys. But I'll do my best. How did I come to name the conditions I identified? What an intriguing question. How does one come to name any new experiences, events, happenings, insights etc that one encounters in the course of one's life? The short answer is one dips into one’s linguistic data pool of lifelong experiences (and these include talking with others, reading what others have written, talking to oneself), composes the meanings one wishes to communicate, tries these out with as many other human minds as possible, continually evaluates how these other minds have interpreted the meanings you've constructed , and adjusts and modifies one’s linguistic choices until the responses one gets to these meanings begin to be interpreted as you intend. The labels I gave to the conditions of learning are the end product of these kids of processes. Perhaps a little bit of history might provide some insights into what I mean. For my doctoral research I applied the canons of naturalistic inquiry to the study of verbal interaction patterns of Australian toddlers in the various settings they inhabited in the course of their daily lives. My aim was to describe and ultimately understand (i.e. "develop a grounded theory of") the role of verbal interaction in the linguistic development of rural and urban Australian children . Accordingly I spent three years "bugging"(with a small radio transmitter attached to their clothing) and "spying" on (observing at a distance with field binoculars) urban and rural toddlers as they interacted with parents, siblings, peers, neighbours, relatives, teachers, and strangers over the course of a full day. My data comprised hundreds of hours of audio transcripts of the verbal interactions in which these children participated, as well as all the language of others they overheard. These were transcribed into thousands of pages of the language used by my subjects and each of the multiple agents they overheard and/or interacted with in the course of a waking day. These transcripts were complemented by "specimen records" (rich field notes) which described both the behaviour and the contexts in which the linguistic behaviour took place. In the course of this research I generated a huge amount of data. One thing I learned from this kind of research is that the huge amount of data which one collects can become a rich archival "lode" which can be "mined" again and again for different purposes. For example in the early 1980's I re-analysed these data to answer the question, "What kinds of metaphors do five year old Australian children use? What metaphors do they hear?” (Cambourne 1981). In 1982 I decided to "mine" this archival lode again in an attempt to gain some insights into the role which the ecological environment might play in learning. My thinking at the time went along these lines. "I need to use my data to identify examples of complex cultural learning which occur in experimenter-free contexts, and then analyse these data for insights into the role which ecological and social conditions play in supporting the complex learning which was taking place." I could have chosen to focus on a wide range of complex cultural learning that children regularly engage in; learning how to make friends, learning how to play games, learning cultural values. I chose to focus on children learning to talk. Now in order to do this I had to read what others had written about language acquisition and talk to academic peers and teachers about what I read and what I thought I was discovering. I borrowed words, phrases, concepts from those whom I was reading, tried them out with others, listened to their suggestions, and modified where necessary. When I first started discussing my ideas with peers and teachers I would hedge my linguistic bets by including lots of paraphrases of what I was trying to mean. I would say things like "all the literature says that newborn members of any linguistic culture are continually saturated by", "constantly bathed in","have long periods of exposure to others using the language they have to learn, whereas this immersion is missing from the world of deaf kids". For some reason I discarded the paraphrases and stuck with "immersion" as the word for the concept I needed to describe what I meant. "Demonstration" and "engagement" I borrowed directly from Frank Smith's work. "Expectations” came from Rosenthal's work. In the earlier versions I used to refer to "opportunites to use" until one of my colleagues (Gary Kilarr) suggested "employment" was a more accurate term. "Response" in the early versions was "feedback", until one of my peers commented that such a term smacked of behaviourism, and so on. I guess I wanted to create certain meanings. I tried them out, listened to the responses, and modified till I felt that my audiences had interpreted what I'd intended. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Finian Greetings from a cold and damp Tralee in County Kerry. I will hope to be able to join the conversation tomorrow when I get back to Dublin. Am working with a group of librarians here in Tralee for the morning on motivating reluctant readers to engage with books and once back will be able to check in with the conversation and hopefully contribute. I loved reading back on the conversation you hosted with Yetta Goodman ... what a wonderful lady! I wish you well with this endeavor ... excellent idea! Be well Finian |
||
|
|
|
Brian Hi Finian, Lovely to know there's someone from Ireland willing to participate. Down here in the land of Oz, I think we owe a lot to those Irish rebels who were sentenced to transportation to His Majesty's Penal Settlement in the Antipodes for trying to form unions. (The Tolpuddle Martyrs) They were articulate, literate (self taught many of them) and could use language to persuade, and convince. Once they did their time and were free men many stayed on and continued their union tradition. In a way they shaped a very important part of Aussie working class culture. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Liddy Mr. Cambourne, Thank you for giving us your time and thoughts. I am an elementary staff developer and we are just starting a study group on small group literacy instruction. I am having the group start by reading your article from The Reading Teacher that is referenced in this discussion group. I am wondering what your thoughts are on the balance between whole class and small group demonstrations/instruction. I know that things ultimately depend on the students' needs, but I'd like to know what you have seen in the most effective classrooms. Thank you, Liddy Allee
Ithaca City
Schools |
||
|
|
|
Brian Hi Liddy, I agree with your statement that "things ultimately depend on the students' needs" and I'm not sure how to address your question. I did an article for Language Arts some years ago which might be of help. The reference is: Cambourne, B.L. (2001) What Do I Do with the Rest of the Class?: The Nature of Teaching-Learning Activities, Language Arts Vol 79, No 2 pp 124-135 While it was predominantly about the nature of the activities teachers used to engage 80% of the class while they worked with another group (the other 20%), there are lots of indirect references to the issues associated with grouping. You might find some ideas in there that will support your study group's thinking on this issue. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Doreen Hi I used the conditions of learning for my dissertation research and studied one very successful teacher on the intermediate level to see if these conditions applied to older students. My findings were a resounding yes! These preteens obviously did not need to learn how to speak but I found that the conditions shaped the room they were part of, the way the teacher approached working with the kids and how the kids eventually came to "run the room." This was a true picture of the gradual release of responsibility model. I saw the conditions develop in the kids and as I interviewed them and listened in on their conversations with each other you could pick out each of the conditions. Has any one done work with older students to confirm what I found? Doreen |
||
|
|
|
Brian I hope there's some people out there who have similar stories they can share with us. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Dora It is the evening in America after a football game called the Super Bowl. I watched pieces of it in the midst of writing Chapter 5 of my dissertation. You see, I want to graduate in May...no matter what, nothing is getting in my way! I heard that a New York team won. Yeah! Having just finished a year of data gathering in classrooms with novice bilingual (Spanish/English) teachers and knowing your research, I have to ask....
- What does language immersion mean in terms of YOUR observations and
research?
Dora Fabelo
Principal, Blazier Elementary |
||
|
|
|
Brian Hi Dora, Thank you for your questions. To save time I'll copy them into the message space in italics and answer them below. What does language immersion mean in terms of YOUR observations and research? In my work, immersion is one of the conditions of learning. Paraphrases of the term could be "saturation". "high exposure". I argue that if someone wants to learn to use the skills and knowledge associated with some domain of expertise one has to be exposed to (immersed in) multiple examples of others engaging in effective application of this skill and knowledge. If it's learning the language of the culture into which one is born, if you are not given this immersion, learning to talk becomes difficult for you (e.g. deaf kids). If it's something like wanting to learn to read and write then you need to be part of a culture which does lots of reading and writing so you can witness multiple examples of those who do it, what they do it with, how they do it, how they use it to get their needs met. If you want to learn the skills and knowledge that a great quarterback uses to win a super bowl, then I would argue you need lots of exposure to the game, you need to be immersed in it’s culture, mix with it’s afficionados, talk it, breathe it, live it, be helped to focus on how all the salient bits of the game (the other players, the implements, the rules, all fit together) and so on. I think the term means something different in second language learning-- What is the difference between your kids and our kids in America? I don't think aussie kids and usa kids are that different. I think there is a difference in the way schools are organised and operate. For historical reasons our school systems developed quite differently. This has produced different approaches to education. One big difference I 've noticed is that aussie teachers are not so reliant on text books or teachers' manuals. This has enormous ramification for how they teach. How do you deal with all the Asian cultures and languages and Spanish language as well? Multicuturalism has been official policy since the late 60's (although some of the more conservative members of our community have mounted campaigns against it). We cannot afford true bi-lingual ed (a bit hard when you have up to 28 language groups in one school) so we typically start all kids on learning to read and write english from day 1, while at the same time supporting what we call community language development. Not ideal, but it seems to work. Research, as I experienced as a graduate doctoral student, is so different to how I experience it as a principal and practitioner. How do you manage your roles? I think our teachers and principals who enroll in graduate courses experience the same thing. There's no secret formula or magic dust I can recommend to make it easier except "pick a research topic for your thesis that supports your roles as a principal and/or teacher." In your book, you talk about struggling in learning... tell me more.... In my book I make a distinction between struggling and suffering. I think it's ok to struggle in the sense of being challenged-- not all good learning has to be "fun" in my opinion. However there's no excuse for "suffering" as you learn. It means your teacher or your own approach to what you're trying to learn is flawed. I wince when I hear aussie teachers equating learning with "work" ("you've worked hard today" "get on with your work" etc.) I think it's an inappropriate metaphor. Good luck with the thesis. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Linda Fascinating distinction between struggling and suffering, Brian—The latter seems to be what happens when teaching goes wrong. This issue relates to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, I think. Move too far out of the zone, and learning indeed becomes suffering, with no learning involved. I’d like to hear more about your dismay at equating learning with work, though.
Linda Smutz, Asst.
Principal |
||
|
|
|
Brian Hi Linda, I think it's the wrong metaphor to engender a life long love of learning. It spins other metaphors which are not helpful. For example, if learning is "work" then the end product of learning , "knowledge" must be some kind of tangible "stuff" which can be weighed or measured in some way. So if you work really hard at learning you'll be able to "shift "a lot more of this stuff called knowledge from what ever source you're trying to get it from (e.g. book) into your head. If you don't work hard you'll only be able to shift a little bit of it. In my humble opinion it's these kinds of metaphors which support the worst excesses of psychometric testing. It also explains why some linguists believe that we're born with pre-knowledge of language wired into our brains. Learning to talk involves so much stuff being learned there is no learning theory that can possibly explain how little kids can do all that "work" in the time that they do. I'd like teachers to replace the work metaphor with one along the lines of "knowledge" consists of the meanings we construct using different symbol systems, and "learning" is merely a synonym for "meaning-making.” I think I might have been reading too much of Lakoff and his colleagues work. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Richard S. Briefly, learning is work. I have always been puzzled by thinking that claims learning should be 'fun'; interesting, challenging, structured to facilitate, but fun belongs on the playground. With human beings, where there is no stress-nothing ever happens. Richard |
||
|
|
|
Deb Except learning for children out of school is always fun. It seems that only in school learning is work. I don't know of any child who thinks the playground is fun if they are interested in something else at the moment. Play can also be stressful don't you think? Mountain climbing is fun for some adults so these adults consider mountain climbing play but it is also stressful - life and death decisions with every foothold... With adults where there is no stress nothing happens - except rest, relaxation, and recuperation...but I can't say the same thing about children. Actually relaxation for me is a tough thing to do...yep Type A to a point - probably learned behavior. Interesting posts so far! Deb |
||
|
|
|
Linda I agree, Richard. If one briefly defines learning as effort toward a goal, which is currently just beyond one's current capacity to achieve it, work becomes learning and learning, work. Linda |
||
|
|
|
Karen Children learn through play and they don't think of it as work. Why should we? Karen |
||
|
|
|
Roxann Brian, Have you ever seen your Conditions of Learning used/applied in a way that you would consider to be a “misuse” or “misunderstanding of their intent”? I have found the Conditions of Learning to be a great tool for my reflection. When I reflect on a learning experience that was a huge success, I can easily identify the conditions of learning that were in place. When the learning experience is causing my students to suffer and learning is not the outcome, I notice that I have neglected quite a few of the conditions in my planning. At one point in my teaching, I thought that learning had to be fun. Once I came to understand the Conditions of Learning, I began to see that if I made engagement the goal (which sometimes is fun, but not always)– my students had so much more success and teaching became a real joy. Student motivation and independence increased tremendously! Rock
Roxann Rose |
||
|
|
|
Brian Hi Roxanne, The answer to your question is YES. I've come to realise that a mythical extreme behaviourist could argue that he/she uses the conditions of learning in his/her work. For example he/she could argue: I immerse my kids in thousands of examples of fragmented samples of language. My demonstrations are mainly how to use fragments of language. I expect kids to work hard and not enjoy learning. Approximations are important because they are mistakes and have to be ruthlessly eliminated from the learner's repertoire, and so on. I suppose it's how each of those conditions are interpreted into practice which is crucial. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Erin I tend to agree with you Roxann and was wondering- I am always on the look out for a quick and easy checklist of the conditions of learning to reference as I teach. Does anyone have any suggestions? I would love to see or hear them. Erin M. Van Guilder
|
||
|
|
|
Deb For some reason I think I have a one page diagram that is pretty clear...I'll have to dig it out. In the meantime Brian might have one... Deb |
||
|
|
|
Richard
There is a good
diagram at the end of the article from The Reading Teacher that connects
the conditions and provides brief description. |
||
|
|
|
Margot Hi Brian I really enjoyed hearing more about the process you went through to gather the raw data about young children learning to speak – it gave fuller meaning to the conditions you arrived at. I am not a literacy ‘specialist’ and have always felt inadequate about my ability to teach kids to read and make sense of writing etc. Luckily, I think I was unconsciously adept at ensuring immersion, strong positive bonding with my kids etc – but I think that there is much more to being a good literacy teacher. It seems to me that you need to have rich felt meaning for these conditions and some confidence about moving beyond an activities approach with your kids – but - also some deep knowledge yourself about how language works so you can more ably design and demonstrate a range of texts and contexts for your learners etc. I went through my own schooling in the 70s which was a bit ‘content free’ and feel this is a huge gap in my professional knowledge. Many people say to me though that you don’t need to have deep disciplinary knowledge of the learning area to be a good teacher – I’m interested in your thoughts on this. Cheers Margot
Margot Foster |
||
|
|
|
Brian Hi Margot, I agree. The more we know about constructing meanings using a range of symbol systems, the better equipped we are to help our students learn the skills and understandings they need. Your work in developing the professional learning of teachers in South Australia suggests to me that you know a great deal about learning and how to create contexts that allow it to happen. Thanks for your comment. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Dianne Hello, Brian Thank you for meeting with us via email. As both a graduate student and a teacher, I have so appreciated your research and writing, and it's amazing to be able to engage in this conversation! Your theory rings so true. It matches both my observations as a mom and grandma watching and teaching children. It also matches what I see in my FLES classroom. I teach World Language (Spanish as a foreign language) in a public K-5 school in Iowa. As you might expect, my questions are quite practical.
My first question regards Responsibility. You wrote about children
learning to talk: Now applying this to the classroom: Can you speak to the issue of learning objectives? My second question is related: Where does formal assessment fit in? Thanks again. Dianne |
||
|
|
|
Brian G'day Dianne, It depends on the specificity of the objectives. Every parent expects that their kids will achieve the "objective" of learning to use the language of the culture into which they're born. To attempt to break this broad objective of "learning to talk" down into a linear sequence of smaller more discrete and specific "objectives", and hold young learner-talkers to this sequence in a lockstep fashion makes learning to talk extremely difficult, if not impossible (as the research literature on so-called "feral" children, e.g. the case of Genie, show). If I can plagiarise and re-frame a statement made by John Holt many years ago it might help. John Holt once wrote"If we tried to teach kids to walk and talk the same way we currently teach reading and writing, we would raise a nation of mute cripples". I recall at the time of him writing this the dominant pedagogy for reading in Oz (and probably in USA as we tend to copy your bad habits) was driven by the "specific objectives movement" which advocated breaking the act of reading down into linear sequences of sub-skills which had to be "taught' in lockstep fashion. I was teaching in elementary school at the time, and I was annoyed by Holt's statement, because I was at that time a very good "lockstep-objectives oriented" teacher-- In fact I had just been promoted on the basis my skill at running lockstep, specific-objectives classrooms. All kids had the same book and were introduced to the same skill at the same time etc. (a bit like what Stephen Krashen refers to as "Extreme Phonics" in today's world of reading pedagogy). Even though I had my pedagogical epiphany many years ago I still sometimes have nightmares about the kids whose daily lives must have been so confusing and boring during this phase of my career. I sometimes re-frame Holt's classic comment for students and the teachers I work with this way: We should be thankful that the forces of evolution have selected certain cultural practices which have in turn shaped our nervous systems so that the learning of something as complex as using a range of symbol systems to create communicable meanings (e.g. learning to talk) is almost "fail-safe" for the species we call Homo sapiens -- that is "fail-safe" as long as those with certain unnatural prejudices about knowledge, pedagogy and assessment do NOT try to impose these prejudices in the learning setting. Where does "formal assessment" fit in? Depends what you mean by "formal assessment" and the purposes you want to use it for. If by formal assessment you mean a summative grade that allows you to rank-order kids in terms of their proficiency as readers I'd say it has no place unless those in power force it on you. If you mean information and data that will guide what "learning-to-read-experiences" you need to create for each kid in your class then I'd say this is where it fits. Hope this helps. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Richard S. Since I have always had a skills and strategies component in my teaching, I didn't find NCLB as much an imposition as those who didn't. I don't particularly like the programs we have had or any program I have ever seen and I still trust and think that teachers should have their own approach, method and design based on the curriculum that we are required to teach. I don't think my teaching has changed through all the controversies; it's just gotten more focused.
Richard Spurgeon |
||
|
|
|
Dianne Brian, You speak of the “specific objectives movement which advocated breaking the act of reading down into linear sequences of sub-skills which had to be ‘taught' in lockstep fashion” as a thing of the past. In the environment in which I teach, ruled by the EDI (Explicit Direct Instruction) model it’s very much a thing of the present. The “powers that be” require specific, assessable objectives for each lesson. These objectives must answer the question, “What will the learner be able to do independently after instruction?” I often feel as if I’m trying to walk hand-in-hand with a burly two-headed creature who wants to go in two opposing directions at once… my personal commitment to apply the conditions of learning in my classroom and the requirements of my system. With this in mind, I have two further questions: I believe it’s valid for me, as the teacher, to make student engagement one of my objectives as I plan for instruction. Is it valid or productive to make engagement an objective for students? (Perhaps that's an oxymoron... so my next question...) I’m trying to get a handle on how expectations and responsibility can fit together. Can the condition of expectations be applied in writing authentic “objectives” that are actually in line with the way language is learned? If so, can you elaborate? If not, can you elaborate further on these two conditions?
Thanks! |
||
|
|
|
Brian Dianne, I feel for the pressures and constraints you're under. You also ask hard questions. I've never thought about writing "authentic" objectives which are in line with the way language is learned. If we go back to learning to talk and think about the expectations that are communicated in that context here's what I saw in my data. 1.Expectations from those to whom the learner-talker has bonded are most powerful coercers of behaviour. Thus a teacher can have the highest of expectations, but if the learner has not been able to form some kind of positive bond with the teacher, the expectations are not usually acted upon by the learner. I've often told my undergrad students if they're going to be one of those teachers who screeches and yells and is sarcastic, she may achieve a compliant quite kind of class, but don't expect the kids to engage too deeply with either the demonstrations that are given or to value the expectations which they might communicate. 2. There were two broad classes of expectation the caregivers, siblings and relatives communicated to the learner-talkers about the job of learning to talk: i. "You must learn to use this symbol system-- it's simply not negotiable, and you can't opt out (like I opted out of learning Latin at high school) ii. You are capable of doing this-- it might seem hard and complex, but you can do it-- no one ever fails. Let's now do the same thing for "responsibility". Here’s what emerged from my data. 1. I never heard parents planning to teach equivalent of "sub-skills" of language to their toddlers in the same way I used to plan to teach sub-skills of reading, writing, etc to the kids I was supposed to teach. ("Nigel has not quite mastered the negative transformation yet so we'd better give him some remedial instruction in it.") 2. They never gave demonstrations of fragments or decontextualised language. 3. Rather it seemed to me they provided the demonstrations of language in use that were whole, contextualised, containing a wide range of linguistic information, but left it to each learner to engage with that part of the linguistic information in the demonstration which they were ready to learn about or use. Thus two siblings, one say 3 years of age and one only one year of age are both at the breakfast table when dad opens his mouth and says "Pass the butter please", and mum obliges. Think of all the possible facets of language being demonstrated here. This is how you can use language to get your needs met, this is a demonstration of the grammar of questions, it's a demonstration of the meaning of certain vocab items, it's a demonstration of an intonation pattern in English, its a demonstration of the phonemic system of English and so on. Does each child engage with exactly the same part of the demonstration? No. It simply wouldn't make sense if he did. The three year old would probably need to engage with quite different aspects of the linguistic information contained in the demonstration than his little brother needs to engage with. 4. Parents and other caregivers it seems, do not seem to worry that each learner needs to take different things from the demonstration, and they are prepared to continually give them. Can these be written up as "authentic" objectives? I dunno. Perhaps something along the lines of "The learner will bond positively with the teacher". If the learner didn't, could some remedial action be identified? For responsibility how about "The learner will engage with that part of the demonstration which is salient for his/ her needs at the time". Can you use this model to write objectives for using the other conditions? Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Priscilla Pardon the fact that I am not Brian responding, but your comment about engagement as an objective caught my eye. Engagement is not only an objective, it is a requisite for learning. As humans, all input we receive goes directly to our amygdala - the pleasure center of our brain - which determines immediately, "Do I care?" If the answer is "no" we don't pay attention. So teachers may be "covering" the material, but true learning - the kind that leads to internalization and self-regulating mental activity - doesn't happen unless the student is engaged and believes that what he or she is learning is worth their time and effort. Priscilla |
||
|
|
|
Brian Priscilla, Thank you for putting it much better than I ever could. I can only agree with you. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Dianne Yes! Well-said Priscilla! Clearly, engagement is necessary for learning! Not only does the student need to think this is worth it (care), s/he needs to see it as something accomplishable and feel safe trying it out. I want to clarify my question (again, remember this is set in the EDI environment where I must set specific learning objectives for my students and make sure they understand the objectives of the lesson at the outset; this objective tells the student what s/he's here for in this 45 minute class): Is it valid to set an objective that says something like "The Learner will actively engage in language learning by showing the appropriate gesture for the target vocabulary each time the word is heard." I guess I'm asking if stating this expectation as a goal for my learners is valid. Dianne |
||
|
|
|
Deb Hi Dianne, Yes, it does focus on engagement and in EDI scripts that might be a good thing to do. So ... What about the child who was fully engaged but is still processing the information and the engagement? This child may or may not be able to do what you want in the action part of your objective. What would do about this child? Deb |
||
|
|
|
Brian Hi Debbie, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. Hope Dianne can help you with this problem. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Dianne
Hi Deb, |
||
|
|
|
Deb Sounds great, Dianne! Thanks, Deb |
||
|
|
|
Brian Thanks for responding to Deb's question which I didn't quite understand last night when I started to tire. I think Dianne 's advice is appropriate Deb. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Linda Hello Diane, I think that "showing the appropriate gesture for the target vocabulary each time the word is heard" is actually an assessment of your objective. That action is not the objective: recognizing target vocabulary is, which seems like a completely valid goal to me. Linda |
||
|
|
|
Brian I agree with your advice Linda. Thanks for offering to all on the listserve. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Brian Dianne, In my mind there's an objective and an indicator mixed up together here. For me it would be OK to set an objective such as "The Learner will actively engage in the demonstrations provided". Then I would have another column or list somewhere which listed a whole range of possible indicators that would suggest that the objective had been achieved. Limiting oneself to just one indicator seems a bit narrow to me. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Dianne Yes, that specific indicator is the thing I struggle with... the thing that makes it an EDI objective. Thankfully, this year I have a principal whom I can "educate" by explaining the process of language learning and the well-considered approach I'm using (that focuses on the conditions of learning). I know I'm not the only educator in this dilemma, and all the input from everyone has been really helpful. Thanks to all! Dianne |
||
|
|
|
Priscilla Smile. If in your professional judgment it is valid, then do it! From my humble perspective, you are validating the importance of engagement as part of your lesson. Hear! Hear! Priscilla |
||
|
|
|
Donna Dianne, I feel your pain! What are GOOD teachers to do when we realize that the required Explicit Direct Instruction is neither child friendly nor getting the long term knowledge we hope for. EDI may be test worthy, but is not understanding worthy. Brian, when you came to Skyline Elementary in Washington, many years ago, I was struck at the time that you said EVERY child can learn if you really look at the child, where they are in their understanding, and what might come next. You were speaking to our trainers class for Reading Recovery, where each literacy poor student works one-on-one. The lessons are not student specific, but the parts of the lesson requirements are. I had an opportunity to hear Alison Gopnik, one of the writers of The Scientist in the Crib. You sounded just like her when you said that you developed your Conditions of Learning base on getting an idea, trying it out, looking at the results and feedback and then adjusting as needed. That is the way babies learn to walk and talk, and everything else. No instruction unless specifically needed. That is the formula for all learning. Too bad kids are not GM parts and we can make a formula for the way they perceive, use and validate information. After 34 years teaching, I finally gave up trying to reconcile requirements with what I know is good teaching. With my masters in Implications of Brain Research on Instruction, I present workshops on new knowledge about the brain and how we really should instruct and evaluate. It is so wonderful to have specific, real time, images of the results of using the literacy learning techniques you have been writing about for years (along with other information). Ruby Payne talks about the poverty of some learners, not just financial, but missing some of the very conditions you discuss. How tragic that some of the people making policy are not aware of the good instruction research that is available. I guess not enough people make lots of money off good, less scripted, and more motivating instruction. Instruction with a personal touch, not from a recipe book. Thank you so much Brian and Owen Press for this chance to share. Donna Starr |
||
|
|
|
Brian Donna, Thanks for your kind words. I think you make a lot of sense. I also think Reading Recovery exemplifies the conditions of learning I advocate in action. Brian C |
||
|
|
|
Kate Donna Starr (my mother was a Starr)- I too have heard Dr. Payne a few times and look closely at conditions she suggests are hidden in schooling, middle-class, and the like. Some would say her work isn't researched scientifically-based. Nonetheless, classness is another condition that isn't looked at in the same way by elected officials and policy makers the way it is looked at when you're in the trenches. Sorry to hear you've left the classroom but still using the wealth of experience in consulting work. K8 |
||
|
|
|
| ||
TRANSCRIPT