Trick ‘em into learning

Learning theories…there seem to be more of them than stars in the sky. Some of them are so obvious (redundancy principle, signal design, contiguity principle) that it seems almost unfair that a researcher gets to attach his name to the discovery of it. Others are innovative and change the way teachers are teaching. Yet almost all of them seem to be after the fact-is there really value in identifying them?
Yes and no. It is important to know how we learn. As we create new curricula and training strategies, knowing what works well can only be beneficial. Being aware of successful strategies can help us design for different types of learners, and address those that are having difficulty. But if you have ever been in a public school you might agree that learning strategies are not the problem, its getting the students interested in the first place. Researchers should take out some of their time spent in figuring out how people learn and apply it to why people learn.
In my experience working with teens, the first mention of anything that resembles school work elicits groans and rolling eyes. Why is this? Is the style of teaching in school so boring that students cannot bear the mention of it? Partly. Or is there something more soul crushing about the school environment? I would postulate that it is the latter, and the culture that is created by this environment. The schools I attended, and more recently have taught in, resemble prisons more than anything else. The bell rings, you shuffle to the next holding area and are forced to take attendance. Is this a proper learning environment? When I think of my days in schools like this, I too groan at the idea of being involved in anything that resembles those days.
I believe the strongest asset that young people have is their creativity. Almost all young people are creative in some way, some in their art class, others in the science lab, others on the football field. This is the area of learning theory we need to explore. My favorite learning theory and one of the few that in my opinion addresses some aspect of why students learn is constructionism. Constructionism is learning through play and design. The student is able to invest in the process and the outcome of the activity. When a person designs something they learn the specifics of the idea and better yet, increase their metacognition of the subject. When they feel they are just playing (like on a football field, or a lab, or in an art class) they become focused and filter out other distractions or incorporate them into their work. This is not done more in schools however, because it is messy. Students may follow tangents that the teacher is not well versed in. The process is often not step by step. There can be some aspect of chaos. Yet to me, that sounds like the way children and adolescents learn. Researchers should focus on this strategy and find a way to codify it or structure it so it can be used by teachers in all subjects. Learning theories should address the strengths of the students and for young people it is this loose, creative style that suits them best. Lets create a workable theory that can be implemented across the globe. Of course, here at this blog we would suggest beginning by having the students create media to share with their schools and community. For a good example, though not in school, check out www.youthradio.org. Until next time-

Advertisement