Together We Learn,
Each in His/Her Own Way
Imagine designing a university that really helps the student learn. What do we need to consider in order to build such a vision? Three areas of focus immediately come to mind: the role of the faculty and their image, how we learn –our own individual styles, and whether we need to think about things learned alone or together with others, and how we apply what we learn. Traditionally, the model is simple: faculty knows the material, we learn by individually taking notes during lectures, and the only application really emphasized is that of being able to take a test and regurgitate what we heard. Is that all there is?
Such a traditional model has failed miserably, to the detriment of many a student, especially those who approach the halls of education with a mind that already thinks and a set of experiences unlike anyone else’s. For years we’ve known that children all have different learning styles; that they each use a different pattern of senses and maybe even different areas of the brain and body to assimilate the material being presented. Now the time has come to apply that knowledge to the area of university studies.
The process of education really exists as a series of events. First there is the activity itself, the experiencing of something new or something familiar from a new perspective. Second, there is the sharing of observations, which may include talking, publishing the written word, or even painting, singing, somehow doing what we learned, repeating the example but with our own stamp and elaboration. Third, there is the process of discussing and recognizing dynamics and patterns, and generalizing from these shared observations to develop new principles and insights. Finally there is the process of figuring out how to use these new concepts and insights, testing their applicability.
So what is the difference between traditional and facilitative instruction? Since the facilitator (sometimes called the ‘teacher’) is an individual in and of him or her self, he or she cannot ‘know’ everything about the material, nor can one imagine in advance what means the students will use to ‘learn’ it or even what questions the students might ask. Lecturing and taking notes will only use up the time of those whose minds process in other ways than hearing, writing, and memorizing.
And then there’s the issue of how we learn alone or with others. Learning something alone then sharing it with others is one thing. But how much more productive to have the experience side-by-side with others who are experiencing it simultaneously! What better way to see new perspective than with others who see things differently than we see them. And what better way to exercise our cognitive and our social functioning than by sharing them in conjunction with the sharing of others. As each of us assimilates the new material in our own way, we have the advantage of sharing each person’s perspective. Their varying opinions and thoughts will help us to spark new insights and ideas inside ourselves.
And finally there’s the magic art of application. We know from research that problem solving and brainstorming often work far better in a group than within an individual stuck in her or his own bias, assumptions, and various mental ruts. Being afraid to try, or to try it differently is a major obstacle to applying knowledge, as are our doubts whether we can have the ability to accomplish something successfully. But in facilitated learning, you have already learned that no one person has all the answers at their fingertips, that other opinions and perspectives are valuable, and that you are a part of a larger picture with an infinite number of resources on which you can draw!
All in all, there are some major differences in the models of ‘facilitated’ education and ‘traditional’ education that greatly affect its impact on the student. It’s not the label that counts, it’s the beliefs and expectations about people that really make the difference. No matter how you set up organized ‘facilitated’ learning, it will be more effective if it embraces the core principles in those three areas: the role of the faculty as facilitator not know-it-all, how we learn through our own individual style and whether sharing that with others, and whether we are encouraged to apply what we learn with enthusiasm, variety, and experimentation.
Maybe we should note that it is not a dichotomy between ‘traditional’ and ‘new’. Truly traditional methods involved storytelling (i.e. sharing the experiences of elders, hunters, and workers), even dance, art, drama and role-playing through activities that mimicked real life tools and chores. Lectures in a crowded room are really a very modern invention, and a not very effective one at that! So facilitative education is not new; it is really very old. Is it possible that we are returning to the truly ‘traditional’ methods of facilitating learning?
Regardless of what we call it, the spirit of what we experience is what matters. Education that helps the student grow as they learn, a truly person-centered approach to education, is both healthier and more efficient, not just for the moment but also far into the future.
Related articles:
[...] It’s one thing when somebody spouts edubabble. It’s another thing entirely when you’re a deluged with a narcissistic, endless gushing stream of fact-free, agenda-driven drivel masquerading as education: Imagine designing a university that really helps the student learn. What do we need to consider in order to build such a vision? Three areas of focus immediately come to mind: the role of the faculty and their image, how we learn –our own individual styles, and whether we need to think about things learned alone or together with others, and how we apply what we learn. [...]
Sorry, but whenever I hear anyone use the term “facilitator,” I become deeply suspicious. As a Texas teacher, I am reliant on local education “Service Centers” for most of my teacher training. They are brim full of facilitators who most certainly do not know everything. In fact, most appear to know virtually nothing.
Once again, I’m sorry, but when I’m paying for college, I want my professors to know a great deal. It is only responsible humility, basic maturity and common decency to understand that one is not omniscient, however, I am not going to college to discover the wonders of my inner learning such that I can share my wonders with others.
Certainly, “lecture and disgorge on test” classes are ineffective and wasteful, but so is the curriculum of far too many schools of education. Well informed adult guidance combined with teaching competence and effective curriculum will do the trick. Oh yes, and it must be taught by people who are teachers and who are comfortable calling themselves teachers.
Students can quickly tell the difference between those who possess real knowledge and those who have faked their way to a doctorate and continue the fakery daily. All too often, such people call themselves facilitators.
Right Wing:
Sounds like somebody woke up on the wrong side of the rock this morning! I can’t believe I actually visited your site because I believed you actually had a serious comment! I realize that rudeness and brainless insults are an epidemic today, but the hypocrisy of your comment was even worse.
No, I didn’t include all the research data supporting my ideas because it was an ‘opinion piece,’ a response to a question someone else asked me. And, unlike you, I believe in dialogue between people. And of course it’s ‘agenda-driven’. In other words, it has a purpose. I’m clear about my agenda, which is passing along ideas and information that might be of use to others, ideas that might stimulate thought and facilitate self-motivated learning. I shudder to imagine what your ‘agenda’ might be!
Is your Comment ‘fact-free’? Yes! It also appears to be free of any thought or use of the brain. It is full of assumptions and stereotypes, apparently because you’re too lazy to actually think about any idea you haven’t already thought of. (Hmmm. Sounds ‘narcissistic’ to me.)
And the personal slurs against someone you’ve never met! If you’d bothered to read the site and get the background, you might have discovered that I’ve been teaching since 1973, in a variety of settings and countries, and with various ages and interest groups. So my ‘opinion piece’ (not ‘research paper’) was based on that work experience. But then again, your bias shows there too.
I suppose if my work and identity led to the label ‘carpenter’ or ‘mechanic’, which are also good honorable professions, you would be afraid to criticize people who were feeling pride in what they do, in trying to do it well, and in contributing to the community at large. But your emotion-laden comments (‘bigot-babble’?) reeks of an envy of someone who has actually taken the time to listen to other people and learn from them. I don’t imagine you spend much time doing that!
Well, my passion is people, learning from them, passing their ideas along to others, and generally collaborating in my community’s well-being. For well over 30 years, that’s what I’ve done, and Yes! I’m proud I was able to help sometimes. You’ve made it clear you don’t approve of working together with other people so I can imagine your mindless criticism of the idea that working together, people can accomplish a positive goal.
But after reading your website as well as your Comment, and being aware of the type of envy you are venting (oh really! “superior firepower”?). what I’m really afraid of is that if you start shooting every man whose brain, or other organs, is bigger than yours, you might get away with decimating the intelligent, virile male population! Thank God for law enforcement; I hope they can stop you in time!
I certainly hope you learn to think, even once, because you certainly can’t think twice!
Mike:
It’s funny the baggage and bias we bring to our understanding of words but it’s sad when it shuts off our understanding entirely. Mike, I hope you can take the time to recognize when preconceived ideas and assumptions keep you from actually hearing what the other person is trying to say. Assuming you know how the other defines a word often leads us to inaccurate understanding.
I heartily agree with you that ‘teaching competence and effective curriculum’ are fundamental to good education, and that teachers should also possess ‘responsible humility, basic maturity and common decency.’ No argument there! My article was addressed to other teachers who were asking how to do that on a daily basis. Sharing knowledge is what teaching is about. Sharing research findings is another important part of knowledge. So I do think that ’sharing’ is an important factor in the discussion.
Dear Mike,
I hear what you’re saying, but I wonder how you got the notion that a teacher has to dispense information about anything and everything as tho s/he were a “walking encylopedia.” KNowledge can certainly deal with process; in fact, I think that the history of teacher education has been too long on content and too short on process. I would encourage you to re-examine the works of Dewey, Whitehead and other process philosophers to learn the fundamentals of their epistemology. Also, you might TRY to think through the fact that there are vast bodies of knowledge, and HOW either facilitator or “teacher” becomes enabling of access to same. I personally think that the traditional notion of “teacher” is too obsolete to have much practical use. Also, that the use of such an occupational “title” merely diminishes the value of same…as is illustrated by the amount of respect and cash that a teacher earns when compared with other professions for which extensive training/learning is necessary. Also, try to think of teacher as LEARNER. In short, change the language of use to reflect the reality.
[...] This article is the second in a series. The first article is Together We Learn (Part I) [...]