Making Sense vs Understanding

Recently, Grace Chen wrote a very provocative post called, Making Sense of Understanding. I was reminded of this yesterday as I attended an ArtPrize Sneak Peak at the University of Michigan's School of Art & Design and SiTE:LAB. As I watched the the movement of the piece in the movie below, it became clearer the distinction between making sense and understanding.

When I first saw it moving, I thought that it was a mobile and that the wave motion was the result of the wind. That didn't make sense, however, as we were indoors and there wasn't that much air movement. My wife, Kathy, thought that it might be moving to the music. But when the music stopped, it kept undulating. Then I looked up and saw that levers were moving up and down which resulted in the wave-like motion. Mystery solved - the piece moved in some preprogramed way. This "made sense" to me and so I moved on to look at more of the art.

Before I got to far, Kathy exclaimed, "Cool!" I turned back to see her reading a description of the piece near by. "It's the motion of the ocean," she continued.

Huh? That didn't make sense. But then I read the description too:

Because it might be difficult to read, here is what it says:

The installation draws information from the intensity and movement of the water in a remote location. Wave data is being collected and updated from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data buoy station 51003. This station was originally moored 206 nautical miles Southwest of Honolulu in the Pacific Ocean. It went adrift and the last report from its moored position was around 04/25/2011. It is still transmitting valid observation data but its exact location is unknown. The wave intensity and frequency collected from the buoy is scaled and transferred to the mechanical grid structure resulting in a simulation of the physical effects caused by the movement of water from this distant unknown location.

Now I understand. And understanding did make the piece even cooler.

Playing to Learn

"The work will teach you how to do it." 

Estonian Proverb

New Teacher (just hired for first job - teaching gifted children): "What do I do?"
School Administrator: "What do you want to do?"


John Hunter was that new teacher, back in 1978, and that administrator's response "set the template for the entire career [he] was to have after that." It provided him space to explore - space that he decided to pass along to his learners as they tried to create meaning of the world. To that end, he created an activity, The World Peace Game, intended to help players "explore the connectedness of the global community..." This has been documented in the film World Peace and Other 4th-Grade Achievements by Chris Farina and in the following TED Talk:

What would happen if all teachers were offered the opportunity to answer the question: "What do you want to do?" Can you imagine what people might learn?

Comparing/Contrasting Students & Learners, Part III

The final video in the Council on 21st Century Learning series, Student vs Learner, introduces a new character - the teacher. On the Student-to-Learner continuum, it seems clear that this teacher is on the side of the Learner. Watch and see what you think:

Do you think that this teacher's approach will help the Student to become more like the Learner?

When you have interest, then you have education

The title of this exhibit comes from a quote by Arthur C. Clarke found in the following TED Talk by Suata Mitra:

Recently, my wife and I played host for an evening to three homeless families staying at our place of worship for a week. This is part of the Interfaith Hospitality Network which helps "low-income families achieve lasting independence." We spent most of the evening interacting with the nine kids ranging from an infant to a teenager.


During this four hour span, my heart alternatively broke and was lifted up. I thought about the hardship these kids faced and wondered how they could concentrate on school given their situation. And then I would watch them interact with each other and with us and recognize that learning finds a way even in the most dire of circumstances. It was during these moments that I was reminded of Sugata Mitra's research.


I watched as a nearly three-year-old boy watched intensely as two older boys recited and then wrote down the words to a rap they were working on. All three had their heads together as they shared a pencil and a piece of paper. Later, the little boy mimicked the moves and the words as they performed for us. He was clearly learning from these knowledgeable others. "Children can teach themselves and each other, if they're motivated by curiosity and peer interest."


Around the same time, another boy, the oldest of the group, decided to join us. He had been maintaining his distance, checking us out. I guess he decided we were harmless, so he began to show off a skill he had learned earlier in the week from another host - juggling. I can juggle a bit myself but I resisted the urge to teach. Instead, I took Dr. Mitra's advice and implemented the "Method of the grandmother." I watched, admired, and asked questions.


Okay, I could not resist my teacher instinct for long. When it seemed he was comfortable with three tennis balls, I suggested that he try three different objects (ball, beanbag, and shoe) as a challenge. Without hesitation, he went off to practice - making sure that I was watching and calling for my attention when I was distracted by another child.


These experiences are important reminders that learning is a natural state for us. As a teacher, I often muck it up by trying too hard to control learners and the learning. When what is actually required is for me to open the door to experience and get out of the way.


Oh, and accept and admire them as they go; this is extremely important!

Comparing/Contrasting Students & Learners, Part II

In the first exhibit of the Learning Museum, we were introduced to a student and a learner. Here is the second in a series of three videos available from C21L that attempts to get at the differences between these two types of people.

As I watch this video, I notice that:

1. Students are survivors who are stressed-out about standardized-tests.
2. Learners are living life and leaving a legacy.

What do you notice?

Cambourne's Conditions of Learning

I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.

Albert Einstein

In this exhibit, we explore the learning theory developed by Brian Cambourne from his research on language acquisition in natural settings. His book, The Whole Story: Natural Learning and the Acquisition of Literacy, first introduced the idea that certain conditions were necessary in order for us to learn language. These conditions were further explored in the article, Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry. In both the book and the article, Cambourne describes the eight Conditions of Learning in detail. Below is a figure from the article representing the relationships that exist between the Conditions.

From Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning

Cambourne's work focused on applying these Conditions to literacy instructions. Others, have sought to consider their application in other learning environments. Edmunds and Stoessiger wrote a book and article about their efforts to apply the Conditions to mathematics. Jan Turbill's doctoral research examined the use of the Conditions in teacher inservice. ReLeah Cosset Lent wrote Engaging Adolescent Learners: A Guide for Content-Area Learners using the Conditions as a framework.

From Engaging Adolescent Learners

And I wrote a guess blog post on how I used the Condition to learn to Tweet.

How do the Conditions of Learning fit into your practice?

Tale of Two Teachers (Part II)

In this exhibit, Brian Cambourne relates two very different stories about his own learning. (These can be found in the paper, The Teaching-Learning-Language Connection: How Learning In the Real World and Learning In the Content Areas Are Related.) This is a brain-on exhibit that asks you to identify conditions that support and inhibit learning.

The first story describes how Cambourne learned to iron (see it here).

This story describes Cambourne's attempt to understand a high school topic.

***

Recently I had cause to call a colleague who teaches Maths Education at the University where I work. I needed some help with the binomial theorem so that I could help with my daughter's homework. Here is a verbatim account of the telephone conversation I had.

B.C. Hello Grahame. I need to help my daughter understand the binomial theorem, (a+b)^2=a^2 +2ab +b^2. I vaguely remember it from my high school days, but I can't remember much about it. Can you explain it in language?

G.W. That's easy. It means: If you want to raise the sum of any two numbers to the power of two then....

B.C. Hang on! You've lost me. What do you mean, 'If I want to'? Do I have a choice. Why any two numbers? What does raise to the power of two mean?

G.W. Uh oh. I'll have to go back a level with you won't I? Try this: If you want to square any two numbers...No wait a minute, That type of 'If' language bugs you doesn't it. Try this: When you want to square the sum of any two numbers then you....(long pause)

B.C. What's wrong?

G.W. I don't like saying it that way. It changes the meaning slightly and will only lead to confusion later.

B.C. What do you mean?

G.W. Well let's say you want to go beyond 'squared' and 'cubed' and you want to raise the sum of any two numbers to the power of 'n' we have no words beyond 'squared' and 'cubed'.

B.C. I'm getting more confused and lost. What do you mean 'When I want to?' When would I want to raise the sum of any two numbers to any power? What's a power? Why the sum of any two numbers? Mightn't I want to do it with any three or four numbers?

Although I'm not sure why or when I'd ever want to do that. And I'm not too sure about 'squared' and 'cubed' or 'n'. And all that conditional language. Why do mathematicians talk like that?

G.W. I'll go back another layer. Let me see: Let's suppose that you needed to add two numbers together and then multiply the result by itself... Uh oh that's even more confusing isn't it? And what's more it doesn't mean what I intended... it's imprecise.. You'll have to call me back later. I need to think about the language I use. I've never reflected like this before.

***

It is clear in this description that learning was elusive. What made it more difficult for Cambourne to learn the binomial theorem than to iron? Consider current classroom approaches: are they more like mentoring (learning to iron) or the game of telephone (learning the binomial theorem)? Why?