Summary: Interesting ethical and psychological issues surface as I contrast several "pure" approaches to learning facilitation. (Whether and how to mix these approaches is another issue.).The approaches that I contrast are: intructivist, deuterolearning (aka metalearning and learning to learn) and, because it signals the ambiguities of group life "communitarian"--- which I would say is a variation on a constructivist approach.[This entry follows a path last traversed in a recent entry about online learning and knowledge-making]
Picture the instructivist approach as more or less what one expects in a good classroom. Each student is on a supported path to prechosen objectives which are being taught by best available individually-focused, sequential teacher-directed processes.
On the other hand, if the deuterolearning approach is being followed a particular content sequence may or may not be followed; the sequentiality which will definitely be present will be increased efficiency and complexity of learning content and type which the learner can master.
A group learning model would obviously involve a group process, but beyond that there are many possible variations in focus, method and effect. Re group learning, there is be either learning or deuterolearning; If individual deuterolearning occurs in the group it will involve the subset of all deuterolearning possibilities that may occur in a group member's space; time and interactions are highly conditioned by interactions with fellow group members. Deuterolearning in a group is quite distinct from a determined individual isolating her or himself in an attempt to figure out how to better learn ["better learn" = "learning to learn"] the mysteries of trigonometry.
A group learning model can also be quite distinct from a model for running a community of practice (for example, a group of men and women who together make a living framing (putting up the 2x4 frame) houses. The community of practice will often be optimized for group achievement (the house is framed, the shelves are stocked, the computers are installed, etc.) rather than individual or even group skill enhancement.
|
"--- communities of practice, have special characteristics. They emerge of their
own accord: Three, four, 20, maybe 30 people find themselves drawn to one
another by a force that's both social and professional. They collaborate
directly, use one another as sounding boards, teach each other. "
"Communities of practice are the shop floor of human
capital, the place where the stuff gets made. "
Brook Manville, Director
of Knowledge Management at McKinsey & Co., defines a community of practice
thus: "a group of people who are informally bound to one another by exposure
to a common class of problem." Most of us belong to more than one, and
not just on the job: the management team; the engineers, some in your
company and some not. " |
| In short--it is the power of the group to which all subscribe and within which each grows. The measure of a Community of Practice' success is NOT the individual and her or his accomplishments and rewards; the measure of success is found in the learning community as a whole, its enhanced ability to achieve desired ends and rewards. |
The Differences Between Three Distinct Approaches to Learning
| Learning Approach |
Definition |
Teacher Function |
Group Function |
Predictability |
| Instructivist |
In this approach it is generally assumed that there is a knowledge base. The structure of that knowledge base is well enough known, at least by the teacher, to allow a sequential instruction/learning sequence to be constructed. ideally, exposure to nonmastered material is controlled by the teacher and only occurs when the probability of acquisition with instruction (a small number of well constructed and extremely focused lessons) is high. |
Teacher is to: a)place learner
in optimal learning sequence, b) determine when new material in a progression toward final mastery of the end knowledge should be presented and c)to design and/or choose, as well as deliver the lesson(s) as appropriate to the chosen objectives within the sequence. |
Within the frame used in instructivist thinking 'group' is a neutral to negative factor; group influence is generally perceived to be a peripheral, even a distracting, element in the process. The central relationships are student-to- teacher student-to learning-foci.The relationship of student to specific learning materials is of real but discretionary importance(i.e., if material, let's say it's a text, proves ineffective choose another lesson source that varies style, medium, pacing, etc.) |
With strong organization and competent use of methods and systems that have been developed over the years by 20th century educational psychologists... a predictable if tame learning history is available for learners who participate in classrooms of this sort. |
| Deuterolearning (aka Metalearning and Learning to Learn) | Deuterolearning
refers to learning to be a better learner.. Reciting theory doesn't
count. The proof of deuterolearning is in demonstrable improvement in
learning pay-off for equal effort. For the purposes of argument I will describe a learning approach the primary purpose of which is advancing the student's ability to learn any material. Specific contents will be less important than an increased mastery of various types of learning process. (learning process examples: chain, multiple discrimination, concept, principle, problem-solving and all of the above whether done independently or in a group context). |
Deuterolearning refers to learning about learning. For the purposes of argument I will describe a learning approach the primary purpose of which is advancing the student's ability to learn any material. Specific contents will be less important than an increased mastery of various types of learning process. (learning process examples: chain, multiple discrimination, concept, principle, problem-solving and all of the above whether done independently or in a group context). Since no deuterolearning occurs without some subject
being learned, the teacher will have to interact with and be aware of
the content focus of the learner's attempts to learn. But , at the same
time as the learner engages with 'content' he/she could be attempting
to self-instruct, whether s/he is attempting to work with programmed learning
materials or another,as it happens,instructivist, teacher. When the (l
to l) teacher is focusing on the student's learning-to-learn efforts his/her
purpose is to forward the efficiency and power of the student's abilities
to learn any sort of content. |
Group serves as backgroup and enviromental reality test for individual learning and deuterolearning. | Predictability is harder to "guarantee" when the l-to-l process must be responsive to the twists and turns not only of content instruction(and the learner reactions to both the degree and speed of primary content acquisition). Thus the tempation to teach common techniques of learning organziation as its own separate curriculum. When this occurs transfer efforts and the required self-observation and problem-solving are separated from the techniques found to be commonly successful. My unsubstantiated impression is that the most common separate treatment is for the learner to work it out, or not, without help.In the event that support is given not only for theory but for practice as well, then the presence of foundation skills that may be adjusted or altered in response to actual success may well be easier to manage than learning both simultaneously. |
| Group (or Communitarian) Learning | Group Learning is the sort of learning to learn that occurs when several learners find their space, time and interactions highly conditioned by interactions with fellow group members. Putting it another way, it is the alteration in individual and collective behavior such that group process supports the learning of each member and the realization of group learning or achievement goals.(The achievement goals are , must be, real but are secondary to the enhancement of the average rate of learning of each group member. It is , or appears on first review to be, the opposite for successful communities of practice..Individuals may or may not learn "better" but the final determinative measure of success is improved production of group products.) | A teacher would treat the Group Learning and CoPs versions of her classroom quite differently as she pursues the optimal realization of each model.In the former case the teacher would be problem-solving group dynamics in response to assessed learningdepth and rates. In the case of the CoPs model, if I have it right, adjustments will be made in response to the depth and speed of realization of group achievement goals (production of class paper, net proceeds from class bake sale, etc.). In each case individual supports, relational adjustments, coaching for learning to learn will occur. But optimal distribution of these activities will be measured against quite different goals. In the group learning situation the overall appearance may be chaotic and there may or may not be any goals of the whole; this is all fine, as long as there is a high and improving character of individual learning. In the CoPs interpretation a collective production is expected; if it is achieved it may be at the expense of ignoring some needs and overattending to otherneeds, because that appeared to produce an optimum realization of the group achievement goal. |
In the Group Learning or CoPs lthe nature of group life and group study in the group are now center-stage, at least co-equal with individual learning. Take the example of a class newspaper: CoPs: Standards of not only quality but production, possibly income, are set and training, supplies, rewards teacher attention, etc. are adjusted accordingly. Yes the teacher teaches as does the managing editor of a newspaper but individual needs and interests will occasionally be forced to take a back seat to the productivity goals of the newspaper. Yes there will be learning, important learning, but the likelihood of high individual growth has not been given as much attention as the group production goals. In the group learning version of the paper both productivity and individual learning goals will be set. The group productivity will be used as a reality principal, perhaps for a significant perind the only dterminative criterion, but for the purpose of maximizing individual learningin the long run. In some situations the paper may be an abysmal failure (as measured by the productivity criteria) but when measured against individual learning the failed newspaper can have been a major success. |
As we move deeper and deeper into group life to create individual and group learning the predictability of any given group endeavor becomes less. The class successes will be uneven even with the most gifted of group learning teachers in charge. There are just too many variables in play. Does the absence of a guaranteed or simple success mean that we shouldn't pursue group learning goals? Of course not. The measure of each of our lives is as they are lived in groups of all kinds. Surely some effort must be taken to make us each aware of our connectedness with and dependence on each other for success and happiness: in our birth families, in our schools, at our workplace, in our marriages, in our finding a place to work and in our understanding of and participation in society. In the face of such complexity are philosophers, parents, teachers and students all going to say "Leave it alone, it's too complex, stick to the three r's" or are they going to admit that this complex and devious and unpredictable social reality is where individual worth is both developed and proven.
At the least we should be admitting this reality and supporting any institution, any individual who shows a skill at bringing individuals onto the human stage. |
