Bad Conversation Topics When Surrounded by Throwable Objects 12

TOPIC: Should we listen to scientists and researchers concerning the ways we learn?

Per my profession as an educator I wholeheartedly believe in extensive scientific research and its value; however, sometimes when scientists and researchers explain their findings on a complicated aspect of human behavior or psychology (or any other type of data), most likely in attempts to simplify the data or to present an authoritative voice in their fields, they fail to clarify their research is not definite, or restrictive, causing people to label themselves one way or another, such as Personality Type A or B, Extrovert or Introvert, Left-Brained or Right-Brained (a theory recently debunked), or any other newfangled trendy classification. 

Any one person is not “this way or that” a hundred percent of the time. Sure, we might employ aspects of certain techniques or thought processes more than another (and it is valuable to realize which ones), but we simply do not employ ONLY one each time.

Current educational practices tend to label students with a learning type, or provide them with a learning style apparently affording them opportunities to reach the highest possible outcomes. These types or styles (also known as “intelligent types”) range from learning best through the use of Mathematics (logic), Language, Music, Movement (body awareness, coordination), Nature, Social Interactions, Self-Interactions, and Visualization. So what if you are a Mathematical learner but you need to learn how to build a fire in the woods for a survival class? Or if you are a Natural learner but you need to learn about the history of German music?  

Experts would answer my above questions by stating students employ all eight of these types, styles, or intelligences when needed, but certain students will excel by utilizing certain styles, types, or intelligences over other students in certain areas; these experts might even further explain students need to realize although they might not excel in one subject or area of learning, they most definitely excel in at least one or two of said types, styles, or intelligences. Okay, this explanation makes sense and allows for students to boost their self-esteems by possessing talent in one area or another; however, do these learning types, styles, or intelligences explain to students the actual activities they must participate in to learn? 

These learning types, styles, or intelligences are actually wonderful descriptions of different abilities students possess, but they do not explain HOW students need to employ these types, styles, or intelligences to RETAIN and MASTER content. I believe these learning types, styles, or intelligences simply describe SKILLS (or natural abilities) students possess rather than HOW they learn skills. Activities as to HOW students (or people in general) learn are way more important and valuable than providing students with a list of abilities or self-esteem boosters.

HOW students (or people in general) learn content is by listening to lecture, visual content, and application. Never, and I mean never, simply by one. We employ all three HOWs each time we learn something, even if self-taught. The levels to which each HOW is employed and the value of each HOW does depend on the student (or person), but each HOW is employed when learning something new.

Now, my above assertions are nothing new in the educational community; educators have realized these retention HOWs for some time now, but what we (educators) have failed to realize are the basic activities, or drills, to teach to students to accomplish mastery.  

Here’s an example:

NEW CONTENT or SKILL=BASEBALL

Lecture=Someone explains to us how to play the sport.

Visual=We see the equipment used (bat, glove, ball, field), we may read the rule book, or study a score sheet.

Application=We play the game.

Now, after we utilize the three HOWs to learn the sport of baseball, we have RETAINED, or learned the content, but are we now considered a great baseball player simply because we learned the sport? Not in the slightest; we have to practice to master the sport. How? Drills. We take batting and fielding practice, we run the bases more, we watch televised games, and so on and on.

So how do students, who have learned a certain content or skill, master the content or skill?

Below are the drills to master any content or skill (not listed in any order because deciding which one is the most beneficial is an entirely different conversation):

EXPERIENCE (however, experience is limited to one situation, but it does offer the best possible path to mastery of a certain skill)

READING/WRITING (both of these “drills” require you to analyze, compare, predict, or self-explain, each basically translating to "thinking")

DISCUSSION/REFLECTION (involves reading/writing (or thinking), exposure, organization, repetition; a case could definitely be made as the most important “drill”

EXPOSURE (familiarity breeds comfortability)

ORGANIZATION (note-taking, storage, easy access, availability)

REPETITION (memorization, practice and application, teaching to others; much similar to exposure, but adds repetition of content or skills already exposed to)

MISTAKES (another element arguably the most important because if something is not challenging, than you already have learned the content or skill, right?)

So here’s a brief summary:

HOWs: lecture, visual, application

DRILLS: experience, reading/writing (or thinking), discussion/reflection, exposure, organization, repetition, mistakes

See? I just forced you to employ reading/writing (or thinking), reflection, exposure, organization, and repetition is the two above lines. As Meatloaf once said, 5/7 ain’t bad!