Skip to main content

Why Old School and New School Aren't in Conflict (Part 12 of 14)

It’s easy these days (and a little cheap) to rail against the old school classroom as a teacher-centric, autocratic learning environment.  We hear this often; product marketers, overzealous reformers, and technothusiasts seem to express the sentiment that old school teaching is irrelevant in a high-tech world, or that if you’re not with what’s up-and-coming, you’re out to lunch, and you certainly can’t be providing a good educational experience for kids.

But 2400 years ago, the Socratic method promoted discovery through asking questions, and we’ve explored how it does, indeed, provide a rich, cognitive experience.  We continue to hold this kind of teaching in high esteem.

And 100 years ago, Dewey codified the ideals of experiential education, arguing that primary experience is essential to constructing understanding.  This is good teaching; it is a model of rich encoding, of multi-sensory experience.  In fact, at over a hundred years old, it remains a foundational element of the immersive experiences that choruses of reformers advocate for today.

And 50 years ago, Bloom, of course, reset our understanding of educational objectives in a way that promoted active student engagement.  Movement through Bloom's taxonomy (and its revisions) requires rich, immersive work.
Socrates, Dewey, and Bloom
Because of these and many other examples, I think it’s important not to villainize the term “old school,” because history--the philosophy and practice from the past--history is what we learn from.  It is flush with wisdom, and we are foolish if we ignore it or overlook it.  

Instead of talking, then, about old school and new school teaching, let’s differentiate between good teaching, which stimulates thought and activity, and bad teaching, which stifles it. 

And this is a key distinction, because good teaching isn’t always flashy.  It doesn’t require anything fancy, and it doesn’t have to be expensive.  (Though, sometimes fancy and expensive tools can be helpful.)  Mostly, it requires thoughtfulness.  It requires organized, thorough, and deliberate preparation.  It requires empathy, and a degree of responsiveness in the moment.  

Good teaching comes from a place that understands how and what students think and feel.  This doesn’t have to mean a deep understanding of cognitive science--strong intuition and emotional intelligence can go about as far anything towards reading the thoughts and feelings of a room--but a systems approach to thinking certainly helps inform our work as educators.  Since good, cognitive learning is an essential aim of teaching, understanding the mechanics of thought and memory provide a hearty, sensible foundation for our work.  Stimulating, thought-provoking, action-inducing teaching is good teaching, however old it may be.

Seeing new school and old school in this way--in the context of good school--is the point of this post.  And it is close to a key insight that this whole series of posts aims to address: an understanding of what is new in relation to what is old.  In this case, this means one thing in particular: the relationship between the cognitive science of learning and the historical work of teaching.    

Certainly, another context for understanding the relationship between old and new is technology.  And this will come next, in the penultimate installation: Technology, the Brain, and Teaching.


This is the twelfth of fourteen posts in a series about the role of cognitive science in education.
To have future posts delivered to your inbox, choose "subscribe" from the bar on the right side of the screen.

 Introduction:
The Science:
Implications and Opportunities:
Conclusion:


blogger analytics
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Four Ways to Measure Creativity

Assessing creative work has been a bugaboo for a good long time.  In schools it's the constant refrain: “How can you grade creative writing?”  or “It’s a poem: however it comes out is right.”  In businesses and elsewhere, people demand innovation--and are stymied with understanding how to measure it. But this is not the bugaboo we think it is--in the classroom, or in the broader world of creative work.  Here are four different ways to assess creativity, each designed for different settings: 1. Measuring How Creative a Person Is - The Guilford Model 2. Measuring How Creative a Work Is - The Taxonomy of Creative Design 3. Measuring Creative Work Against a Program - The Requirements Model 4. Measuring the Social Value of Creative Work - Csikszentmihalyi’s Model Notably, in each of these cases, what we mean by "creative" changes a little.  Sometimes "creativity" refers to divergent production (how much one produces, or how varied it is).  Sometimes "c...
8 comments
Read more

Taxonomy of Creative Design

Strategies to improve creativity are many, but they are also diffuse.  Little ties them together in a way that offers a coherent vision for how creativity can be understood or developed incrementally.  The Taxonomy of Creative Design, a work in progress, offers a new theory for doing so. Since creative work can be measured along spectrums of both and form and content, the Taxonomy of Creative Design offers a progression from imitation to original creation measured in terms of form and content.  In doing so, it organizes creative works into an inclusive, unifying landscape that serves not only as an analytical lens through which one might evaluate creative work, but also as a methodical approach to developing creative skills. Here is a closer look: Imitation Imitation is the replication of a previous work.  It is the painter with an easel at the museum, painting her own Mona Lisa; it is the jazz musician performing the solo of the great...
11 comments
Read more

A Cognitive Model for Educators: Attention, Encoding, Storage, Retrieval (Part 2 of 14)

So how do  people learn?  What are the mechanics of memory?  Can we distill thousands of articles and books to something that is manageable, digestible, and applicable to our classrooms?   Yes.   In brief, the cognitive process of learning has four basic stages: Attention : the filter through which we experience the world Encoding : how we process what our attention admits into the mind Storage : what happens once information enters the brain Retrieval : the recall of that information or behavior Almost everything we do or know, we learn through these stages, for our learning is memory, and the bulk of our memory is influenced by these four processes: what we pay attention to, how we encode it, what happens to it in storage, and when and how we retrieve it. Here’s a closer look at each: Attention: We are bombarded by sensory information, but we attend to only a small amount of it.  We constantly process sights, sounds, smells, a...
Post a Comment
Read more