thoughts on learning, part III
Filed Under Questions
Yesterday, in the online ASTD course, our facilitator emphasized that one of the biggest challenges facing instructional designers today is the emphasis on CONTENT PRESENTATION instead of PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES. Why is it so easy for us to fall into the trap of believing that telling is teaching? We tell, then test. Tell some more, then test. Tell, test. Tell, test. Tell, test. In an endless cycle. When transfer doesn’t occur, we tell some more or tell our students, “you need to work on…” and then leave it at that.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
—Albert Einstein
What a different world this would be if, instead, we started with specific behaviors and skills that we wanted to see everyone master, found out exactly where each student was at with regards to those performance outcomes, and set up a system in the classroom where it was everyone’s responsibility to ensure that everyone in the class mastered that clearly defined set of performance outcomes.
This is the slow way. But it is also the sure way. Teachers will not be able to cover as much “content” as they might otherwise, nor will they be able to justify much of what they do in the classroom, since it doesn’t directly relate to specific outcomes. They will have to really ask themselves, hopefully in the context of their department’s overall objectives, what do I really want my students to be able to do?
Students will come to understand through your insistence and repetition what level of mastery you expect and they will know that neither you nor their peers will stop until that level of mastery is achieved by everyone. This isn’t to say that you can’t have differentiation to ensure that students who achieve mastery of the basic performance outcomes can move on to more advanced performance outcomes or to ensure that students who struggle with basic performance outcomes have the freedom to work at their level. The point is that the varying standards for outcomes are spelled out and returned to again and again (in a kind and loving way, of course!).
I like one of Carol Gaab’s strategy for differentiation. She writes a list of language structures on the board that she is focusing on for the day and makes it clear that that list is required learning. Everyone will gain mastery of those structures, sooner or later. Then, on a different wall she lists more advanced language structures or vocabulary that students can work with on their own. Carol will occasionally point to a structure in that advanced list with her laser pointer when she uses it in her storytelling, but she won’t make a big deal out of it. That way students who are ready to absorb that new information can do so. And they stay engaged. For more on Carol’s approach to FL teaching, visit http://www.tprstorytelling.com/.
