Teaching Machine plus and minus

What do you think they would like about the Teaching Machines approach?

Both Socrates and Illich would like that Skinner’s Teaching Machine
(TM) views learning as not being a chore (pleasurable perhaps), and that this method should also draw out of the individual what they know.  It can be applied to both advanced and standard learners as individually they are able to
progress at their own speed whilst covering the same programme of
study. Independent learning is accommodated irrespective of the size of the class. The step-by-step or ’chunking��� of learning content and
the importance of high quality course materials is also a winner. Hints and suggestions
with immediate feedback equates to Socratic guidance and support
resulting in formative learning rather than summative.

What would they oppose?

The Socratic method would oppose the prescriptiveness of TM and
although undertaken in the classroom not much social
discussion/communication was taking place, they all appear to be working
separately under test-like conditions – but I could be wrong.  This
method of teaching does not appear to allow for independent /original  thought and mirrors a rather robotic/factory production line approach to education.  Illich would
see attending only schools for teaching and learning as a mistake with the social agency of other social and or institutions or groups being bypassed as being valid.

What alternatives would they propose?

Socrates would have wanted a more social environment for teaching and
learning with the individual’s learning being ‘challenged’ by other students to check the underlying integrity/understanding of ideas being
presented. Illich would move the teaching of particular subjects/topics
where appropriate outside the school and encourage social activities so as to promulgate
learning.   The social and communication elements that are missing from TM would need to be integrated
in some aspect into the use of TM both in and around it, with
a facilitator/teacher supporting these interchanges.

My findings of the themes I have noticed in others’ post are here…

* Communication and the social element is very important and is missing in Skinner’s TM approach or need to be more explictly expressed
* We all agree that each of the approaches have some merit to them as well as drawbacks
* They each demonstrate how at a different time in education and discipline educators have tried to use technology to enhance learning, some more successfully than others but always with good intentions
* In all cases the technology used was simply a tool and not the object of the exercise
* There is a need for the role of teacher/facilitator – someone with expertise in that subject, who guides and support and sometimes leads the learner in navigating the learning landscape
* Luckily we don’t have to choose one approch and stick to it religiously, we do have the freedom to choose the right technology for the job and part of that choice may be to forego technology – as long as it is a conscious decision!

#ocTEL

If you only do one thing… 5 stories

From the 5 stories presented I initially selected: Eric Mazur, Sugata Mitra, and Stephen Downes and George Siemens. #ocTEL

After reviewing them I was more drawn towards Eric Mazur’s and Sugata Mitra’s stories. That is not to say that I am less interested in MOOCs because if that was the case I wouldn’t be on this course but I felt that the first two had points of interest that would have a greater impact on my teaching practice at this time.

The reason I find Eric Mazur‘s approach so powerful is because it seems to more closely align itself to the subject I teach – information and information skills. The bringing of “peer instruction into the lecture theatre” [1] results in students having to actively engage with the subject, assimilation to take place, and collaboration. The idea of posing questions along with small group work (2-4 in a
group) with clickers or any other type/method of voting device is doable
and scaleable; from delivering a session in a large lecturer theatre, or a workstation rooom, through to a room with just one PC. It would also work in an online/distance learning environment using perhaps ‘Blackboard Collaborate’ and break-out rooms for small group work to take place – then reconvening and sharing findings with the whole group.

My current practice is all about the transfer – telling how to do it, mainly because with large groups and very little time for hands-on sessions there or afterwards one has to cover as much as possible. There is also no time or opportunity to find out what their previous levels of experience/attainment are! It is also not possible for me to know how many of them actually move from the transfer to using what they have learnt. The variety of previous experiences that students bring to the class, further lends itself to this approach of having small group work – to get them to collaborate and share their experience before hearing how others have undertaken the task. That sharing of experiences and ideas can then be augmented by any guidance that might be needed to bring about better/more refined results before they depart. That is a powerful enough reason for me to choose this story instead of any of the others.  I am sure that if I was teaching a different subject/discipline my choice might well be very different.

[1] ALT ocTEL week 1

After I wrote this piece I came across the following: