Developmental Learning Theory – Sam Greeno
All humans take part in the lifelong process of learning, developing, and changing. Each person has to progressively develop; this development occurs rapidly in earlier stages of life as the brain’s mental capabilities expand. Regardless of the particular “learning style” a child may excel in, all children learn best by learning from actual concrete materials rather than abstract presentations. This defines developmental learning theory. For example, if a teacher wanted to teach about the stages of a butterfly’s development, they should show the students a tangible demonstration of the butterfly life cycle rather than textbook figures. By doing this, students will make their own observations and be able to physically see the changes as they take place instead of abstract words explaining a process that may be too difficult for young students to fully comprehend. The brains of younger students are oftentimes unable to understand abstract information. These students shouldn’t even be “learning” certain information because their brains may not be capable of actually learning about the particular topic at hand.
Learning is a difficult concept to understand. The transfer of information or skill knowledge from teacher to student or from textbook to student is more difficult than one may assume. It is often challenging to differentiate between actual learning and memorization. These are problems that many educators have to wrestle with. At what point should learn in an abstract manner rather than a concrete manner. Is 8th grade indeed the correct age for algebra? Teachers have many decisions they are expected to make; these decisions really do affect the learning of their students.
As future teachers, we must understand the ramifications of developmental learning theory. The old system of the behaviorist learning theory is broken and in need of repair. The American education system is slowly responding to change, this is due to the fact that change is difficult, especially when the status quo appears to be adequate for the time being. However, practically speaking, students do not learn best from sitting in a lecture style classroom, but in today’s fast paced education system, it seems to be the only feasible option. Therefore, concrete learning that deals with critical thinking and exploratory problem-solving is overtaken by more abstract and quick teaching methods. This is no reason to get discouraged though. There are still obstacles in the way of the Developmental Learning Theory, but today’s education seems to be moving in the right direction as we begin to understand the importance of concrete based learning.
I began questioning the transition from an education filled with concrete examples to one relying on abstractions, also. My daughter just began third grade, and she has moved from a vibrant room, filled with centers and many hands-on activities..to a room with desks lined in rows, in which she sits all day, listening to lectures. This room is _right next_ to her old room and not at all what I expected..or hoped for. Collaboration is a necessary tool in any well-functioning human system. I think more collaboration on the part of this third grade teacher would have been helpful in _stepping_ up the cognitive expectations placed on these children. That would have required a great deal of work from the teachers, especially the third grade teacher, for sure, who would have to redesign and restructure her entire classroom and curriculum, but in an "at risk" school, it would have been worth it, to see the kids maintaining their progress.
ReplyDeleteI must say, as a product of the current public education system, that I am not completely impressed by the teaching methods that are used. I have often thought that many classrooms teach you how to pass a class rather than learn material. Even here at Drake,I had a terrible experience in calculus (although I received a math award, graduating high school). I figured out, after about three weeks, that I could turn in homework with random numbers (we would get some credit), and pass the class as long as I got Ds on the test. This of course was not ideal but after attending various math tutoring sessions, and finding out that 2/3 of the student's there were from this professors classes, I decided my time and energy were better spent elsewhere. I say all this in support of the DLT. It is more important to actually learn material, rather than "pass" a class or finding ways around it.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with you when you say the education system is slowly reforming itself. I would say a few teachers are making changes but the system as a whole is flawed. With the prevalence of standardized tests we as future teachers are limited in the creativity that we can bring to the class room. With your topic of not teaching abstract ideas to younger students and only dealing in the concrete I would just change it a little bit. Begin with the concrete ideas but also introduce the abstract. The younger children may be unable to fully grasp it (depending on where the child is in their mental development) but don't asses the abstract. The introduction of the abstract may provide a basis for when the topic is reintroduced at a later date.
ReplyDelete