Living and Learning in a Community of Learners - Essay Example

Living and Learning in a Community of Learners A career in Education, or one related to it, covers a wide scope of responsibility. Since it is a “people-oriented” field, there are many considerations to make in coming up with decisions that would benefit the majority. This first assignment has pushed me to the deepest level of introspection with regards to my own beliefs and principles on teaching and education. According to Osterman (1990), “reflection is the essential part of the learning process because it results in making sense of or extracting meaning from the experience”. The enormous amount of reading required has made me gain a lot of meaningful insights that apply to the teaching profession and reflect on my own perspectives and advocacies. The points discussed in this paper are those that I personally agree with regards to building a learning community. What constitutes a community? It is generally known as a group of people living and working together, usually sharing a common culture or set of values. Residents in a plush subdivision live very differently from those in fishing villages. When one says learning community, the first thing that comes to mind is schools. Indeed, a school is a community whose defining, underlying culture is one of learning. Barth (2000) shares that a community of learners is one “whose most important condition for membership is that one be a learner –whether one is called a student, teacher, principal parent, support staff or certified staff.” The neighborhood where a school is located may also be considered part of that learning community if it shares a mutual commitment to learning with its school. The learning community is nurturing, supportive, sometimes challenging but always caring and concerned with the development of its children. Networking with and engaging the cooperation of the local government, media, police, health and business and large-scale institutions may strengthen the support for learning and development in learning communities (Senge, 2000). In creating a learning community, knowledge acquisition is supported. A sense of excitement is palpable when passion for exploring new realms in education is shared by the members of the community. “The bonus is the newly developing sense of self and sense of empowerment that accompanies the process. The power of community is great. The power of a learning community is even greater, as it supports the intellectual as well as personal growth and development of its members” (Palloff and Pratt, 1999, p. 163). I agree that collaboration in learning brings about more knowledge acquisition than what would be generated through independent, individual learning. Vygotsky (1978) believed that children’s intellectual development is influenced more by social context than by individual experiences. His theory places a great deal of emphasis on effective social interaction. Interactions are likely to go through a process called intersubjectivity. This is when two people are engaged in a task and begin from different understandings but with interaction, comes to an agreed, shared understanding. This is usually manifested when students initially debate opposite arguments but upon more understanding of the concept because of listening to each other’s opinions, will both end up seeing the concept in one direction. My reflections in the ideal learning community I am aspiring to be part of shall focus on the kind of learning that is advocated, which is Constructivist learning, the quality of teacher and professionalism necessary, the active involvement of parents, and the harmonious partnerships between the school and the community. These are elements that would greatly benefit the student/ learner. Education today has undergone various transformations from days of old. Schools at present may have similar goals of optimizing students’ learning and maximizing their potentials but may have differing philosophies, approaches and educational strategies in fulfilling these goals. “Predictably, the traditional teacher-centered model in which knowledge is “transmitted” from teacher to learner is rapidly being replaced by alternative models of instruction (e.g., learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural ideas) in which the emphasis is on guiding and supporting students as they learn to construct their understanding of the culture and communities of which they are a part (A. L. Brown et al., 1993; J. S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Cobb, 1994b; Collins, 1990; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Pea, 1993). In the process of shifting our attention to the constructive activity of the learner, we recognize the need to anchor learning in real-world or authentic contexts that make learning meaningful and purposeful. “ (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998, p.27) Constructivist theory is gaining more attention, recognition and acceptance in many educational institutions. It premises on the belief that learners “construct” their own learning, and in effect, have better retention of it. “In the Constructivist theory the emphasis is placed on the learner or the student rather than the teacher or the instructor.  It is the learner who interacts with objects and events and thereby gains an understanding of the features held by such objects or events.  The learner, therefore, constructs his/her own conceptualizations and solutions to problems.  Learner autonomy and initiative is accepted and encouraged.” (Van Ryneveld, n.d., n.p.). Students learn to make connections through guided practice and interaction with others. Talking is a vehicle for learning; relationships enable students to move to deeper levels of understanding. Vygotsky came up with the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). He defined the ZPD as the distance between a child’s independent problem-solving level and that obtained under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Wertsch, 1985). Wells (1997) cautioned us, however, that a ZPD is formed not just within an individual learner, but in the interaction between the learner, coparticipants, and available tools during involvement in a common activity. ZPDs, therefore, depend on the quality of the total interactive context as well as individual learner capabilities. (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). In my experiences with children, I observe that I usually challenge their thinking skills by raising the bar of my expectations. When I am careful in presenting activities or asking questions which are developmentally-appropriate to them, I am pleasantly surprised that they successfully pass my heightened standards. Respect for students’ ideas is prevalent in the constructivist classroom. Teachers seek and value their student’s points of view and even use them as cues for ensuing lessons. They are aware that relevance, meaning and interest in lessons should consider the learner’s experience, background and understanding. Constructivist teachers structure classroom experiences that foster the creation of personal meaning. Teachers come up with several strategies in capturing their students’ attention, and courses are offered in helping educators become more efficient in imparting knowledge and skills to their pupils. No longer do they limit their teaching strategies to boring lectures, dizzying written and oral examinations and students’ delivery of memorized answers to expected questions. Teaching aids have likewise expanded from using flashcards, blackboard demonstrations and textbooks to more concrete materials like actual 3-dimensional objects, dioramas and multimedia materials. Activities are likewise evolving to be more learner-centered, as teachers are coming to terms that their students have a hand in directing their own learning. This is not to say that teachers are slowly losing their hold on the learning of their students. In fact, they are important figures in stimulating and encouraging their students’ pursuit of knowledge. David Wescombe-Down (n.d.), an educator, wrote “If we take the constructivist classroom route, we make harder work for ourselves compared to the easier transmission model route. Our students are required to provide rigorous intellectual commitment and perseverance, and teachers must continually connect student’s previous and current knowledge to the emerging curriculum. The relevance of curriculum to student interests therefore cannot be planned, because the learners’ interests and experience cannot be assumed nor completely evaluated in advance.” (n.d., n.p) In the practice of Constructivist Education, teachers need to be vigilant in guiding their students’ learning paths. They need to create opportunities for their students to exercise the construction of their own learning. “Specifically, teachers must be careful not to fall into the trap of labeling specific pedagogical strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, direct instruction, multimedia, computer mediated communications) as constructivist or non-constructivist. It is easy to think of ways in which direct, didactic techniques of instruction may be combined with an overall constructivist view (Howe and Berv 2000) . Thus, instructional strategies are neither inherently constructivist nor non-constructivist and indeed the same strategy may be used in ways that are congruent or non-congruent with a constructivist approach. (Doolittle, 2004). “Constructivist teachers often offer academic problems that challenge students to grapple first with the big ideas and to discern for themselves, with mediation from the teacher, the parts that require more investigation.” (p. 25) This gives the students more power in the acquisition of learning. Using prior knowledge, they are encouraged to invent their own solutions and try out their own ideas and hypotheses with the able support of their teachers. This way, they can indulge in concrete experiences that focus on their interests. The process of searching for information, analysing data and reaching conclusions is considered more important than learning facts. On the other hand, teachers in the Constructivist tradition should be ready for more challenging roles as mentors and facilitators of learning. No longer are they “dispensers of knowledge” and their students their “blank slates” to write on. “Supplying students with answers is not the goal in a constructivist program; in fact, unanswered questions are important in terms of continued interest and continued learning.” (Brewer, 2001, p.59) Teachers are life-long learners themselves and should accept the challenge of furthering their knowledge if not a step ahead of their students, then at least, in step with them. Students’ suppositions are challenged by classroom activities, and such experiences will lead them to validate such suppositions or transform long held fallacies into truths. Assessment of student learning is in the context of daily teaching. Teachers do not view assessment of learning as separate and distinct from the classroom’s normal activities, as in the commonly-held periodical examinations, but, rather, embed assessment directly into the recurrent activities. Hence, teachers’ keen observational skills are paramount in assessment procedures. I am aware that most teachers are accustomed to measuring performance with numerical grades, and the assessment procedures prescribed by Constructivist teachers may be considered lax. On the contrary, I believe that tediously writing down observations of student performance and behaviour and collecting concrete proof of student learning is much more comprehensive, although more difficult than traditional assessment methods. I think it is more reflective of student learning. However, I also think it may be subject to the biases and personal judgments of the teacher, so he must be aware of this tendency and avoid it. The effective teacher can discern which learning strategy would be most appropriate on a case-to-case basis. Imbedded in him are hidden agendas for making his students reach their optimum learning potentials and in effect, the development of a healthy self-esteem. He is aware that he is just an instrument in assisting the students to gain knowledge, and not the source of knowledge himself. He is on hand to ignite the spark of interest and motivation of his students. It is now up to the students themselves to turn that spark into a burning flame that would keep them fired up for more learning. The professional development of the teacher in a learning community involves reflection, collaboration and further learning. Teachers are considered lifelong learners, and are expected to model such quality to inspire their students. Judith Little (1982) recommends teachers to collaborate with each other to come up with more effective instruction. They should engage in frequent, continuous and increasing concrete and precise conferences on their teaching practice and be able to reflect if these practices are working to encourage success in their students. They should be open to feedback and allow frequent observation of their teaching performance. Together, they should plan, design, research, evaluate and prepare teaching materials. They should also support and coach each other on other practices of teaching. Fried (1999) acclaims the development of authentic conversation in learning communities. It “evolves from the habit of coming together in both causal and structured formats- to discuss important matters of affecting the school as a whole, without being intimidated or manipulated by powerful individuals and without being overwhelmed by mistrust or despair.” In short, it’s a “no-holds barred” analysis of teaching and learning practices and educational policies upheld by the school. The people engaged in authentic conversations are all open to any ideas or recommendations for the betterment of their learning community. There is no room for pride or ego here. Considering all’s well within the school premises in terms of supporting the learning of the students, teachers and other members of this micro learning community, the question now lies whether moving out to the outer macro community would yield similar support. The school, then, in envisioning success for such learner-centered learning must engage the community, most specifically the students’ parents and family members in supporting the students’ activities. It may be difficult to pull parents to school activities due to their hectic schedules, but the effort to involve them will be appreciated eventually. Dr. Joyce Epstein (1995) points out in her article that the “spheres of influence” that affect student learning, namely the school and the students’ homes should come together in support of the learner. She claims that many perspectives and practices still keep these separate in that in some schools, there are some educators who believe that if the family would do its job, then they would do theirs. On the other hand, some families maintain that since they raised and nurtured the child, then it is the school’s responsibility to educate him. Epstein advocates that these spheres of influence should be brought together, with high quality communication and interaction, to overlap and more powerfully support the child. Reaching out to their parents would definitely be beneficial not only to them but also to the teachers, as they would get a peep into their students’ home lives and have a more holistic view. In doing so, teachers can more appropriately customize their teaching to them. Maintaining good and regular communication with parents gives teachers a lifeline of support in understanding students better. Teachers must inculcate in the parents the significance of their cooperation and support if they indeed want their children to reach for bigger dreams and empower them with the idea that they are capable of it. Parents must be made to feel that they are truly partners with the school in the education and development of their children. Aside from welcoming their opinions regarding their children’s schooling, their time and efforts in helping out and being available resources of the school must be acknowledged and appreciated. Parents may serve as links to the outside community. They may create networks with companies or agencies that may be able to support the causes of the school and coordinate with their connections on some school projects and activities held outside the school. Doing this assignment has opened my horizons in coming up with learning experiences outside the four walls of the classroom. Having the children venture into the community doing concrete, hands-on projects will likely result in meaningful and relevant learning. As a learning resource, the community may provide venues for field trips. A simple visit to the local veterinarian, flower shop, gas station, and the like will surely enrich the children’s knowledge if the teacher plans it out carefully. Resource persons such as firemen, doctors, police officers, etc. are almost always available to be tapped to help educate the children. Personally, I have observed that although it is definitely more exhausting to go on field trips with the students, their joy and excitement, not to mention their retention of learning is manifested more distinctly. Civic awareness may also be instilled if children if schools are open to provide services to the community. Some examples are: Offering scholarships Giving parenting or caregiver seminars Offering tutorials or children’s workshops Sponsoring community activities related to children (Easter Egg Hunt, Halloween, Outreaches) Being drop-off point for donations to victims of calamities Information Dissemination (Newsletters, etc.) Medical and dental missions Fund-raising activities: book sale, garage sale, etc. Making a difference in the community may be done by ensuring the quality of education in schools and helping raise students with solid principles and sound causes. A school can make its own principles felt by standing up for its convictions such as advocating for child issues. This may be done by forming non-government organizations whose purposes are directly concerned with children’s education and welfare; actively participating and seeking government support and involving media in information dissemination. These ideas show that creating a learning community is not one-way. Members from various camps (the school, the students’ families and the community) should make efforts in fostering a collaborative spirit and healthy partnerships with each other. Hargreaves admits that “professional communities are hard to create. They presume and demand qualities of leadership and levels of teacher capacity that are not always available, especially in schools in poor communities with long legacies of failure and hopelessness” (2003, p. 204). However, this reality must not dishearten idealistic souls. Change is usually difficult to deal with, even change for the better. Sometimes, the inconveniences of leaving the comfort zones of complacency may be the ones that would push people to change. Wheatley (1999) comments that “when the disturbance has swelled to great intensity, change is at hand.” In some instances, the need for change is very strongly felt, as members of the community have expressed discontent over current believes, structures, patterns and values. An example is the painfully slow shift of educational approaches from traditional teacher-centered learning to the more constructivist learner-centered philosophy. People’s interpretations change with their subjective paradigm shifts. Priorities re-create themselves from new understandings of what’s important. According to Wheatley, for change to occur, there must be a change in meaning. Although it is initially difficult to create a community of learners, Wheatley advises that members of the community “must learn how to ‘struggle with relationships and learn how to make them work because they realize that this is the only path to achieving their aspirations.’” Eventually, everyone will benefit from the struggle. Being a member of a learning community means being in a sustained state of wonder. Possessing an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, members will go to great lengths in supporting each other in their journey as life long learners. With that belief, I will definitely sign up for lifetime membership. References Barth, R. S. (2000). Foreword. In P. J. Wald & M. S. Castleberry (Eds.), Educators as learners: Creating a professional learning community in your school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications. Bonk, C.J. & Cunningham, D.J. (1998) “Searching for Learner-Centered, Constructivist, and Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educational Learning Tools” in Electronic Collaborators. Retrieved on March 25, 2008 from: www.publicationshare.com/docs/Bon02.pdf Brewer, J.A. (2001) Introduction to Early Childhood Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). “Distributed expertise in the classroom.” In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). “Situated cognition and the culture of learning”. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41. Cobb, P. (1994b). “Where is mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development.” Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20. Collins, A. (1990). “Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology”. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Doolittle, P. (2004) “Constructivist Philosophy, Theory, and Pedagogy: Insights, Insults, and Insanity.” International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on March 27, 2008 from: www.isetl.org/conference/accepted2.cfm?proposal_id=116 Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). “Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction”. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communicationsand technology. New York: Scholastic. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9, May), 701–712. [Available electronically in full-text from SCU Library’s ‘Electronic Journals’, via ‘Expanded Academic’.] Fried, R. (1999). The passionate learner. Boston, MA: Becon Press. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in an age of insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press. Howe, K., & Berv, J. (2000). “Constructing constructivism: Epistemological and pedagogical.” In. D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 19-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal. 19(3), 325–340. Osterman, K. F (1990) "Reflective Practice: A New Agenda for Education." Education And Urban Society 22, no. 2 (February 1990): 133-152. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pea, R. D. (1993b). “Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education”. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Senge, P. M. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline resource book. London: Nicholas Brealey. Van Ryneveld, L., (n.d.) What is constructivism?, Retrieved on March 25, 2008 from http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/lindavr/lindapg1.htm Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wells, G. (1997). “The zone of proximal development and its implications for learning and teaching.” Retrieved on March 26, 2008 from http://www.iose.utoronto.ca/~gwells/zpd.discussion.txt Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wescombe-Down, D. (n.d.), “Constructivism, mainstream teaching and scientific knowledge from the classroom perspective.” Retrieved on March 27, 2008 from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/11788/science1/constructivism/MSMSASTA05.doc Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Bringing schools back to life: Schools as living systems. In Duffy, M. N., & Dale, J. D. (Eds.), Creating successful school systems: Voices from theuniversity, the field and the community. Norwood MA: Christopher-Gordon. Retrieved March 29, from http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/lifetoschools.html Read More