At the PDI, one thing that was brought up was constructivism and teaching. Constructivism basically means that students construct their own learning and teach themselves with the instructor's help. What would basically happen is an instructor gives students readings, but the assignments are really vague and classes are centered around discussion. The idea is that students grasp the concepts themselves while trying to figure out the assignment or discussions. The students are 'in charge' of the content and they analyze it the way they see fit, and it's more relevant to them. The instructor, of course, helps them if they get too off track.
I thought about this and thought, "Ok... interesting. But how do I as a GTA or possible future instructor know whether students are learning the right stuff?" I know pure constructivists would say, "They will find what is relevant to them, and most helpful, and that's how you know they've learned what they need to learn." However, there are just some foundational things to every field that need to be known in order to succeed. I think these need to be taught the usual way: instructor tells student, "This is how it is." Then, students can discover things with less of an instructor imput, if that's what the instructor wants.
For example: if I were to teach students how to bake cookies (mmm... chocolate chip cookies - nice & warm out of the oven :) <-- what I am eating), I could do it their way & another way. Here goes: I'd put out flour, butter, sugar, vanilla, eggs, baking soda, salt, flour, nuts, and chocolate chips on the table. The students would have ovens and measuring cups & bowls etc. They would see instructions like: Make chocolate chip cookies. Students would just start experimenting. I'd intervene if a student was way off like adding six eggs. I'd say, "You might want to decrease your eggs." but not go into specifics. The students could discuss among themselves what they are doing. In the mean time, there would be a lot of burnt gunk, undercooked stuff, runny batter, batter that is way too sweet, etc. Along the way, someone might get things basically right and he/she would teach everyone else how to make chocolate chip cookies. The process of learning is what matters in this case. However, I see a few drawbacks. One, students might not know where to begin. Two, they learned what works for chocolate chip cookies, but they might have to do the same trial and error for making meatloaf or something. And the most important thing , I believe, is that there are foundational things about cooking such as salt & baking soda make flour rise, eggs hold a mixture together, etc. that you should know to be a good cook. If I had to teach it from a 'learn the foundation first and then explore' method, I would teach the students those foundations and then let them experiment. I'm guessing the mess & trial-error wouldn't be so great, and the students would have more direction.
Bringing it back to HDFS: There are certain things such as attachment, cognitive stages, developmental milestones, and family theories that every single HDFS major needs to know. They are the foundation of the field. They reveal how God designed humans and the families we are raised in. An instructor can somehow teach this by a constructivist method, but I think it's easier if students are given this information. It is important information that should not be overlooked. A student that doesn't know some of these concepts would be considered incompotent in the field.
So basically: There needs to be a foundation. Every field has one. God is the source of all knowledge. Therefore, He has rules in which the world works. We just need to find out what these rules and principles are. That is our foundation, and that is what we need to teach students before they can go on to learn other things in the field.
No comments:
Post a Comment