Given a constant, in this case, a concrete sidewalk, and two variables, in this case a softball and a superball, which will bounce higher if each ball is thrown with the same force? The concept of this answer is called 'coefficient of restitution'. This is term I learned by reading an article about how to cheat in baseball ("Baseball's Dirt Tricks" (1983) Hall, Steven S., Science Magazine.) Of course the superball will bounce higher because its "C.O.R" is higher than the softball's. The same rule of physics fuels the "live ball" debate in baseball. A harder, more compact ball flies farther than a softer, less dense sphere. So how do I apply this to situatinal learning?
Here goes:
The concepts, objectives, theories, and skills we are teaching students are the constant is this analogy. Whether they are as easy as splashing into a swimming pool or as hard as the impact of slipping on an ice rink, the level of simplicity or difficulty is relatively consistent to the aptitude of the learner. It is what is "bounced off" these concepts, objective, etc., that produces the "heightened" result of the learning. Loosely created worksheets or matching items rarely resonate between the material and the learning like a well-designed situation to simulate how the knowledge works. It's like a basketball landing in a puddle. The effect is hollow and shallow. But when a compact, dense learning situation is applied to the material, a higher, more intense result is produced. Like a golf ball in the same puddle. The effect is streamlined and higher because the design of the ball helps it go deeper into the water. Situaltional learning creates depth and produces a higher result.
Bringing a higher coefficient of restitution of assignments to students will produce a "live era" of learning in our classrooms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Worksheets and the like are like the "soft" ball in your analogy. Yet I don't know if there are many teachers who have at least a few years of experience who would freely admit that worksheets are a better means of instruction. Nevertheless, we cannot seem to make worksheets extinct.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that?
Either teachers don't know how, they feel they don't have the time, or they simply don't want to. So while I agree with your premise, to me the larger question to dwell on is why teachers choose the hollow/shallow approach. For my part, as a teacher, creating assignments with a higher COR takes energy and time--and risk. So I've tended to accumulate these types of assignments over the years, creating and adapting them as I go.
Now, the teachers who either don't no better or who feel swamped can easily be facilitated.
But what do you do for the teacher who calls assignments with a high COR "artsy farty"? That is the crux of this issue, I think.
The main reason teachers choose the "softball" approach is the don't know their students and they don't know where they want to take their students(which must be a destination beyond the TEKS.) The effort comes in building the relationship with the student so that AARs can be used in a trustworthy environment.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the "artsy fartsy" comment, that teacher needs to be made to understand that he or she is among a minority on campus- an uncomfortable minority. To so this, his colleagues need to control those reigns.