blogs.evergreen.edublogs.evergreen.edu/.../2015/12/MiT-Synthesis-Paper-… · Web viewHis approach is combined with Kolb and McCarthy’s learning cycle theory. Zull applied it to

EDUCATION THROUGH LEARNING, TEACHING, AND SCHOOLING 1

Introduction

Education is the development of acquired knowledge. Education is associated with

learners, teachers, and schools. In this paper I will address what learning, teaching, and schooling

are. Learning is changing the brain, teaching is guidance through a variety of instructional

techniques, and schooling is a structured environment for teaching and learning.

Learning

Learning is observing, experiencing, applying, and reflecting. Learning should allow the

individual opportunity to experiment and experience. Learning is a change, a transformation within

the brain and ourselves (Zull, 2002). Zull’s vision of learning involved a change in the brain

through sensing, integrating, and acting. His approach is combined with Kolb and McCarthy’s

learning cycle theory. Zull applied it to the way the brain processes information. This theory begins

with sensing what you gathered from the environment through concrete experiences. Next we

observe and integrate what is being sensed. Then we integrate what is sensed and generate a

response (Zull, 2002).

Zull believed that learning is change, a change in the brain. Learning occurs through a

nerve cell, neuron, which transmits nerve pulses to the cell body, where information is held.

Neurons are responsible for information processing and converting chemical and electrical

signals. These neurons travel through the axon terminal, where axons make synaptic connections

with other nerve cells. Synaptic connections happen when we are learning. The space between

the axon terminal and the dendrite is called the synaptic gap. Synaptic efficiency occurs when

dendritic connections become closer and myelination becomes faster. Dendrites release


neurotransmitters, a chemical substance that causes transfers of impulses to another nerve fiber

(Walton, 2015).

When we practice something, neurons in the brain fire faster and at a higher frequency,

thus causing more dendritic growth (Walton, 2015). This process can be compared to Piaget’s

cognitive stage theory. The theory stated that development is the combined result of maturation of

the brain and nervous system. Dendritic growth branching is similar to accommodation, the act of

altering existing schema. Schema are the building blocks of learning, our neural networks of

knowledge. For example, I may have my own method of how to cook mashed potatoes, but when

my cooking instructor teaches a new cooking method I sensed the information and

accommodated what was demonstrated and created a new schema for cooking mashed

potatoes. Through assimilation making something fit into our schema and myelinate an existing

path. For example, if I never change the way I do something then I will keep myelinating and will

not create new opportunities for dendrites to grow. When we experience disequilibrium, when new

information foes not fit into our existing schemas we can either accommodate, grow more

dendrites or assimilate, keep myelinating the same path (Walton, 2015). When we experience

equilibrium, assimilation and accommodation are balanced. A balance between what is sensed

through the mind and our environment. Through these processes we are able to adapt through

building schemas through interacting with our environment. For example, I could see a rhino at

the zoo and call it a donkey. I would be assimilating the rhino into my donkey schema (Miller,

2011).

Lastly, through gathering data we have concrete experiences that can either cause us to

experience equilibrium or disequilibrium. We reflect on what we observed and adapt through

accommodation or assimilation. Our brains can either create more dendritic branches or


myelinate the same path. Finally, there is an active testing process where we test our hypothesis

and act upon the world and get a response. The cycle continues through observation and active

testing. We experience transformation when we share information with others and apply that

information to daily life (Miller, 2011, Zull, 2002).

Another avenue of learning can be described through the sociocultural theory developed

by Vygotsky. He thought that thinking through acquiring cultural tools was the reasoning behind

learning. He believed that we learn through a dialectal process, a process of trial and error. We

emit certain behaviors through our neural networks to learn. The learner will learn through

scaffolding and guidance from a teacher, an adult, or a more capable peer to complete a task.

The more capable peer will offer a better example of what is trying to be learned, this can be a

person, book, video, or experience. For example, if I am not sure how to change my oil, I would

ask my dad who would act as my more capable peer. He has more experience and knowledge

about cars than I do. I would internalize the information, act on it, and teach it to my sister when

she needs help. The learner can share their understanding through an intermental process

among people or an intramental process using egocentric speech. Whether the learner needs

additional guidance determines where they lie on the zone of proximal development. Inside this

zone the learner can do something with help, outside the learner can either do it or not (Miller,

2011).

Learning is based on survival, this is the purpose of our brain according to Zull. Our brain

survives by learning through electrical and chemical processes. When we receive new information

and experience challenges we increase synaptic connections that lead to dendritic branching. By

sharing our new knowledge with others we experience transformation and continue our learning

cycle. According to Zull, we learn through a process called the learning cycle by sensing an


environment, integrating what is sensed, and creating an appropriate action. Learning occurs

through a nerve cell, neuron, which transmits nerve pulses to the cell body, where information is

held. Neurons are responsible for information processing and converting chemical and electrical

signals. These neurons travel through the axon terminal, where axons make synaptic connections

with other nerve cells. The space between the axon terminal and the dendrite is called the

synaptic gap. Synaptic efficiency occurs when connections are eliminated to increase the

efficiency of neurotransmitters, where dendrites release (Walton, 2015, Zull, 2002).

According to Piaget, when we learn something new or experience disequilibrium, when

new information does not fit into our existing schema or cognitive framework, we adapt. Adaption,

our ability to build cognitive schemas, can cause us to take two routes: assimilate, keep the same

schema through myelination or accommodate, change or create new schema through dendritic

growth. Myelin form thick layers around the axons of some neurons that do not want to change

and dendrites are branched fibers that carry nerve impulses toward the nerve cell body. Axons

carry nerve impulses away from the cell body toward other neurons. When we are able to balance

assimilation and accommodation by mastering a new challenge we experience equilibrium (Miller,

2011, Zull, 2002). Learning is a change in the brain and behavior.

Bandura believed that we learn new behaviors by observing others. Information

processing theory stated that humans perform better than sophisticated machines as the mind of

a human can problem solve and think critically. Zull believed that the brain goes through chemical

and electoral changes when learning occurred. Vygotsky’s theory placed more emphasis on

culture affecting and shaping cognitive development, whereas Piaget was more focused on

universal stages of development. Each theory had its own strengths and weaknesses I will

explain them here.


The strength of Bandura’s social learning theory is that it conditions to get rid of

undesirable behaviors produced by children. A weakness of this theory is controlling the person

without their permission. Learning through this theory involves a permanent change in behavior

that occurred through practice. Development came from experience, modeling, shaping, and

reinforcement. Bandura believed that we get, maintain, and change behaviors that we see others

do. We decide which behaviors to keep and when to use them. Learning through observing,

reading, or hearing about others’ behaviors does not guarantee that everyone will get a

similar learning experience (Miller, 2011).

Information processing theory suggested that our mental process was like a computer

program that accepts information, preforms certain operations in it, and stores it. The strength of

this theory was its ability to express the complexity of thought. Its weakness was that it had

problems addressing development issues and neglected the context of behavior. We are

influenced by many conflicting emotional and motivational factors that affect our ability to learn.

We are limited on how information we can process at a given time and how fast we can process,

so in regards to learning we are not like computers. Computers for the most part process the

same, unlike humans (Miller, 2011).

Piaget’s Cognitive stage theory suggested that humans sought and interpreted information

in the environment. The strength of his theory is that it recognized the role of cognition in

development. It was weak in the area that it had lacking support for the stage concept and

underestimated ability. This theory indicated that development took place in distinct stages of

cognitive development. Although each person had their won individual schemas and lived

experiences. Every child thinks different and can develop at different rates (Miller, 2011).


The sociocultural theory that Vygotsky believed in contradicts Piaget’s view of universal

stages of development. Vygotsky placed more emphasis on culture affecting and shaping

cognitive development. He believed that humans were not independent as they engaged in their

environment, they were a part of it. A strength of his theory was that it encouraged strong social

relationships with others through apprenticeship, guided participation, language, and other cultural

tools. Its weakness was that the width of the Proximal Zone of Development did not accurately

portray learning ability. This would affect learners with wide zones that may rely on help from

adults. While narrow zoned children do not profit from the help of adults (Miller, 2011).

Teaching

According to Zull, the brain is a structure that produces learning naturally, in that sense we

all learn the same according to brain structure, but all methods of teaching do not work well for all

students. Teaching is guidance, modeling, and building relationships that lead to student

achievement. Teachers should teach to the individual student, thus a strong relationship needs to

form, establishing trust. Depending on the level of cognitive development of the student, teachers

should then consider what their students’ motivation and self-regulations are when choosing a

model to follow (Miller, 2009). There are several models of teaching and quadrants of learning

types that I will address.

If a teacher was to take the direct instruction approach this model would address quadrant

2 learners well. This model presents clear presentation and task analysis that tailors to the

strengths of someone who falls into the quadrant 2 categories. These learners value gathering

information, analytical and logical thinking, and receiving information from a reliable authority. This

model of teaching does not serve quadrant 4 learners well. It did not address opportunities to be a


leader and is not innovative enough to cater to a quadrant 4’s needs. If a teacher was to follow a

behaviorist method of learning, much like Bandura’s social learning theory, in their instruction the

teacher would have to give a concrete example or experience for the students to engage in. The

teacher would base their lesson off of a direct instruction model; because they need to model the

behavior they want their students to exhibit. If the teacher’s only approach was to use this method

then students would believe that there is only one way to emit their intelligence. This would have

caused students to have low self-esteem and lose their unique learning identities. Direct

instruction is dependent on practice. Practice helped myelination and new information promoted

dendritic growth. But, students are not given the opportunity to access their prior knowledge and

experience (Arrends, 1997, Zull, 2002).

The cooperative learning model of teaching addressed the learning preferences of

quadrant 1 learners, but they could enjoy it or dislike based group dynamics because they want

everyone’s voice to be heard. This model valued group discourse. Quadrant 1 learners value

brainstorming and being involved in concrete experiences. Quadrant 2’s do not value this model

because they need to get their information from a reliable resource. They enjoyed working

logically and analytically. Cooperative learning focused on myelinating the same neural networks

of misconceived information. Reporting back information through recollection. This method did not

focus on filtering accurate information. If everyone is given the same input, then everyone should

have the same learning opportunities. But this not the case, some students are better at recalling

and storing information than others (Arrends, 1997, Miller, 2011).

The problem based instruction model addressed quadrants 3 and 4 well. This model

valued inquiry-based projects through group work. Quadrant 3 learners valued problem solving

and deductive reasoning. Quadrant 4 learners valued hands-on activities and taking risks. This


model does not cater to quadrant 2 learners that had a preference of learning from a reliable

source, watching, and thinking. The student needed to experience disequilibrium by introducing a

concrete experience. Then that student needed to move that information through cognitive

adaptation, happening through reflective observation. Information is assimilated or

accommodated, then filed into new or existing schema, in the learning cycle that is applied to an

abstract hypothesis. The student would develop a sense of control and fulfillment because every

new experience caused disequilibrium and the brain had the power to make sense of what was

going on. This would eventually lead to more dendritic growth and the student be more

comfortable with making mistakes. Problem based instruction allowed making connections by

dendritic growth and branching. Students are actively engaged in the material and created

creating concrete experiences and at the same time myelinating a particular pathway of

knowledge (Arrends, 1997, Miller, 2011, Zull, 2002).

The discussion model catered to the learning preferences of quadrant 1 learners, but they

could enjoy it or dislike based group dynamics because they want everyone’s voice to be heard.

This model valued group discourse. Quadrant 1 learners valued brainstorming and being involved

in concrete experiences. Quadrant 2’s do not value this model because they need to get their

information from a reliable resource. They enjoy working logically and analytically. This model

promoted dendritic growth, connecting ideas, and interconnecting schemas, but did not address

whether the discussion was memorable enough to store in long term memory (Arrends, 1997,

Miller, 2011).

The concept attainment model valued the learning preferences of quadrants 3 and 4. This

model allowed students to problem solve, voice opinions, and think critically. Quadrant 3 enjoyed

manipulating information and defining problems. Quadrants 4 have a preference of getting things


done and being creative. This model does not address the learning preferences of quadrant 2

learners who valued simply getting the answer. Through this method of teaching students would

realize that learning is a collective process and would lead them to appreciate and value other

voices of reason. The zone of proximal development gave students encouragement that they

could reach their goals in the future if not in the present. This approach could also discourage

students from thinking for themselves and relying too much on help from others. The concept

attainment model directed students on which thoughts should be myelinated and what information

should be transferred to long-term memory by examples and non-examples. However, this

method did not address connecting existing schemas (Arrends, 1997, Miller, 2011).

The presentation model addressed the learning preferences of quadrant 2 learners. The

presentation model offered clear information through an advanced organizer that allows 2’s to

catalog or organize the information that is being taught. Through the advanced organizer students

are able to activate their visuospatial sketchpad and their phonological loop. These learners

valued planning and gathering information. This model does not cater to the learning preferences

of quadrant 4 learners, they valued risk-tasking and benefitting others. This model did not take a

student’s past experiences and prior knowledge into consideration. A teacher would consider

using the presentation model because students need input from a concrete experience that can

be integrated and moved into active practice (Arrends, 1997, Miller, 2011).

With that in mind, each model of teaching addressed various quadrants of learning

preferences, so each model is needed when teaching. Teachers should include some variation of

each model in their instruction to reach a wide audience of learners to cater to their needs.

Schooling


Schooling is influenced by communities, environments, cultures, and politics. It shapes

both the teacher and the student by controlling them with sets of rules, standards, and societal

norms. Such restraints are not necessary for education, yet, they pose an inescapable reality.

I side with Noddings views of schooling. Schools should not emulate factories and she

believed that schooling should produce thoughtful citizens who could deliberate and make wise

choices. She focused on the aims of schooling. These aims raised questions about “why” certain

subjects were emphasized over others. The control of schooling can fail students who are forced

to do work that they dislike and are deprived of work they may love. The questions that the aims of

schooling propagated, as to why we teach the curriculum that we do, should force us to look at

and change the sets of controls that drive schooling. Noddings understood that all humans

needed to be cared for and that the curriculum should encompass the world around them.

Schools need to allow teachers the liberty to incorporate the skills and knowledge necessary to

interact with the outside world (Noddings, 2013).

The common school model that Horace Mann created led to standards and standardized

testing. This was a form of control. Control of what was taught and what was valued. His goal was

to have all social classes receive the same education, but it didn’t take into consideration whose

values, culture, and beliefs would be instilled through the curriculum. Schools were the main

institutions of knowledge and provided citizens with skills to take part in politics and society. He

saw schools as the great equalizer but his vision was short sighted. Although his standardization

helped to improve the conditions of schools and schooling, it didn’t allow for diverse curriculum.

Because of its success, but, it hasn’t been changed since its start in the 1830s. This idea of school

was to preserve American values and has remained true today (Rury, 2012, School the Story of

American Public Education).


Counts thought that reform should come from the teacher and that the schools purpose

was to change social order. He felt that everyone needed opportunity. In his eyes school was the

vehicle for change (Counts, 1978). For this to be true, there needed to be liberty to change.

School has not changed in the way that Delpit and Milner proposed change. Delpit suggested that

school should be assessable to everyone, including parents and community. The space that is

schooling should be culturally relevant to the community that is being served. A space where

power is reduced, where everyone felt valued. Milner would have agreed with Delpit’s vision. He

believed that teaching was identity work and schools should not restrict the identities of their

teachers or students. The schools atmosphere should have a multicultural presence rather than

the monocultural one that exists (Delpit, 2006, Milner, 2010).

When schooling does not serve students well they become structurally constrained, like

the Hallway Hangers and Bothers that MacLeod based his research on. Unfortunately, these

students were orphaned by their school system. They fell into the constraints of cultural capital,

where upper class students have more opportunities than lower class students. This is true due to

upper class students possessing more of the dominant cultural capital that is valued in schools,

like the cultural capital that Horace Mann proposed. Possessing the valued cultural capital of the

school led to increased academic success and better jobs. With fuel from cultural capital, schools

then reflected capitalism. Schools controlled rewards, pushed for competition, and promoted

authority. This capitalism in schools endorsed the idea of tracking students. Even though I agreed

with Noddings’ philosophy, she was in favor of tracking, where I see it as being problematic.

Tracking a student based on their background, whether it be culturally or economically is unfair

and biased. It only plays into the idea of the social reproduction theory that MacLeod introduced.

This theory stated that children will fall into the same job and socioeconomic standing as their


parents. If schools label students based on their performance in school and subjects that do no

pertain to their strengths then that will continue the cycle of negligence (MacLeod, 2009). Just

because a student did not excel in a fluency test that was not catered to their needs, does not give

the school the right to track them into an undertaught fluency program.

Schools need to take one word of advice into account, humility. Freire proposed that

teachers should serve communities as cultural workers. He stated that this would start with

humility, requiring courage, self-confidence, and respect for others. Simple enough, but hard to put

into practice for most. Humility allowed the understanding that everyone is ignorant of something.

It is acceptable to make mistakes as a teacher, as long as they correct themselves. This is where

courage comes into play. Teachers should face their fears of addressing hot topics like race in the

classroom to refrain from becoming colorblind and distancing themselves from forming

relationships with their students. (Freire, 1998, Milner, 2010). Schools need to adopt the preaching

of Freire and adopt his ideals of humility into its repertoire.

If schooling continues to fail in believing that all children can learn and allowing teachers to

be the cultural workers that Freire described then students will engage in resistance. This is a

response to the education system rooted in morality, a political resentment. The logic of resistance

runs counter to social relations of schooling. Resistance called for struggle against, rather than

submission to domination. For example, the Hallway Hangers skipped school as from of

resistance, perhaps due to boredom with a curriculum that did not meet their needs or a need for

attention (MacLeod, 2009).

Resistance does not have to mean illegal. It is derived from student’s experiences in

school. Past experiences influenced new experiences, so a student’s experiences throughout


their education play a role in their perspective outlook on their education. Students learn from

experience, and that their job is to have a willingness to apply themselves. Motivation to learn is

key, the student must show a desire to learn. Dewey offered a theory of education based of the

nature of experiences. He argued that there needs to be an emphasis on understanding how

experiences occurred to create a beneficial educational experience. Dewey believed that there

was two types of experiences, educative and miseducative. An educative experience would

benefit the student and lead to achievement in school. Whereas a miseducative experience would

encompass the opposite, like the experiences of the Hallway Hangers. Experiences that hindered

their potential instead of supporting. Schools have the ability to grant either experience. Educative

experiences should be emitted in order for students to be successful contributors to society as

Dewey proposed (Dewey, 1997).

Conclusion

In conclusion, learning allows our brains to transform through knowledge, application,

analysis, and experimentation. It should be an individualized experience that is effected by

teaching through a variety of methods. Teaching should educate the whole person. The

techniques employed by teachers should also completely envelope the student with stimulation,

motivation, engagement, and feedback. Teachers are the ambassadors of schooling. Schooling

should not be confined by set standards made by people who have not taken the needs of the

community, culture, and environment into consideration. Schooling should promote equal

opportunities for achievement for all learners regardless of race and social class. Our

understanding of learning should influence teaching and thus, schooling.


References

Arends, R. (1997). Classroom instruction and management. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Arends, R. (1994). Learning to Teach. 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill Inc.

Counts, G. (1978). Dare the school build a new social order? Southern Illinois University Press.

Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people's children: cultural conflict in the classroom. (6th edition). New

York: New Press.

Dewey, J. (1997 edition). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone/Simon and

Schuster.

Freire, P. (1998).Teachers as cultural worker: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder CO:

Westview Press.

MacLeod, J. (2009). Ain’t no makin’ it: aspirations and attainment in a low-income

neighborhood. (3rd edition). Philadelphia, PA: Westview Press

Miller, Patricia. (2009). Theories of developmental psychology. (5th Edition). Worth Publishers.

Milner, R. (2010). Start where you are but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity

gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Noddings, N. (2013). Education and democracy in the 21st Century. Teacher’s College Press.

Rury, J. (2012). Education and social changes: contours in the history of American schooling. (4th

edition). New York: Routledge.


Walton, S. (2015a, September). Learning and the brain. Workshop presented at The Evergreen

State College, Olympia, WA.

Zull, J. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the

biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Documents

blogs.evergreen.edublogs.evergreen.edu/.../2015/12/MiT-Synthesis-Paper-… · Web viewHis approach is combined with Kolb and McCarthy’s learning cycle theory. Zull applied it to