Learning through performance requires active discovery, analysis, interpretation, problem-solving, memory, and physical activity (Foreman, 2003). The world we live in today and with all the new information and communication technology, it can be said that traditional practices of teaching are being replaced, for instance, with modern alternatives that are perceived to be more convenient and effective. The common Hong Kong (Chinese) education system similar to other Asian countries and territories is characterized as ‘spoon-feeding’ or “Peking Duck style-education” or rote learning (Chan, 1999). This means that the teachers provide their students all the needed information for knowledge building and the students merely accept and absorb everything the teachers give. For example, students are instructed to memorize books for examinations.
Today, the trends of globalization and modernization affect almost all ways of living present in contemporary societies. It is a universal fact that many everyday chores are becoming more automated. With the commercialism of the Internet and the already wide acceptance and use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) hardware and software, tasks that are difficult and stressful to perform before are now as easy as 1-2-3 or even A-B-C. Proponents of the new technologies boast that these new systems will enable work to become faster and more accurate (Hipple & McClam, 2002). For many people who have access to websites, it opened a whole world of discovery for them. This is same as true with the process of learning as well as teaching. Now, the question of ambivalence on whether which learning style is more effective and applicable to the modern educational standards is posed.
This paper aims to discuss the traditional style of learning (as well as education and teaching) against collaborative or discovery or progressive learning among Hong Kong teachers and students. Specifically, it tackles previous research studies and literatures probing the effectiveness of traditional and non-traditional learning and/or teaching. It uses adult education and learners as the focus group. Similarly, the author also incorporates personal reflection and critique of the issue.
Summary of the Context
Before digging deeper into the topic, there is an insistent preference to identify what determines quality education? UNESCO answered this question when they mentioned the four pillars of quality education (EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005). The four pillars are: learning to know; learning to do; learning to live together; and learning to be. First, ‘learning to know’ means that learners should build their own knowledge daily by combining creative and external elements. Next, ‘learning to do’ is centered on the practical application of what is learned. On the other hand, ‘learning to live together’ is about addressing the critical skills for an individual free from discrimination, where all have an equal opportunity to develop themselves, their families and their communities. Finally, ‘learning to be’ emphasizes the skills needed for individuals to develop towards their full potential.
As previously stated, traditional Chinese education is considered as teacher-based. Students are passive in terms of participation to the exploration of knowledge. Chan (1999) describes the Chinese students as less impulsive and more likely to obey the rules to their teachers. A very outstanding feature of Chinese students, as noted by Kirkbribe and Tang (cited in Chan, 1999) is that they prefer to leave all matters to the teacher as a means of showing respect for the wisdom and capabilities the teachers possess. A Chinese student is more likely not to challenge the teacher or express his/her opinion unless being asked to do so (Wong, 2004). On the contrary, Biggs (1996) affirms that Chinese students are active in face-to-face communication with the teacher and also interpersonal communication outside the learning situation.
Generally, the learning style of Chinese students is believed to be influenced by Confucianism (Chan, 1999). The teacher is the main source of knowledge and the way he/she teach is standardized. According to Wong (2004), most Western counterparts viewed Asians as passive learners due to the presence of ‘spoon-fed’ or rote learning method particularly in terms of memorization which they believe not to enhance understanding. Most learning environments are perceived to be slave of this learning strategy. On the other hand, Marton, Alba and Kun (1996) argued that there are two types of memorization, that is, memorization with understanding and mechanical memorization. This group of authors concluded that Asian students perform better in terms of achievement as to compare Western students because Asian students memorize and understand at the same time.
Meanwhile, as opposed to the previous discussion, the traditional learning strategy of Chinese is gradually replaced by new innovations in education such as the incorporation of technology in teaching. It is believed that students can be seen as more motivated and interested into a subject when daily lessons are incorporated with ICT. This implies that learning is no longer trapped with the traditional pattern of being provided by teachers. People today have the chance to explore things easily for themselves because of the many learning tools and technologies available.
The growth of technologies did not only change the way people work and function, but also the demand of business companies all over the world. For instance, employers are now on the lookout for flexible employees who can easily adapt with changes and can work with minimal instructions and supervision. This type of attitude towards how an employee should react is contrary to what traditional methods of learning implies. Companies do not always want employees to rely on instructions and commands from superiors, instead they want employees who can think for themselves. This then would suggest that there is a great opportunity to explore the practice of discovery or progressive learning.
Now, the challenges and demands of the modern societies can be addressed by consideration to change. In this particular instance, the traditional learning strategy is confronted by a new strategy called discovery or collaborative or progressive learning. Hong Kong’s educational system is then considered to undergo a gradual transformation.
Discussion/Synthesis/Analysis
Discovery learning, contrary to traditional learning relying on classroom instructions, focuses on the learning taking place within the individual, the teaching and instructional strategies designed by the teacher, and the environment created when such strategies are used (Castronova, 2002). However, this type of learning method is not left without any scrutiny from critics, mostly proponents of traditional learning. Evers (1998) (cited in Castronova, 2002) elaborated those critics of discovery or progressive education pinpoints on the fault that progressive educators decline to look at the results of their methods. Evers further explained that discovery educators elevate those methods into an object of near-religious reverence and stress methods at the expense of knowledge of subject matter. Because of continuous debate on which learning method is more effective, there is still a need to assess the subject as much as possible to reach a final consensus. Furthermore, there is a need to support the issue on a certain focus group such as adult learners.
In adult education and learning perspectives, Scott (1998) (cited in Kagan & Meidow, 2002) identified five philosophies in adult education namely: liberal, progressive, behaviorist, humanist, and radical. With this particular fact, the argument of what kind of pedagogy will be used may be based in these given philosophies. However, Kagan and Meidow (2002) argued that these five philosophies provide a clear framework to understand the different definitions, goals, roles, concepts, methods and scholars within adult education. They noted that importance of realizing that in reality, the personal philosophies of every individual in education do not fit exactly into specific categories and that while majority of people may identify primarily with one philosophy, others may share elements of the others (Kagan & Meidow, 2002).
Just recently, the delivery of quality education is still dominated by the traditional classroom instruction approaches of education. Classroom learning is still one of the oldest forms of learning that is used today (Lord, 1997). It can up hold the four pillars of education because aside from cognitive learning, it also helps the student in the direction of creative and emotional development. Experienced teachers deliver many subtle messages and important lessons in such classrooms, which might be diminished in other types of flexible learning. On the contrary, non-traditional methods are said to decrease social and emotional learning (Donlevy, 2003). In addition, students with low reading abilities and problems with motivation may find it difficult to sustain interest in accomplishing all learning activities associated with other types of learning (Donlevy, 2003). The bottom-line is that there should be a superior figure who should monitor the progress of the students and guide them every step of the way.
The constructivist theory very much relates to discovery learning. Constructivism is a theory of knowledge and cognition that research has revealed in describing student learning. Von Glasersfeld (1996) defined constructivism as principles: “that knowledge is not passively received, either by sensing or by communicating, but is actively built up by the cognizing subject; and that the function of cognition is adaptive, and tries to increase fitness or viability – serves the organization of the experiential world of the subject, not the discovery of ontological reality”. This principle explains that the perception and confirmation of one’s knowledge in social interaction plays a crucial role in a person’s construction of his or her observed reality and is based on subjectivity. Subjectivity means that the student must explore the method according to his or her own interest. It can also provide a ‘blind exploration’ for the students. In other words, the student can enhance his or her knowledge through his or her own efforts and determination to learn.
Constructivism suggests that learning can be more likely achieved when instructions are student-centered as opposed to teacher-based. It involves more active learning experiences, different interaction between teachers and students, and more work in solving realistic problems through concrete materials (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2005; Jensen, 2000). Simply put constructivism as a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that by reflecting on our own experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in. Each of us generates our own “rules” and “mental models”, which we use to make sense of our experiences. Learning, therefore, is simply the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences (Darling-Hammond, 1998). As a conception of constructivism, it is still unclear if educators will favor discovery learning in time. Literature shows both potential and stagnation for discovery learning. To further understand discovery learning and its advantage on traditional learning, there is still a need to further compare the two practices. Further research is imperative as mentioned by Castronova (2002).
Generally speaking, integrating new technology in the classroom, increase in population of students, and meeting academic standards and goals are but a few of the problems that schools today face (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Rebora, 2004). Adult education is certainly affected by the ambiguity that characterizes the contemporary global situation today. Increasingly, there are difficult questions posed about what constitutes the field of adult education and what are its values and purposes (Bryant et al., 1997). In times when a greater number of adults coming from a diversity of backgrounds enter an increasing variety of programmes, another set of problems is emerging. The difficulty in coping with the current uncertainty is compounded by the nature of the contemporary situation, which itself is difficult to characterize and interpret. Whilst there is general agreement that the world is extremely witnessing profound economic, technological and cultural changes, there is less agreement on whether these constitute a continuation of quality education.
The utilization of discovery learning in Hong Kong education system will improve student’s achievement because it motivate students to explore, integrate, and generalize knowledge; student driven, interest-based activities in which the student determines the sequence and frequency, and; activities to encourage integration of new knowledge into the learner’s existing knowledge base (Castronova, 2002; Reardon, 2002; Dinmore, 1997). Castronova (2002) also found five characteristics such as: learning is active rather than passive (Mosca & Howard, 1997); learning is process-oriented rather than content-oriented; failure is important; feedback is necessary (Bonwell, 1998), and understanding is deeper (Papert, 2000). These characteristics differentiate discovery learning greatly from traditional learning as their combination are claimed to more learning opportunities because learners internalize concepts when they go through a natural progression to understand them (Castronova, 2002; Herzer, Jonas, & Weimer, 2001). However, Castronova concluded that discovery learning is still no match with traditional classroom learning in terms of prestige because current legislations still favor the latter. The current legislations lean toward accountability based on test scores, standardizing content-based curriculum, and maintaining higher class sizes to reduce work cost. This is clearly against discovery learning being adopted in the classroom (Castronva, 2002). Castronova also identified another current problem of discovery learning such as there is a shortage of professionally trained teachers in the market (Castronova, 2002).
With the problems encountered in this pedagogical arena, the debate including which among traditional and non-traditional learning strategies is more effective continues. The question on what is more effective – traditional learning or collaborative/progressive or discovery learning – constantly finds compelling arguments, strong evidences and truthful answers. Whether or not either approach is effective or ineffective than the other, it is still imperative to consider the inherent characteristics that differentiate the one from the other. The only thing that does seem reasonably certain is that adult educators are finding it increasingly challenging to simply take refuge in the certainties of the past. The literatures recorded in the area of this study continue to validate the fact on what kind of learning (or teaching) strategy is more effective.
As people move from the ‘field’ of adult education to a ‘moorland’ of adult learning, so the guiding paradigms of adult education, its theory, purposes and practices, need reconfiguring and new conceptual resources are required to make sense of the contemporary conjuncture and of the place of adult education within that (Bryant, et al., 1997). Bryant and colleagues affirmed that it would be difficult to argue that adult education can sustain itself, as it is presently constituted in the face of the challenges posed by late modernity/post-modernity.
In relation to Hong Kong setting, Baker (1983) (cited in Ma, 1999) stated that the Hong Kong generation was brought up in a social environment very different from that on the mainland. The shift in the economy of labor-intensive to information-intensive, the rise of Hong Kong as one of the largest financial centers in the world, and the initiatives of the Hong Kong government in welfare, public housing, education, and transportation had provided the urbanized setting for the ‘emergence of a Hong Kong Man’ who is very different from the Chinese of the mainland. The following characteristics may serve as foundational basis to the consideration on what educational system is best suited.
Recommendation and Conclusion
Thus, as a suggestion, there is a need for Hong Kong educational authorities to evaluate the current conditions of the academic arena. The continuous understanding of the current trends and its applicability to the area of specialization is very crucial if not vulnerable. The role of the government is also imperative. Similarly, teachers need to upgrade their know-how as well as ability in relation to teaching and imparting knowledge. I personally believe that there is something much better that discovery learning (collaborative/progressive) can give. Aside from making the learning experience more interesting and encompassing, it deviates from the traditional practice of ‘spoon-feeding’ or rote learning as seen in traditional medium of instruction. The technologies that we have today surely allow and help every student to reach their maximum potentials in becoming productive citizens.
To end, before categorically defining which effective and quiet ineffective pedagogical approach is, it is important to know that learning depends to some degree on the theoretical lens a person use to look at it. For instance, the behaviorist lens sees it as the acquisition of knowledge and skills that changes a person’s behavior. On the other hand, the cognitive theorist’s lens focuses more on the acquisition of knowledge than on the resulting behavior change. Thus, it is safe to state that whatever strategy in learning used in education, effects will be remain constant given the fact that the subject of application, area of study, the teacher’s and students’ factors, and other potential affecting factors are carefully studied and considered.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment