After about 18 hours spent in a classroom and on the, uh, range, I am now the proud holder of a motorcycle license. I also have a bit of a sunburn on the back of my neck. The latter I earned by tooling around a paved lot while never getting above 2nd-gear. The former was acquired the same way. I've spent some time reflecting on the whole experience—T says possibly too much time.
True to form, The T turned my commentary on the course into an example of learning theory. Let me explain. A student in the class said she was taking the class because she bought a 400cc scooter to ride to work and she'd heard that if she was caught on the road, it would be taken away. She does not have a permit for the scooter. She seemed to think that it would be impounded because it was a scooter. I tried to explain to her that it would be impounded because she didn't have a driver's permit to ride it on the road. I guess she didn't believe me because the next day when the instructor asked her why she was taking the class, she said the same thing. She wanted her motorcycle license because she thought she needed to get a motorcycle because a scooter could not be on the road. She did not understand the role the driver's permit played in the situation. The scooter is completely street legal. It would have been impounded because of the lack of a permit, not because it is not a motorcycle.
It was fascinating to me to watch how my suggestion of necessary paperwork was ignored. This is where T's learning lesson comes in. People, i.e., students, will hold on to their beliefs until they can mesh new information with their old (possibly incorrect) understanding to come to a new understanding. This woman had it in her head that it was the mere existence of the scooter on the road that was the problem and not the lack of paperwork. I wonder if she's shopping for a Harley right now because she still doesn't get it.
(Is this where I mention she is in the country on a green card and that little bit of paperwork she seems to understand just fine?)
When The T has talked about how people hold on to what they understand during our many education conversations, I've nodded my head and agreed. It makes sense. I've then walked into a classroom and wonder why my students make mistakes that were addressed and discussed previously. Their understanding of the math is similar to the scooter-chick's understanding of impounding: each party is holding on to what they know because new info has not been integrated into their belief structures—yet (hopefully 'yet'). Now I'm pondering my role as an instructor to help students with this integration of new info. This falls into Leading a Horse to Water scenario so I know I can't just give them the info and think that they'll immediately believe in it and integrate it and understand it. But how far do I lead? Do I walk right to the water? Do I just provide a map and compass? Do I try to come up with more detail in this analogy when I could be doing other things?
ponder ponder ponder
No comments:
Post a Comment