Wrap up: The last three f2f classes [learning diary]
In the next few paragraphs I want to summarize the last three weeks, as I have the impression it helps me recapitulating what happened so far.
While writing I felt a bit like Special Agent Dana Scully writing reports for Walter Skinner about her FBI partner Fox mulder - except for the fact that I'm observing myself and writing about myself. At least, it helps me staying motivated writing those blog entries. Very cool, right? ;)
10.10.2011
What did we deal with?
As far as I can remember and see from my notes, we did the following:
We got to why we deal with didaktics with a "k". Didaktics is based on a German theory and therefore uses a "k". It's also a favourite topic of the professor. ;)
We talked about the didaktical triangle which comprises:
- the target group,
- methods
- and the content.
When we deal with didaktics it's about the theory and praxis of teaching and learning. You could also call it »mediated instruction« which sounds less frontal and more understanding to me.
Important persons to mention in this context are Lothar Klingberg (Book: "Einführung in die Allgemeine Didaktik") and Stefan Hopmann ("Restrained Teaching: the common core of Didaktik").
Hopmann defined a circle which consists of four parts:
- Preparing
- Working with new content
- Controlling + Evaluating
- Working with old content
...and so on.
So, learning is about head, heart and hands - which sounds very "bloomish", so very much like Bloom's taxonomy we dealt with in the last Monday's session.
Finally, we had a task where we should recognise unknown letters (words) and build your own name out of them. They were special as they were accompanied by graphics helping to understand the letters, and there were words used in the plural. It was also about the way the words sounded like, e.g. "Apfel" sounds different from "Äpfel" although apples are shown in either case.
What was interesting for me?
Hopmann is definitely interesting. I'll try read his paper about the common core of Didaktik.
I found it interesting to hear that we're moving from a word culture to a pictorial culture. It gives more people the chance to become an icon designer and earn a living from that - I guess. :)
What questions arose for me?
Could be seen as off-topic, but I wondered:
How do I know which I sources I really need? or in other words:
How do I know a source is reliable and valuable - before reading the whole content and before loosing sight of what's going on.
17.10.2011
What did we deal with?
For this session we dealt with Constructivism and Behaviorism. That topic got my attention mor than the firs session. I'll try to define both terms.
Constructivism
Constructivism is a learning theory which is about the internal structure of the learner. It deals with the process of self-organization whereas new content builds upon old.
It's always the challenge to master the chain of conflict.
In order to master or solve those conflicts (problems) there are three components to consider:
- Cooperation,
- Communication,
- Interaction.
Important persons in this context are Piaget and Seymour Paper ("the children's machine").
Behaviorism
It's about behaviour and how to tell if you've learned something. Moreover, it's about the chain:
impulse - reaction - behaviour.
Important to note is B.F. Skinner who wrote »Waldon Two« and about respondent behaviour in contrast to operant behaviour.
What was interesting for me?
With regard to operant behaviour Skinner did an experiment about condition in which he used reinforcement, punishment and extinction. For example, by nodding you agree with what your opposite is stating. You positively reinforce continuing saying things he just said.
There are three kinds of reinforcement:
- Primary r. (food, touching,...)
- Secondary r. (money, praise,...)
- Informative r. (right/wrong answer, feedback)
Another way to let behaviour happen is prompting. When it's successfully applied you use fading, meaning apply less and less prompting. If the behaviour is still not perfect (whatever that means), use shaping.
24.10.2011
What did we deal with?
We talked about learning goals or objectives. It was a lot about gaining responsibility for your own learning - seen from a conceptual level of learning things.
What was interesting for me?
What I found particularlyl useful was the choice of words in the learning content. So, by saying »understand« and »know« you talk quite general. By using »list« or »define« you, as a learner, get a more specific idea what you're supposed to do.
I found the phrase "to beat something into a student's brain" or in short »inculcate«.
Time spent: 3h
