The thesis published below was written by Flying Officer Andrew William Panton, B.A., Dip.Ed. R.A.F, while he was a student on the Royal Air Force Education Officers' Orientation Course at the RAF School of Education, RAF Upwood, Hunts. in 1971. This thesis develops the pedagogical aspects of the article already published on this blog on 27 February 2010, entitled "The Platonic Doctrine of Recollection and the Insight Model of Teaching", which he had written in June 1968 while he was a Dip.Ed. student at Oxford University. Apart from exploring the value of exciting new teaching techniques which were in vogue at this time, the author is expressing strong reservations about the RAF School of Education's apparent insistence that all lessons should involve oral questioning as the main focus of teaching.
Introduction.
A "model of teaching" is not a concrete affair, nor is it a set of rules for teachers. It is a philosophical model and so exists only in an abstract sense. Philosophical models simplify, but such simplification is a legitimate way of highlighting the important features of a subject. A model of teaching helps to answer those critical questions which a definition of teaching will always fail to supply: what kind of learning are we aiming at? what does learning consist of? how shall we achieve learning? A definition merely describes the process of teaching; a model orientates it by providing answers to those questions mentioned just previously. Such questions are of vital significance to teachers; indeed they give pith to the whole educational enterprise.
The best way in which the Insight Model can be described is to compare it with another influential model, the Instruction Model, which is, strictly speaking, a verbal variant of the Impression Model of teaching, associated with the empiricist school of John Locke. It can be maintained that all teaching converges around these two models, the Instruction and the Insight Models, or variants of them.
The Instruction Model of Teaching.
When we hear the word "schoolmaster" what kind of picture springs to our minds? Times are changing and we may arrive at different pictures, but we can be fairly sure what our grandparents would see, if asked the same question. They would visualise a browbeating, hectoring, merciless character, such as Mr. Quelch, the constant persecutor of the wretched Billy Bunter. Beyond this public stereotype of the schoolmaster lie certain presuppositions with which we are concerned. These can be illustrated by a short quotation from chapter one of "Hard Times" by Charles Dickens. The speaker is Mr. Gradgrind:
" 'In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir - nothing but Facts!'
The speaker and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, and the third grown person present, all backed a little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim."
This passage bring out two features of the Instruction Model which are central to our purpose. Firstly, we find the emphasis on facts as the raw material of education and the principle concern of the teacher. We may think that this view is no longer held by many people today, but bear in mind that only forty years ago the Hadow Report described the material of teaching as "knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored". Even though most teachers would reject this conception of their work, how often do lessons belie this conviction. The second part of the passage which comes to our notice is Dickens' description of the pupils as "little vessels ... ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim". This is highly reminiscent of Locke's conception of the mind as a "tabula rasa", as "white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas".
The Instruction Model is closely akin to behaviourism. Facts and accepted theory (the independent variables) are fed into the mind, and knowledge is an accumulation of such statements. The efficiency of the process can be tested by feedback (the dependent variables) to see how much has been learnt. The implications of this view of teaching are firstly that the teacher should be concerned with the exercising of mental powers engaged in receiving and processing data, and secondly and crucially that he should strive for the most appropriate input. For on this view, the mind of the pupil can largely be shaped by the stimuli provided by the teacher.
Instruction makes good sense where the learning of a skill is involved, and a great many educational tasks are of this nature, but when we pass on to other kinds of knowledge, involving subjects such as mathematics, science and history, subjects concerned with the mastery of concepts, principles and criteria of appraisal, the Instruction Model is inadequate. These subjects are not mere collections of information, and cannot be effectively taught as such. To store all accepted theories in the mind is not the same as being able to apply them in context. Learning theorems rote-style does not enable one to solve a geometrical rider. Finally and most crucially, the Instruction Model makes inadequate provision for originality by the learner. If the response of the learner depends only on what he has acquired through sensory experience, how is it ever possible for him to be original? Yet innovation by the pupil is a fact with which all teachers are familiar. Indeed such originality is eagerly anticipated.
The Instruction Model of Teaching can be summarised in the following diagrammatic form: -
The Instruction Model of Teaching:
Knowledge is directly imparted
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE -------------Processed by --------->----------------- THE TEACHER
i
i
i
i
NEW KNOWLEDGE ----------------Passively acquires ------<-----------------THE PUPIL
i
i
i ??
i
APPLICATION---------------------Cannot lead to ---------------------------------INNOVATION
The Insight Model of Teaching.
The approach of the model is radically different. The relationship between teacher pupil and the subject is conceived of in a new way. The task of the teacher is to prompt and stimulate his pupils to realise for themselves the knowledge that is in their own minds. For according to this model, all knowledge apart from the acquisition of unstructured factual information or skill-training is a matter of insight or internal vision. It is the occurrence of vision in the mind of the learner that makes the crucial difference between being able to store and reproduce knowledge and the ability to understand its application in practice. For the pupil has acquired new knowledge actively for himself, though indirectly through the agency of the teacher. Thus, in the Insight Model the teacher retreats a step, or at least appears to do so. While "instruction" is a task word and puts the emphasis on the teacher, "insight" is an achievement word and puts the emphasis on the pupil. The Insight Model is thus pupil-centred through its very structure. Accordingly, the teacher and the pupils carry out an insightful search for reality, the purpose of which is not to impress facts on to the sudent's mind but to assist him in his own search for truth. Furthermore, this model of teaching is directly concerned with the need to apply learning to new situations in the future, the problem of applying knowledge. Having applied knowledge by a personal engagement, the student is much more likely to appreciate the particular fit which his theories will have with real circumstances than he would be if these theories had been acquired passively. This brings us to a qualitative point about knowledge.
The Insight Model stresses that the mere receipt of true information cannot be real knowledge. For knowledge requires the student to have earned the right, through his own effort, to an assurance of its truth. This is the classic Platonic distinction between knowledge (episteme) and belief (pistis). Indeed, it is in the writings of Plato that we find perhaps the most vivid description of the Insight Model. In the "Theaetetus", Plato's mentor Socrates, who acts as his mouthpiece in almost all his dialogues, likens his function as a teacher to that of a midwife. Socrates asserts that he seeks to deliver from the mind thoughts which are as yet imperfectly formulated:
"My art of midwifery is in general like theirs, the only difference being that my patients are men not women, and my concern is not with the body but with the soul that is in travail of birth. And the highest point of my art is the power to prove by every test whether the offspring of a young man's thought is a false phantom or instinct with life and truth.
"Those who frequent my company at first appear some of them quite unintelligent, but as we go further with our discussions, all who are favoured by heaven make progress at a rate that seems quite surprising to others as well as to themselves, although it is clear they have never learned anything from me; the many admirable truths they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery is heaven's work and mine."
Socrates is the first historical source of the Insight Model, and was the first man known to us to use a refined question and answer technique as a teaching method. This brings us to the first major application of the Insight Model - the use of oral questioning.
Oral Questioning.
A list of the purposes of oral questioning is laid out on Page 2 of the RAF School of Education's "Oral Questions Programmes". These are the four headings: -
a. To promote mental activity
b. To arouse and maintain student activity
c. To guide thought
d. To evaluate learning.
Of the four headings, the third one concerned with the guiding of thought is fundamental to our purpose. The other three, which deal respectively with retention and recapitulation, motivation and evaluation, are valid in their way, though it must be strongly doubted whether they have the blanket all-embracing application which some claim for them. Our primary concern here is to consider the possible merit of learning by oral questioning from the point of view of the knowledge gained from it. Is it superior to knowledge gained by formal instruction? This is a question of the quality or status of knowledge.
The "Oral Questions Programme" states that "By using questions it is possible to direct a student's thinking through to a logical solution - a definite sequence of performance or an objective." As the Programme suggests, oral questioning is a method of structuring knowledge, a means of tying the elements of a pupil's experience into a particular cognitive pattern or configuration (Gestalt). This method of teaching is appropriate, and indeed essential, in those subjects where acquisition of concepts, principles and criteria of appraisal are the objects of study. The educational point needs to be made first of all that the only justification of teaching these subjects to students is that it involves them in valuable mental exercise. If student-thought is the objective of teaching, then a direct imparting of information is quite inappropriate. The fact that many mediocre students prefer to learn information by rote rather than to think for themselves ought not to disguise this essential point. For the teacher to do all the thinking, and then to present the answers for his pupils to learn, is a travesty of an educational process. It is absolutely essential to make students think for themselves, as otherwise an educational course is as valueless as will be the qualification gained at its close. Oral questioning is probably the most efficient way in terms of time, and effective way in terms of the quality of knowledge gained, of doing this, and this leads us to the crucial point about the value of oral questioning as a means of insight learning.
This point concerns the structuring of material or experience by teacher in such a way that insightful learning occurs. By asking the right questions in the right sequence, the teacher can control the structure of the learning process, while still leaving many important truths to be discovered by the student. If students have truly grappled with problems by themselves, then the possibility of their applying their knowledge in practical situations and to use it to make original contributions of their own is greatly enhanced; and, if this is so, it says something about the quality of the knowledge acquired. A student who has an operational mastery of the conception and principles he has acquired obviously possesses a more fundamental and real knowledge than one who can merely retain and reproduce data fed into him. Furthermore, in a democratic society is it not in itself desirable that a student should gain by his own efforts the assurance of the truth of a proposition? Instruction in subjects like science or history is little better than straight indoctrination, though it lacks the same unpleasant implications.
The technique of oral questioning is to be greatly valued and ought to be an important part of the teacher's repertoire. Still, we should hesitate to give it blanket application that devotees of insight-teaching may claim. Oral questioning is more fundamental to the teaching of some subjects than others. The way in which it can be applied, and whether it is appropriate at a given moment, depends on not just the subject under study but also on a thousand and one other factors, too numerous to be mentioned here. To be dogmatic about the exclusive use of anyone teaching method is to be intellectually absurd. An all-encompassing choice between verbal instruction and oral questioning need never be made. The sensitive teacher will make his own decisions as to what a particular learning situation requires in the light of all its special circumstances. After all, to vary what one does is part of what it means to be intelligent, and variety as a principle of teaching method cannot be overemphasised.
So far it must appear that oral questioning has been equated with the Insight Model. In fact, eliciting responses by means of oral questions is only one application of the Model. What is distinctive of insight-teaching as opposed to straight instruction is that it guides students in finding out knowledge rather than directly imparting it. Linguistic means other than questioning can be used to help to do this. Subtle methods, such as hinting, commenting, provoking, and the famous Socratic profession of ignorance ("aporia") are all ancillary means to achieving the same end. But these do not exhaust the possibilities of the Insight Model. Its other main area of interest to the educator is that of "discovery methods", to which is closely allied to the concept of learning through "role-playing".
Discovery Methods of Teaching.
Some extraordinary claims as to the merits of discovery methods have been made, though experimental evidence to back them is often very thin. Confusion about discovery methods abounds, and begins with the proleptic use of the word "discovery". If discovery occurs, this may well be a thrilling and motivating experience, but what if it does not occur? We should not delude ourselves into letting the "word" discovery allow us to prejudge the effectiveness of the method.
Other muddles are also possible. The discovery method can either be applied rigidly, that is the learner is given no verbal assistance at all by the teacher, or a more compromising method can be used in which the teacher can makes his appearance at certain times to assist the floundering student. According to the first and more doctrinaire version of the theory, the teacher presents materials or contrives situations which are so structured that the appropriate learning results. This method of discovery by planned experience has been more applicable to the teaching of young children than others: the use of Dienes' blocks and Cuisenaire rods in Montessori nursery schools is well known. The flaw in this method is the erroneous assumption that the child will somehow manage to conceive of the structured material in the same way as the teacher, when this is patently unlikely. Recently in fact, the whole basis of Dienes' abstractionist theory has been shown to be invalid, but that is not to say that the conceptual apparatus which he used is valueless - only that the claims he made for it were unrealistic.
There is, however, another conception of discovery method, which has greater possibilities. This is the method of "Problem Solving". Here the teacher is no longer a hovering provider of apparatus or the structurer of an environment from which concepts are meant to be abstracted in the course of uncontrolled activity. According to this idea, the teacher questions, suggests, hints, and sometimes instructs what to do to find out. But it is not instruction, because what has actually to be learned is not imparted. The emphasis is still on the achievement of learning by the pupil, so that although what the teacher says is specific enough to focus attention in the desired direction, the opportunity of real discoveries being made is left, discoveries which the teacher has good reason to think will occur in the light of past experience and present guidance. This method resembles instruction, in that it necessitates the active verbal participation of the teacher, but the more rigorous type of discovery method, involving emphasis on the pupil's carrying out practical examples, still remains an important element of it.
Of course, this Problem Solving is not suitable for every educational situation. But it has some application to most subjects of the school curriculum. Although there is insufficient time to look at individual subjects, a master-plan is set out below which can be roughly applied to any case of Insight Learning into Problems. A unit of instruction could be structured around the following five stages:
1. Problem - new difficulty, pose new problem and let class try to settle it.
2. Analysis - analyse data, both new and old material. Use various methods - question and answer, set reading, films, pictures.
3. Hypothesis - (critical stage) Relation between old and new material perceived - guess at answer. Arrange material into meaningful pattern. Problem solved temporarily.
4. Theory - test hypothesis against data by going over it again. Pupils work examples, plan essay with aid of teacher.
5. Application - pupils demonstrate operational mastery by working out examples or writing essay.
If the pupils fail, the teacher has failed and he is back to square one. There is an increased chanciness in discovery method learning since by its very nature it leaves open the opportunity for not discovering. But this drawback is offset by the many advantages which this method has. Much has been said on the merits of discovery learning from the viewpoint of improved motivation and better learning. Indeed, this is the point usually made in its support. Once again, however, the factual basis for this claim is a little doubtful, and some psychologists are openly suspicious of it. Two points arise: the need to stress the importance of variety in any question of motivation; and the fact that it would be too time-consuming for everything to be done according to discovery methods. Furthermore, if discovery methods are really to lead to improved motivation, it appears that there has to be an intrinsic challenge in the nature of the work being undertaken, and that, when dealing with adults on a career-orientated course, one has every right to pre-suppose that a sufficient level of motivation exists already. But, in general, a connection between discovery methods and motivation does seem likely.
Now, another way in which learning by discovery is thought to have value is that it teaches pupils to learn how to learn. This idea stems from Harlow's experiments with monkeys, which demonstrated that learning by discovery seems to form general heuristic principles, which enable one to tackle new and even unrelated problems with a greater chance of success. This is a sort of variant on the concept of "transfer of training", and implies a rejection of "stimulus-response" theory. The trouble here is that there seems to be no logical way in which it can be shown how solving one problem can help to form principles to solve an entirely different one. Furthermore, if the existence of such principles could be proven, there is no reason why they should not be the subject of instruction.
Once again, as in all cases involving the Insight Model, the real advantage lies in the quality of the knowledge gained and the operational mastery, in terms of application and innovation, that it provides. But the discovery method has one particular advantage which should be emphasised. The pupil under direct instruction is in a passive or receptive role that requires that the pace and sequence of learning are always determined by someone else. Educationally, this is very inefficient. Like programmed learning, discovery learning allows more room for individual differences; furthermore, it permits a more intelligent appreciation of what one is doing than other methods. The associated concept of "role-playing" is designed to enable the student to encounter at first hand the type of problems which he will encounter in the future. Role-playing is particularly applicable to courses where a definite professional training is the objective, but it also has exciting possibilities in the teaching of liberal studies or PSHE (i.e. Personal, Social and Health Education), where learning situations are loosely structured, and in circumstances where the principal educational objectives are in the "affective domain" and where the intention is to induce an "empathetic" response from the student. Also, discovery methods may well be suited to "continuous flow" training, since the pace of individual progess is easily discernible. Those students responding most successfully will need less guidance and less time than the others to make the requisite discoveries. All in all, it does seem that, despite the objections which can legitimately be raised to rash claims about the virtues of discovery learning, that there really is a possibility here of a generic superiority of this type of learning over the more traditional and more formal methods associated with instruction.
Conclusion.
The applications of the Insight Model are enormous and should be used wherever practicable. Where and when such practicable situations arise depend on so many factors that it is well-nigh impossible to legislate for them. The individual teacher or supervisor is the person best qualified to judge, but that is not to say that he should do so on the basis of his intuition alone. Learning situations can be analysed on the basis of the four purposes of oral questioning highlighted earlier, and in the light of those critical questions to which models of teaching provide answers. It must also be remembered that the teacher is rarely faced by questions of absolute value. When he or she considers the use of discovery methods or other types of insight teaching, the value of these methods must be related to other important considerations, such as problems of cost-effectiveness and problems of resources in general, including the time available. In fact, only a relative scale of appropriateness will be of much use to the teacher in making judgments as to teaching methods. Thus, in some situations discovery methods will be considered more essential than in others, e.g. science practicals. At present, old fashioned syllabi and examinations make a large scale application of insight methods difficult, and we must hope for some educational reforms in such areas.
Each individual teaching situation is different from any other. In all questions concerning teaching methods a broad-minded attitude is therefore desirable. The method of "problem solving" is really a compromise between instruction and the discovery method, inasmuch as it incorporates all the advantages of the Insight Model while still being sufficiently flexible to use any other method where appropriate. However, the realisation that words alone cannot convey knowledge is fundamental to a sound teaching technique. For knowledge can never be simply the storing of new information given by the teacher. Knowing in the true sense requires the opportunity to assimilate information by working it out for oneself. The Insight Model stands as a warning that teaching will always be more than a verbal transmission of information from teacher to pupil.
Diagrammatic summary of the Insight Model of Teaching:
Knowledge is actively acquired.
THE TEACHER
i
i
Guides
i
i
THE PUPIL--------------------insightful enquiry into --------------------- PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
i
i
Student acquires
i
i
APPLICATION ----------------------capable of ----------------------------- NEW KNOWLEDGE
i
i
i
i---------- may lead to ---------- INNOVATION
Introduction.
A "model of teaching" is not a concrete affair, nor is it a set of rules for teachers. It is a philosophical model and so exists only in an abstract sense. Philosophical models simplify, but such simplification is a legitimate way of highlighting the important features of a subject. A model of teaching helps to answer those critical questions which a definition of teaching will always fail to supply: what kind of learning are we aiming at? what does learning consist of? how shall we achieve learning? A definition merely describes the process of teaching; a model orientates it by providing answers to those questions mentioned just previously. Such questions are of vital significance to teachers; indeed they give pith to the whole educational enterprise.
The best way in which the Insight Model can be described is to compare it with another influential model, the Instruction Model, which is, strictly speaking, a verbal variant of the Impression Model of teaching, associated with the empiricist school of John Locke. It can be maintained that all teaching converges around these two models, the Instruction and the Insight Models, or variants of them.
The Instruction Model of Teaching.
When we hear the word "schoolmaster" what kind of picture springs to our minds? Times are changing and we may arrive at different pictures, but we can be fairly sure what our grandparents would see, if asked the same question. They would visualise a browbeating, hectoring, merciless character, such as Mr. Quelch, the constant persecutor of the wretched Billy Bunter. Beyond this public stereotype of the schoolmaster lie certain presuppositions with which we are concerned. These can be illustrated by a short quotation from chapter one of "Hard Times" by Charles Dickens. The speaker is Mr. Gradgrind:
" 'In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir - nothing but Facts!'
The speaker and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, and the third grown person present, all backed a little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim."
This passage bring out two features of the Instruction Model which are central to our purpose. Firstly, we find the emphasis on facts as the raw material of education and the principle concern of the teacher. We may think that this view is no longer held by many people today, but bear in mind that only forty years ago the Hadow Report described the material of teaching as "knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored". Even though most teachers would reject this conception of their work, how often do lessons belie this conviction. The second part of the passage which comes to our notice is Dickens' description of the pupils as "little vessels ... ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim". This is highly reminiscent of Locke's conception of the mind as a "tabula rasa", as "white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas".
The Instruction Model is closely akin to behaviourism. Facts and accepted theory (the independent variables) are fed into the mind, and knowledge is an accumulation of such statements. The efficiency of the process can be tested by feedback (the dependent variables) to see how much has been learnt. The implications of this view of teaching are firstly that the teacher should be concerned with the exercising of mental powers engaged in receiving and processing data, and secondly and crucially that he should strive for the most appropriate input. For on this view, the mind of the pupil can largely be shaped by the stimuli provided by the teacher.
Instruction makes good sense where the learning of a skill is involved, and a great many educational tasks are of this nature, but when we pass on to other kinds of knowledge, involving subjects such as mathematics, science and history, subjects concerned with the mastery of concepts, principles and criteria of appraisal, the Instruction Model is inadequate. These subjects are not mere collections of information, and cannot be effectively taught as such. To store all accepted theories in the mind is not the same as being able to apply them in context. Learning theorems rote-style does not enable one to solve a geometrical rider. Finally and most crucially, the Instruction Model makes inadequate provision for originality by the learner. If the response of the learner depends only on what he has acquired through sensory experience, how is it ever possible for him to be original? Yet innovation by the pupil is a fact with which all teachers are familiar. Indeed such originality is eagerly anticipated.
The Instruction Model of Teaching can be summarised in the following diagrammatic form: -
The Instruction Model of Teaching:
Knowledge is directly imparted
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE -------------Processed by --------->----------------- THE TEACHER
i
i
i
i
NEW KNOWLEDGE ----------------Passively acquires ------<-----------------THE PUPIL
i
i
i ??
i
APPLICATION---------------------Cannot lead to ---------------------------------INNOVATION
The Insight Model of Teaching.
The approach of the model is radically different. The relationship between teacher pupil and the subject is conceived of in a new way. The task of the teacher is to prompt and stimulate his pupils to realise for themselves the knowledge that is in their own minds. For according to this model, all knowledge apart from the acquisition of unstructured factual information or skill-training is a matter of insight or internal vision. It is the occurrence of vision in the mind of the learner that makes the crucial difference between being able to store and reproduce knowledge and the ability to understand its application in practice. For the pupil has acquired new knowledge actively for himself, though indirectly through the agency of the teacher. Thus, in the Insight Model the teacher retreats a step, or at least appears to do so. While "instruction" is a task word and puts the emphasis on the teacher, "insight" is an achievement word and puts the emphasis on the pupil. The Insight Model is thus pupil-centred through its very structure. Accordingly, the teacher and the pupils carry out an insightful search for reality, the purpose of which is not to impress facts on to the sudent's mind but to assist him in his own search for truth. Furthermore, this model of teaching is directly concerned with the need to apply learning to new situations in the future, the problem of applying knowledge. Having applied knowledge by a personal engagement, the student is much more likely to appreciate the particular fit which his theories will have with real circumstances than he would be if these theories had been acquired passively. This brings us to a qualitative point about knowledge.
The Insight Model stresses that the mere receipt of true information cannot be real knowledge. For knowledge requires the student to have earned the right, through his own effort, to an assurance of its truth. This is the classic Platonic distinction between knowledge (episteme) and belief (pistis). Indeed, it is in the writings of Plato that we find perhaps the most vivid description of the Insight Model. In the "Theaetetus", Plato's mentor Socrates, who acts as his mouthpiece in almost all his dialogues, likens his function as a teacher to that of a midwife. Socrates asserts that he seeks to deliver from the mind thoughts which are as yet imperfectly formulated:
"My art of midwifery is in general like theirs, the only difference being that my patients are men not women, and my concern is not with the body but with the soul that is in travail of birth. And the highest point of my art is the power to prove by every test whether the offspring of a young man's thought is a false phantom or instinct with life and truth.
"Those who frequent my company at first appear some of them quite unintelligent, but as we go further with our discussions, all who are favoured by heaven make progress at a rate that seems quite surprising to others as well as to themselves, although it is clear they have never learned anything from me; the many admirable truths they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery is heaven's work and mine."
Socrates is the first historical source of the Insight Model, and was the first man known to us to use a refined question and answer technique as a teaching method. This brings us to the first major application of the Insight Model - the use of oral questioning.
Oral Questioning.
A list of the purposes of oral questioning is laid out on Page 2 of the RAF School of Education's "Oral Questions Programmes". These are the four headings: -
a. To promote mental activity
b. To arouse and maintain student activity
c. To guide thought
d. To evaluate learning.
Of the four headings, the third one concerned with the guiding of thought is fundamental to our purpose. The other three, which deal respectively with retention and recapitulation, motivation and evaluation, are valid in their way, though it must be strongly doubted whether they have the blanket all-embracing application which some claim for them. Our primary concern here is to consider the possible merit of learning by oral questioning from the point of view of the knowledge gained from it. Is it superior to knowledge gained by formal instruction? This is a question of the quality or status of knowledge.
The "Oral Questions Programme" states that "By using questions it is possible to direct a student's thinking through to a logical solution - a definite sequence of performance or an objective." As the Programme suggests, oral questioning is a method of structuring knowledge, a means of tying the elements of a pupil's experience into a particular cognitive pattern or configuration (Gestalt). This method of teaching is appropriate, and indeed essential, in those subjects where acquisition of concepts, principles and criteria of appraisal are the objects of study. The educational point needs to be made first of all that the only justification of teaching these subjects to students is that it involves them in valuable mental exercise. If student-thought is the objective of teaching, then a direct imparting of information is quite inappropriate. The fact that many mediocre students prefer to learn information by rote rather than to think for themselves ought not to disguise this essential point. For the teacher to do all the thinking, and then to present the answers for his pupils to learn, is a travesty of an educational process. It is absolutely essential to make students think for themselves, as otherwise an educational course is as valueless as will be the qualification gained at its close. Oral questioning is probably the most efficient way in terms of time, and effective way in terms of the quality of knowledge gained, of doing this, and this leads us to the crucial point about the value of oral questioning as a means of insight learning.
This point concerns the structuring of material or experience by teacher in such a way that insightful learning occurs. By asking the right questions in the right sequence, the teacher can control the structure of the learning process, while still leaving many important truths to be discovered by the student. If students have truly grappled with problems by themselves, then the possibility of their applying their knowledge in practical situations and to use it to make original contributions of their own is greatly enhanced; and, if this is so, it says something about the quality of the knowledge acquired. A student who has an operational mastery of the conception and principles he has acquired obviously possesses a more fundamental and real knowledge than one who can merely retain and reproduce data fed into him. Furthermore, in a democratic society is it not in itself desirable that a student should gain by his own efforts the assurance of the truth of a proposition? Instruction in subjects like science or history is little better than straight indoctrination, though it lacks the same unpleasant implications.
The technique of oral questioning is to be greatly valued and ought to be an important part of the teacher's repertoire. Still, we should hesitate to give it blanket application that devotees of insight-teaching may claim. Oral questioning is more fundamental to the teaching of some subjects than others. The way in which it can be applied, and whether it is appropriate at a given moment, depends on not just the subject under study but also on a thousand and one other factors, too numerous to be mentioned here. To be dogmatic about the exclusive use of anyone teaching method is to be intellectually absurd. An all-encompassing choice between verbal instruction and oral questioning need never be made. The sensitive teacher will make his own decisions as to what a particular learning situation requires in the light of all its special circumstances. After all, to vary what one does is part of what it means to be intelligent, and variety as a principle of teaching method cannot be overemphasised.
So far it must appear that oral questioning has been equated with the Insight Model. In fact, eliciting responses by means of oral questions is only one application of the Model. What is distinctive of insight-teaching as opposed to straight instruction is that it guides students in finding out knowledge rather than directly imparting it. Linguistic means other than questioning can be used to help to do this. Subtle methods, such as hinting, commenting, provoking, and the famous Socratic profession of ignorance ("aporia") are all ancillary means to achieving the same end. But these do not exhaust the possibilities of the Insight Model. Its other main area of interest to the educator is that of "discovery methods", to which is closely allied to the concept of learning through "role-playing".
Discovery Methods of Teaching.
Some extraordinary claims as to the merits of discovery methods have been made, though experimental evidence to back them is often very thin. Confusion about discovery methods abounds, and begins with the proleptic use of the word "discovery". If discovery occurs, this may well be a thrilling and motivating experience, but what if it does not occur? We should not delude ourselves into letting the "word" discovery allow us to prejudge the effectiveness of the method.
Other muddles are also possible. The discovery method can either be applied rigidly, that is the learner is given no verbal assistance at all by the teacher, or a more compromising method can be used in which the teacher can makes his appearance at certain times to assist the floundering student. According to the first and more doctrinaire version of the theory, the teacher presents materials or contrives situations which are so structured that the appropriate learning results. This method of discovery by planned experience has been more applicable to the teaching of young children than others: the use of Dienes' blocks and Cuisenaire rods in Montessori nursery schools is well known. The flaw in this method is the erroneous assumption that the child will somehow manage to conceive of the structured material in the same way as the teacher, when this is patently unlikely. Recently in fact, the whole basis of Dienes' abstractionist theory has been shown to be invalid, but that is not to say that the conceptual apparatus which he used is valueless - only that the claims he made for it were unrealistic.
There is, however, another conception of discovery method, which has greater possibilities. This is the method of "Problem Solving". Here the teacher is no longer a hovering provider of apparatus or the structurer of an environment from which concepts are meant to be abstracted in the course of uncontrolled activity. According to this idea, the teacher questions, suggests, hints, and sometimes instructs what to do to find out. But it is not instruction, because what has actually to be learned is not imparted. The emphasis is still on the achievement of learning by the pupil, so that although what the teacher says is specific enough to focus attention in the desired direction, the opportunity of real discoveries being made is left, discoveries which the teacher has good reason to think will occur in the light of past experience and present guidance. This method resembles instruction, in that it necessitates the active verbal participation of the teacher, but the more rigorous type of discovery method, involving emphasis on the pupil's carrying out practical examples, still remains an important element of it.
Of course, this Problem Solving is not suitable for every educational situation. But it has some application to most subjects of the school curriculum. Although there is insufficient time to look at individual subjects, a master-plan is set out below which can be roughly applied to any case of Insight Learning into Problems. A unit of instruction could be structured around the following five stages:
1. Problem - new difficulty, pose new problem and let class try to settle it.
2. Analysis - analyse data, both new and old material. Use various methods - question and answer, set reading, films, pictures.
3. Hypothesis - (critical stage) Relation between old and new material perceived - guess at answer. Arrange material into meaningful pattern. Problem solved temporarily.
4. Theory - test hypothesis against data by going over it again. Pupils work examples, plan essay with aid of teacher.
5. Application - pupils demonstrate operational mastery by working out examples or writing essay.
If the pupils fail, the teacher has failed and he is back to square one. There is an increased chanciness in discovery method learning since by its very nature it leaves open the opportunity for not discovering. But this drawback is offset by the many advantages which this method has. Much has been said on the merits of discovery learning from the viewpoint of improved motivation and better learning. Indeed, this is the point usually made in its support. Once again, however, the factual basis for this claim is a little doubtful, and some psychologists are openly suspicious of it. Two points arise: the need to stress the importance of variety in any question of motivation; and the fact that it would be too time-consuming for everything to be done according to discovery methods. Furthermore, if discovery methods are really to lead to improved motivation, it appears that there has to be an intrinsic challenge in the nature of the work being undertaken, and that, when dealing with adults on a career-orientated course, one has every right to pre-suppose that a sufficient level of motivation exists already. But, in general, a connection between discovery methods and motivation does seem likely.
Now, another way in which learning by discovery is thought to have value is that it teaches pupils to learn how to learn. This idea stems from Harlow's experiments with monkeys, which demonstrated that learning by discovery seems to form general heuristic principles, which enable one to tackle new and even unrelated problems with a greater chance of success. This is a sort of variant on the concept of "transfer of training", and implies a rejection of "stimulus-response" theory. The trouble here is that there seems to be no logical way in which it can be shown how solving one problem can help to form principles to solve an entirely different one. Furthermore, if the existence of such principles could be proven, there is no reason why they should not be the subject of instruction.
Once again, as in all cases involving the Insight Model, the real advantage lies in the quality of the knowledge gained and the operational mastery, in terms of application and innovation, that it provides. But the discovery method has one particular advantage which should be emphasised. The pupil under direct instruction is in a passive or receptive role that requires that the pace and sequence of learning are always determined by someone else. Educationally, this is very inefficient. Like programmed learning, discovery learning allows more room for individual differences; furthermore, it permits a more intelligent appreciation of what one is doing than other methods. The associated concept of "role-playing" is designed to enable the student to encounter at first hand the type of problems which he will encounter in the future. Role-playing is particularly applicable to courses where a definite professional training is the objective, but it also has exciting possibilities in the teaching of liberal studies or PSHE (i.e. Personal, Social and Health Education), where learning situations are loosely structured, and in circumstances where the principal educational objectives are in the "affective domain" and where the intention is to induce an "empathetic" response from the student. Also, discovery methods may well be suited to "continuous flow" training, since the pace of individual progess is easily discernible. Those students responding most successfully will need less guidance and less time than the others to make the requisite discoveries. All in all, it does seem that, despite the objections which can legitimately be raised to rash claims about the virtues of discovery learning, that there really is a possibility here of a generic superiority of this type of learning over the more traditional and more formal methods associated with instruction.
Conclusion.
The applications of the Insight Model are enormous and should be used wherever practicable. Where and when such practicable situations arise depend on so many factors that it is well-nigh impossible to legislate for them. The individual teacher or supervisor is the person best qualified to judge, but that is not to say that he should do so on the basis of his intuition alone. Learning situations can be analysed on the basis of the four purposes of oral questioning highlighted earlier, and in the light of those critical questions to which models of teaching provide answers. It must also be remembered that the teacher is rarely faced by questions of absolute value. When he or she considers the use of discovery methods or other types of insight teaching, the value of these methods must be related to other important considerations, such as problems of cost-effectiveness and problems of resources in general, including the time available. In fact, only a relative scale of appropriateness will be of much use to the teacher in making judgments as to teaching methods. Thus, in some situations discovery methods will be considered more essential than in others, e.g. science practicals. At present, old fashioned syllabi and examinations make a large scale application of insight methods difficult, and we must hope for some educational reforms in such areas.
Each individual teaching situation is different from any other. In all questions concerning teaching methods a broad-minded attitude is therefore desirable. The method of "problem solving" is really a compromise between instruction and the discovery method, inasmuch as it incorporates all the advantages of the Insight Model while still being sufficiently flexible to use any other method where appropriate. However, the realisation that words alone cannot convey knowledge is fundamental to a sound teaching technique. For knowledge can never be simply the storing of new information given by the teacher. Knowing in the true sense requires the opportunity to assimilate information by working it out for oneself. The Insight Model stands as a warning that teaching will always be more than a verbal transmission of information from teacher to pupil.
Diagrammatic summary of the Insight Model of Teaching:
Knowledge is actively acquired.
THE TEACHER
i
i
Guides
i
i
THE PUPIL--------------------insightful enquiry into --------------------- PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
i
i
Student acquires
i
i
APPLICATION ----------------------capable of ----------------------------- NEW KNOWLEDGE
i
i
i
i---------- may lead to ---------- INNOVATION
Qualifi Level 7 Int’l Dip in Process Safety Management is our premium course and the only one of its kind across the globe.
ReplyDeleteRedhat Safety Chennai is the one & only safety institute in India offering this highly relevant and top-grade International Diploma Qualification around the globe.
This most respected qualification is envisioned to enhance both academic and professional development of learners to make them realise their true potential and also make them valuable for industries across the world.