Zull doesn't give us a clear cut way to help trigger motivation, but he does gives us a glance into how the brain processes information. After examining the scientific methods of learning and cycling through the brain's processes, Zull determines that the brain wants to survive, and be safe--not exactly a revolutionary idea, but necessary to reiterate, nonetheless. The brain learns by motivation; however, our brains are not entirely motivated by extrinsic reward. Most learning happens when we enjoy what we are doing.
Zull wants us to understand what our students are thinking, and he believes that triggering motivation doesn't happen unless we know what is going on in our student's mind. After doing this, we are then able to make a game plan to promote positive learning.
I keep coming back to idea(s) (contention[s], perhaps) we expressed in our earlier conversations: Zull doesn't really address the interpersonal effects of student-on-student learning. Nor does he factor in any of the various environmental issues affecting changes in the brain. Brain "fitness", if you will, is not simply the product of positive learning experiences, i.e., growth and stimulation does not take place in a vacuum. I also found his emotional, sometimes visceral reactions to his students to be somewhat distracting, ironic and at odds with his clinical approach to the mechanics and chemistry of the brain. Maybe he is proving his point by emphasizing how emotional impressions make for more deeply registered learning experiences--or perhaps I just read too much into things ;-).
Though it lacks clear direction for particular teaching practices, focusing instead on abstract concepts as a necessary theoretical foundation for effective teaching to take place, overall, I felt the text to be a good starting point for a discussion on how we learn. Pedagogically speaking, it leaves many openings (his point, perhaps). My only real beef is that we do not learn in isolation from others or our environmental factors--a bit more acknowledgement of these factors and incorporation of their potential effects would make for a more pressing case.
I think that the strength of the book is also it's limitation. That is, from our point of view, learning is based on what teachers do to students' brains.
ReplyDeleteZull resists the sharp division of teacher-teaches and students-learn. I think of his shock when an instructor said, "You can teach well, do all the right things, without any learning. Learning is up to the student. If I am teaching right, I am doing my part" (19). Now, I can't follow the students home and make them learn. But I do believe that if my students aren't learning, I should not permit my own self-satisfaction to get me off the hook. Teaching isn't a taped performance. It's in front of a live studio audience and the stakes are higher than a few good laughs. And yet, he ends on the final note, "The biology of learning gives us better boundaries. It helps us recognize the separateness of teacher and learner. The diversity of brains is infinite. If knowledge is neural networks...it cannot be transferred from one brain to another. The entire issue of how learners take ownership depends on recognizing this separateness" (248).
So, maybe she's off the hook?
I'd like to add to your question, Ron, "How do students change one another's brains?"
Here's what I want to ask:
1) How do students change instructor's brains? His description of how the brain changes must apply to use just as well as to the students.
One of my favorite quotation is, "We try to save time by explaining things, but as I have noted many times, our explanations are often ineffective. Meaning develops when the learner actively tries his own ideas" (188). This shift seems in line with community-based learning, etc. And yet it takes so much more time to put a student in the situation where she might discover these things.
2) So, how does a college or university successfully slow down overall to permit this kind of slow learning? If I slow down in my class, won't another class just take up the slack I give?
Good questions, and I concur with the book's strength being its limitations. As a scientist, Zull should have acknowledged the variables a bit more, but I think we'll let him off the hook ;-).
ReplyDelete