Rote Learning vs. Understanding Concepts

[boulderjohn]

But as someone who's been writing manuals for the past 33 years I have to ask ... how much real-world diving expertise do the folks who design the classes and write the instructional manuals have? It's one thing to know how to create a curriculum ... it's another altogether to understand the target audience well enough to understand not just how they need to learn it, but what they need to know.

The reference was to the instructional approach, not to the content. The person who posited the position said that the curriculum was designed by marketing people rather than educators, which was not true.

I was the chief designer of a foreign language instructional program teaching Spanish, French, German, Japanese, and Chinese that won the 2007 award for innovative instructional design for the United States Distance Learning Association. I know a little French, but precious little of the other languages. Curriculum design and content are two different things.

There are ... in a lot of scuba diving text I've read ... things that make me go "huh?" ... not because the book is poorly written, or even necessarily incorrect ... but somehow just seems inconsistent, out of context or simply irrelevent to diving as I've experienced it.

Again, that would be the problem with the content expert who is creating the curriclum. The curriculum designer has nothing to do with that. The curriculum designer is responsible for the shape of the curriculum and the strategies used to teach it. A content expert (in curriculum design they are called SMEs, or Subject Matter Experts) follows that pattern and inserts the proper instructional content.

As an example ... Jeppesen's Open Water Sport Diver manual (5th edition) ... "The frog kick is not commonly used in scuba diving, but is good for providing a restful variation in kicks on long surface swims" ...

My understanding is that the author of that manual ... Lou Fead ... is one of the legends of underwater instructional curriculum ...

And after we developed a downright outstanding Mandarin Chinese program following the principles I created, we learned that the native speaker we used for recordings had a strong southern accent, so we had to redo all the recordings. That is not the fault of the instructional design, and that was not the point of the original post.

By the way, I frog kick primarily when I dive, but I doubt if 2% of the other divers I have encountered in resort diving do.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Curriculum design and content are two different things.

Yes, I know ... I said that, although admittedly was a lot more verbose about it than you were.

But the best designed instructional materials in the world are only as good as their content.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[sambolino44]

OK, I'll bet you two guys (boulderjohn and NWGratefulDiver) know a lot more about this subject than I do, so your comments are very interesting to me. I don't know much about education or training - everything I do in that regard is based on my own personal experience - but I believe that the specialized knowledge of what works and what doesn't work in education is largely undervalued. I think most people don't even think about it; they think, "I know how to do it, so I can show somebody else how to do it. What more is there?"

I guess the driving force behind my post was that my experience with my buddy pricked up one of my pet peeves: unqualified teachers, who don't really understand the principles behind what they teach, forcing rules upon their charges with little or no explanation.

When I was in junior high school, I asked a simple question in science class. We were learning about atoms and isotopes. We learned that, for a given element, there could be several isotopes, the difference being the number of neutrons. Maybe I haven't retained it all after all these years, and maybe the terminology has changed in that time, but I understood that we called one of the isotopes the element, and the other were called isotopes. My question was: "How do you know which isotope to call the element?" or "What is it that makes one the element and the others isotopes?" My junior high school science teacher responded with a long explanation of how this periodic table of the elements was devised a long time ago by men who are much wiser than us, and it's not for us to question their wisdom. I was stunned! She turned the whole thing around from a simple request for an explanation into a challenge to authority.

And I think this is key to the argument about rote learning. I think rote learning is championed largely by people who are not as much concerned with teaching as they are with asserting their authority. They are barely holding on to their position because they have risen to a level just above their competence, and they are insecure.

By the way, I asked that same question to my junior high study hall teacher, who was also a science teacher, and she simply said, "The most stable one." and went on to explain a little about what makes the isotope more stable than the others. My point is, it was a simple answer to a simple question, but the teacher who didn't know the answer (or possibly didn't understand the question) was not able to simply say, "I don't know." So she turned it into, "Don't question, just accept."

I really do understand that sometimes you have to just accept a certain rule that we don't have time to explain just now, just so you can move on to the larger concept.

It still drives me crazy to see somebody doing something that makes no sense just because that's the way they were taught to do it. To me, it makes no sense to hold your pressure gauge face-down over the top of the valve as you open it.

 

[Jeff Toorish]

Ha ha! As a PADI Instructor I pretty much have to say "point the gauge away while opening" but I also pretty much don't worry about it when I'm setting up 8-12 sets of gear for the boat. And I'm not turning on the gas slowly either.

Has anybody even heard of a gauge sending "shrapnel" in the last 20 years? 30 years?

Here's your rote learning vs my risk analysis. There's about the same chance (slim) a piston rod will come through the bell housing and hit you while you are driving your car!

Actually, I've seen two pressure gauges explode in the past couple of years. Both rocketed small pieces of glass/plastic. There were no injuries, fortunately, but by the same token, both were faced away.

Jeff

 

[Mr.X]

What? My profession is educational theory, but I do not understand what you are saying here.

I'll explain - the modular course format (early 90's) for the IDC had the look and feel of a course designed by instructional design specialists. Very well done IMO for reaching a varied audience of individuals wishing to deliver instruction in what was essentially a chalk & talk/ stand & deliver format. Nothing wrong with it - just vanilla ed. It works, assuming you can jibe with vanilla-flavored ed lecture format. I know many cannot. The parallel tools and marketing pacs were "sellable" add-on's for those wishing for expensive and IMO ed "crutches." Naturally, these tools were sold to those on the periphery of instructional competence. As I sat in class I did my evaluations of the presentations using my own rubric. Most candidates rated a "U." A successful lesson is not simply - intro., objectives, mini-lesson etc. ZZZZZZZ.

The PADI coursework may have been designed by ed. people. The body of work surely suggest that - but in my eyes these folks were very much in the biz. of marketing and making a buck. The numbers support it. I'd love to know the metrics of instructor retention using this model. I bet instructor attrition is pretty high for years 1-3? :blinking:

As per evaluation - the instructional leaders in this case were common lay folks turned into "scuba educators." Most didn't have the conceptual ground of teaching beyond what they had experienced in the IT workshops, or on the job in their professions. Some were pretty decent at engagement. Some were decent in using varied modalities. However, being evaluated on a narrow PADI scuba rubric was pretty funny. Very little latitude for differentiation, use of creativity etc. My crossover lessons often confused the evaluators who saw me use a variety of methods to stretch the learning beyond simple bullet points, or show & tell format. Cannot tell you how many times they said "just use the format."

Additionally, curriculum design and content are interrelated. Different yes, but as in all things ed. - one informing the other. Final word as this discussion is getting pedantic and circular. Ed. cred., experience, true love of students and some degree of intuition are certainly components of a well-rounded educator - for myself I ask one question - have we/I created an empowered learner who will continue to develop their skills over time in a safe and informed manner? If a scuba educator does the afore - I give a s__t about anything else.


Cheers,

X

 

[Mr.X]

My question was: "How do you know which isotope to call the element?" or "What is it that makes one the element and the others isotopes?" My junior high school science teacher responded with a long explanation of how this periodic table of the elements was devised a long time ago by men who are much wiser than us, and it's not for us to question their wisdom. I was stunned! She turned the whole thing around from a simple request for an explanation into a challenge to authority.

And I think this is key to the argument about rote learning. I think rote learning is championed largely by people who are not as much concerned with teaching as they are with asserting their authority. They are barely holding on to their position because they have risen to a level just above their competence, and they are insecure.

By the way, I asked that same question to my junior high study hall teacher, who was also a science teacher, and she simply said, "The most stable one." and went on to explain a little about what makes the isotope more stable than the others. My point is, it was a simple answer to a simple question, but the teacher who didn't know the answer (or possibly didn't understand the question) was not able to simply say, "I don't know." So she turned it into, "Don't question, just accept."

I really do understand that sometimes you have to just accept a certain rule that we don't have time to explain just now, just so you can move on to the larger concept.

Thanks for being open & honest about your ed. experiences. I certainly appreciate it. Sorry that your junior high teacher was anything but a "learner" herself in that situation. You asked an informed question - she fell back into what was probably a well-grooved, negative routine.

As per accepting a concept and moving on - many college courses are not designed to accommodate, or differentiate for learning styles. This is by intent. SAT's, freshmen classes are made to vet out those who cannot do well in standard courses. Note - I work in the politics of ed. day and in day out.

The thought of moving on is based on the premise that a "typically" informed/empowered student will seek out the missing chunks of knowledge to fill the learning gaps left by someone else. In this case your study hall teacher.

Cheers,

X

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

My crossover lessons often confused the evaluators who saw me use a variety of methods to stretch the learning beyond simple bullet points, or show & tell format. Cannot tell you how many times they said "just use the format."

That's not unique to PADI, incidentally ... NAUI also has a standard format they want for presentations, and in the IE you will get dinged if you stray from that format ... however relevent it may or may not be to the effective presentation of the topic.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Mr.X]

That's not unique to PADI, incidentally ... NAUI also has a standard format they want for presentations, and in the IE you will get dinged if you stray from that format ... however relevent it may or may not be to the effective presentation of the topic.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

When did this change come about? I am a lapsed NAUI instructor trainer. We had a standard "workshop" model format for the longest time. That being said - you were allowed to mix it up without being penalized for off-format lesson delivery.

X

 

[Thalassamania]

When did this change come about? I am a lapsed NAUI instructor trainer. We had a standard "workshop" model format for the longest time. That being said - you were allowed to mix it up without being penalized for off-format lesson delivery.

X

Yes, this is a change I too had not heard of.

 

[leapfrog]

Sometimes "education/teaching" " vs. "training/instruction" are concepts that get confused.

Whether you understand the why of what you are being taught, an instructor makes sure you drill the skills until they become second nature to you so that neither you nor the people around you get killed or maimed.

In the context of a four/five day OWD course, that makes sense to me. (Nowadays there are people doing eLearning and the course in a weekend).

An instructor's job is to train divers. That means they are proficient. It means they master the skills, repetitively, until it becomes second nature to them.

An instructor uses repeat stimulus-response reaction to develop a reflex (Operant Conditioning), and must be a role model to ensure action by example.

What do we teach them? You teach them what they don't know or what they have a particular interest in. In five days, what else are you going to do?

As far as educating them is concerned, it depends on the student. I would rather have a well trained OW diver out there who doesn't necessarily understand the why than a well educated one who can't do the skill set and do the correct skill as a reflex at will.

The real education starts when you have infused sufficient enthusiasm for diving into the student that he/she starts to look for the why themselves. These are the students that come back and these are the ones you really teach.