Читать книгу: «Assisted Learning», страница 2

Table 2.2: Fundamental maxims of education

Example:

These fundamental maxims of education mark the boundaries in which we constantly interact educationally. “What should I do?” - a friend recently asked, after he had described to me in detail the increasingly alarming situation in which his sixteen years old son found himself. “Actually” - so his conclusive judgment – “I don't even like my son any more. He has become a real wimp! He steals, loafs around with dubious friends, and gets nothing done. He neither has a school certificate nor an apprenticeship. That's not 'my son' at all”. The problem outlined here does not lend itself to a systemic-constructivist approach - so I started my support to the disappointed father not by addressing the question “What can I do?”, but rather by allowing the question, “What am

I doing and how has what I have already done contributed to the continued existence of this unsatisfactory situation?”True to the first fundamental maxim “One can't help but educate!” Such a question puts the systemics of the situation under focus and does not begin with a judgment or condemnation. The aim is to understand how the players justify their behaviors – with mostly hidden meanings – and thus often create external situations, in which they then activate their familiar pattern of thinking and feeling. In this process, not just the behavior of the son which is classified as "problematic" is initially placed under focus, but also one's own reaction to such a behavior: “Why is my basic reaction to weakness and failure so exaggerated and rigid?”This is the sort of question that first softens the judgmental attitude and turns attentions to the peculiarities of one's own observation and response patterns. This step alone seems to bring a lot of things to light that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue of education.

The reasons why my discussion partner basically reacts rigidly to weakness and failure became evident. He even supplied biographical material which helped him to understand that there was an overwhelming fear of weakness and failure in himself, which “clouded” his view and determined his reaction to the behavior of his son. In this context, it can be faintly deduced that this overwhelming fear was probably that of his father as well, who had to boldly undertake highly risky operations in the last few months of war as a sixteen-year-old “elite soldier” without any toleration for hesitation, fear, or evasion. The systemic that is re-constellated in an training situation is always of a diachronic nature; the experiences of people with similar structural dispositions are revealed, which in this case, means fear and weakness cannot be tolerated and must be suppressed, whoever expresses them simply “does not belong.” Only after reflection on this biographical systemic was it also possible to approach the question: to what extent was his derogatory reaction to his own son perhaps partially responsible for creating the lamented situation. During the consultation, the fundamental maxims numbers 3, 6 and, especially, 2 were also addressed, since the problematic behavior of the son could also be understood as a kind of "cry for help" to his helpful and supportive father.

This example illustrates how a systemic-constructivist view of an educational problem always leads beyond the everyday certainties of life. The possibility to change the existing interpretation of the situation emerges through discussing, identifying, and reflecting on the resonating systemic within a situation. The change in interpretation creates the possibilities for all players involved to be different.

In the conversation reported above, the discovery of the underlying patterns of one's own observations created the possibility to add another perspective to the familiar ones. After this discovery, what had been perceived as a problematic situation became clear in its (inevitable) constructiveness and could be re-analyzed in the light of these own preconceptions. Only then did the view of the systemic in which his counterpart was entangled become clear(er) and a helpful discussion of "educational measures" could ensue with respect to the logic of the counterpart and less as an expression of one's own past experiences. Thus, the fundamental ability to understand is the real basis of education.

Self-reflection 2: Describe a fictional or a true experience about a situation in which new interpretations and meanings of the situation became apparent through further inquiries.

2.2 Education As a Moral Communication

"Education without a value-basis is unthinkable!" This is the basic consensus of all those professionally concerned with education. However, the broad agreement seems to end with that observation. The contentious issue in today’s "open" pluralistic society is not only about values, but rather whether there are still values on which a consensus can be built. Also debatable is how to permanently anchor such values in the heart and mind to serve as an orientation point for adolescent youths.

Even though many theorists today propose that we are living in a value uncertain or better said – uncertain society – we cannot fail to notice that parents, if asked, generally know very well what they want to achieve with the education of their children. The open question remaining is that of the communicability of values, i.e., the question of whether and how an effective and long-lasting embedding of values in the minds and hearts of the adolescent generation can be ensured. The plurality and the uncertainty of values, which brings freedom and diversity of choice to individuals also brings with it the danger of the disintegration of the society. This observation should not be understood as a lamentation over the loss of formerly effective integration models, rather it is a matter of seeking intelligent ways of facilitating the development of the value orientation so important in the lives of adolescents, while also assisting the people in a society to relate to a common value base. According to the messages heard today in the public, social sciences and philosophical debates, this can only be achieved when there are no more material values declared and pronounced as binding for everyone. It is more important to motivate the individual to give meaning to his own existence and life than to communicate, reflect, and argue with others about the meaning.

No more gods? Is education after the ending of the greatest story ever told still possible? The American educator Neil Postman, postulates in his book “The End of Education” that the “gods” or, to use his term “the common tales”, of public education cannot survive. “ (Postman 1995, p. 20). In his fundamental consideration, he grapples with the “gods who are not”, and in the process he unmasks all the “tales” on which the modern society of America lives. He rails against the “belief in the market economy” as much as against the “promise of consumption god”, the “god of economic utility,” the “god of technology,” the “melting-pot tale of America,” and “multiculturalism.” In his opinion, these are no more suitable as “gods” than computers and television and the information cult associated with them. In contrast, he sketches some concepts, from which a guiding force could also emerge in a value uncertain and pluralistic society. Among other things, he offers the following concepts:

• The “spaceship earth,” i.e., a concept that assumes that humanity has a moral obligation towards the preservation of the earth,

• The “fallen angel,” i.e., the recognition that people make mistakes, therefore claims of certainty and faith in science are not suitable as standards and guidance for the society and the lives of individuals,

• The “American experiment,” i.e., the idea that human rights and the principle of continuing discussion are suitable for regulating social cooperation,

• The “law of diversity,” i.e., the idea that from linguistic, religious, cultural differences reciprocal stimulation, growth and strength can emerge.

These four concepts can be understood in the deepest sense, as humanistic concepts because they have no normative requirements and do not prompt individuals to adopt values, rather they create a framework, within which the validity of guidelines can be discussed and negotiated. At the same time, these concepts prove to be insightful concepts as they question superficial success and the superficial forces of technological and market standards. Certainly, in agreement with Erich Fromm - not the criteria of “having,” but that of “being” is brought into focus. In this sense, the “new gods” outlined by Postman prove to be a “productive orientation” in the sense of Fromm’s writings, because they reflect the expression of logical thinking, the love of life (biophilia), and human solidarity (cf. Fromm, 1976).

In order for adolescents to adopt such productive orientations and allow them to personally develop a lasting basis orientation and endow life with meaning, it is necessary to strengthen their own self-respect. The reason for this approach to one's own self-esteem is that a person, who estimates the value of his own personality low, will barely be in a position to approach others or to participate in a social environment as an understanding person who promotes cooperation. The ability “to endow life with meaning” or a value orientation begins with the promotion of self-esteem. Parents, educators, and teachers can learn to promote self-esteem and create an important basis for successful personality development and self-directed, lifelong learning in the children and adolescents under their care.

Contemplating the possibilities of specifically developing this self-respect in classrooms or in teaching-learning contexts, three basic approaches can be identified:

• The experience of being treated respectfully,

• The experience of self-efficacy,

• The promotion of self-image.

Assisted learning is based on the self-esteem and self-efficacy (Bandura 1997) of the subject. Only those who can respect themselves and have experienced themselves as self-effective dare to try something. And only those who have the self-confidence to try can also have confidence and trust in others and also treat them with respect.

These three aspects reflect the fact that individual self-respect is to a large degree dependent on how respectfully he is treated and how effective he experiences himself to be within the organization of his social and physical environment. To ensure young people have the chance to develop an experience of self-efficacy, it is important to avoid constant threats and humiliations; teachers and parents must approach their students to convey real expectations not only as an element of “conducting” the teaching process; and, to avoid ostracism and complicated and even incomprehensible and ambiguous expressions. It is also important that teachers intervene when they notice others being treated disparagingly and insensitively. Similarly, through targeted activities, it is essential to give individuals the experience that they are important.

From these lines of argument, the outline of a concept of assisted learning can be discerned. It includes:

• Valuing (own experiences),

• Linking aids (between old and new), and

• Openness of effect

The effects of educational interventions are not binding or even sustainable. This was never the case. Even in times when it was more possible to instill fear and terror into systems, the “stubbornness” of the subjects could never be completely subdued. People have always learned “against the grain”, and the subjects have always learned differently and more than was taught. The systemic-constructivist pedagogy proceeds from that which has always worked: “If it is true that systems

cannot be developed, but rather they can only develop themselves, why are these facts not taken to some extent as the basis for business?” By asking and thinking in this manner, the focus is more on the aspect of assisting (enabling) and it diverges away from the engineering mentality of manufacturing and production output.

In this way, a different mindset of observation, assessment, and acting can emerge, which takes the uncertainty of the effect of education into account. Training, education, and learning follow the inner logic of the subject. Through monitoring, it is possible to provide breathing space and indirect encouragement, but not really “intervene” (in the technical sense of the word). Systemic- constructivist pedagogy is therefore a non-interventionist pedagogy. It promotes reflexivity in pedagogical activities, but does not directly initiate it. As such it is an ethical pedagogy, which essentially positions itself in the subsidiary role. This means that the self-determination and self-organization of systems will achieve primacy – if for no other reason than simply because it is already so.

With such questioning, a systemic-constructivist approach to Training and education is closely related to the educational progressivism philosophy (cf. Dewey 1916; 1925, Rogers 1969). The educational progressivism was “systemic” in the sense that it examined the conditions that make self-control possible, with the knowledge that it is in self-control alone that the logic of the other can become apparent. Many of the progressive authors were already aware of the ineffectiveness of linear schooling models and they fundamentally questioned the dominant pedagogic theory of the need to educate people. This is especially valid for the didactic version of this thesis, which says, “teaching” is an absolute prerequisite for “learning”. This thesis is still present - albeit in a modified and weakened form – in the didactic debates of this day. It was only very gradually that the view began to widen to include the autodidactic forms of learning and it became evident that lifelong learning is necessarily a self-directed activity, which can be achieved in diverse contexts and not in pre-existing curricula and institutionalized processes.

However, the systemic-constructivist pedagogy is more than just an updated edition of educational progressivism concepts. It builds more on the cognitive psychological insights into the emergent characteristics of thinking, feeling and acting by the subject and does not succumb to the illusion of self-determination of open education. Systemic-constructivist pedagogy attempts rather to explain the theory that intervention is possible, but uncertain in its effects (by Glasersfeld 1987). It is ultimately concerned with redefining educational interaction and approaching it from the dynamics of the target system. Training, education, and learning occur as a co-evolution of two linked systems, in which both can only contribute what they have available. The success of this co-evolution is only “guaranteed” through the facilitation of connected abilities, but not by insistent linearity (e.g. in the sense of standardization).

A systemic-constructivist pedagogy that addresses this issue is essentially the pedagogy of assisted learning. It supports the development of subjectivity and competency; combines a variety of acquisition opportunities; and assists, advises, and supports the movement of the learner. It's not about if-then relationships, but about options of growth and acquisition. People develop from within, but in the process, they require opportunities of stimulation, questioning, and searching. However, not everyone needs the same things. This is why pedagogy and didactics cannot develop any rules, they can only provide knowledge obtained from reflection, to facilitate the initiation of different learning situations which can then be monitored and evaluated. A systemic-constructivist pedagogy is aware of the unavailability of learning and educational success. Nevertheless, it also knows from its centuries-old tradition that these outcomes are often far more likely when education can be structured as an encounter or relationship, which can be shared and experienced by means of a visible demonstration of mutual dealings in a value-based manner. The “systemic” is a manner of dealing with complexity, an observer’s perspective, and the uncertainties of effect and attributions of effect, which differs in many respects from the traditional image of expert pedagogic action. This point is discussed further over the course of this argument.

Self-reflection 3: How can a systemic-constructivist pedagogy be described as “moderate?” How does this “moderation” provide relief for educators and teachers?

3. Learning and Learning Theories

There are various learning concepts put forth in the current debate. For example, there is talk of informal, self-directed, and emotional learning. These terms are only used in a loose relationship to the learning theories that will be discussed below (behaviorist, cognitivist, constructivist, and subject-scientific learning theories).

3.1 Learning Concepts

Learning can be defined as a competency-building acquisition of knowledge, abilities, and skills.

Learning not only takes place deliberately (intentional learning), but also casually (functional or “en passant” learning); not only in the institutionalized context of school, training, university, etc. (formal learning), but also in practical life (informal learning) (cf. inter alia Garrik 1998, Jarvis 1987). Many international studies have found that informal learning makes up 60-80 percent of the total skills acquisition (e.g., OECD 1977). Learning is therefore not primarily an institutionalized practice, but rather a way of life.

Against this background, some of the learning theories presented in the following paragraphs are inadequate. Such learning theories as well as the interpretations and the guided learning culture grounded on them and practiced in many educational institutions actually fail to see many of the skill-building learning efforts and learning processes of young and adult learners. The study and theoretical interpretation of learning still have the “autodidactic” and the “facilitative turn” waiting for their remarks, i.e., they must start to devote more attention to the informal and self-directed everyday learning processes ongoing in professional life and daily living.

3.2 Overview of Learning Theories

In a rough differentiation, behaviorist, constructivist, and cognitive, as well as subject-scientific learning theories can be categorized. These theories are either more object-oriented (in view of what is to be acquired), or subject-oriented (in view of competence-building) and have different explanatory strengths for different complexity levels of learning. For example, easy language learning programs (e.g., vocabulary training) can be planned and designed to a large extent based on behaviorist learning theories, whereas these theories have a limited suitability for explaining the development of complex problem-solving skills or key qualifications.

a) The behaviorist learning theories assume that people can build and change their behavior patterns with stimulus-response conditioning: “Learning according to the principle of classical conditioning is based on contiguity (temporal coupling) by a definite and neutral stimulus” (Zimbardo/Gerring 1996, p. 212). This means that positive consequences (amplifiers, such as recognition or praise) lead to a consolidation of appropriated and exhibited behavior, while a lack of confirmation, or even negative consequences have reverse consequences. On closer examination, however, it becomes obvious that the behaviorist learning theory only has a limited explanatory value and that is also why it has only been attributed very limited practical relevance up until today (e.g., in the instructional design approaches of modern multimedia learning). Robert Gagne has already pointed out that the stimulus-response learning was only one of many forms of learning by which people acquire information and develop skills. He identified a total of 8 forms of learning: 1. signal learning, 2. stimulus-response learning, 3. learning motor chains, 4. learning linguistic chains, 5. learning of distinctions, 6. concept formation, 7. rule learning, and 8. Problem solving (cf. Gagne 1969).

b) Cognitive learning theories assume that learning should encompass the entire context of a series of behaviors. If “thinking” is seen as “the ordering of the doing” (Aebli 1980), then learning, through which problem solving-oriented knowledge and appropriate skills are developed, could also be understood as a comprehensive process in its planning, implementing and controlling sequence of actions. The cognitive learning theories emphasize problem-solving, insightful, and deductive learning and, are therefore particularly suitable for explaining more complex learning processes such as those found in vocational education (but also in higher education) in the development of comprehensive key qualifications. In these learning processes, learning not only takes place through the acquisition of the new (assimilation), but also by the application, restructuring, and further development of already existing cognitive structures (accommodation). The determining factor taken into consideration for learning and educational processes here is not only “the ratio of external stimulus to response (...), but also, the internal control mechanisms such as self-reflection, selective perception, cognitive strategies, ideas and desires.” This is the characterization of the cognitive framework by Baumgärtel, F. (1986, p. 470).

c) Constructivist learning theories assume that cognitive systems are closed autopoietic (self-organized) systems, which are self-referenced and autonomous. Learning cannot be understood as a process in which information can be transported “from outside to the inside,” it is seen much more “as a process of restructuring within a closed system” (Luhmann 1987, p. 60). Teaching can therefore not create stores of knowledge in others or develop skills, it can only initiate and enable restructuring or acquisition processes. In this sense, H. Siebert stated: “It cannot be externally controlled or determined, but only initiated and 'perturbed' (disturbed). Even the audience of a lecture cannot reproduce what has been heard – like a tape recorder – rather, the lecture initiates individual thoughts, associations, emotions, and considerations that are only loosely connected with the lecture” (Siebert 2001, p. 195). The constructivist learning theories are the expression of a changing trend in the psychology of learning: “Learning is no longer seen as an individual information acquisition and behavior change, but is involved in the complex relationships between biological factors, socio-cultural involvement and emotional and motivational processes. Under such a multi-perspective view, it presents itself more and more as “knowledge construction”: learning refers more to the development of knowledge and skills based on 'biological readiness', individual experiences, and existing knowledge structures, which are useful and usable in real situations. New information is linked with previous knowledge, interpreted based on the background of one's own experience and networked, which empowers action in specific situations” (ibid.).

This multi-perspective view directs the learning theory debate towards knowledge management in collaborative relationships. Sharing, further development, and updating of knowledge essentially presupposes that learning is placed, in the sense of involvement, in activity and application contexts. At the same time, sustained learning can result if the learning subjects play an active-interactive role in the learning process and contribute their own experiences, questions, and insights to the development of solutions to problems. Individual and organizational learning appear as the two mutually supporting sides of knowledge management.

d) Subject-scientific learning theories, in a certain sense, radicalize the constructivist view on learning, while still obligated to a highly individualized learning concept. In this case, learning is considered from the point of view of the subject, while completely excluding objective references (requirements, stimuli, etc.). In 1993, Klaus Holzkamp presented a theory, which attributes constitutive relevance to the “learning projects” of the learners. In his opinion, no intentional learning can take place without the “corresponding reasons” of the learning subject (Holzkamp 1996, p. 21). Holzkamp also distinguishes between the “defensive learning” (learning to avoid disadvantage), characteristic of our educational institutions, and an “expansive learning”. Each of these forms of learning follows, in its own way, “a thematic learning justification” that depends to what extent the learners “(...) can achieve an expansion/increase of their quality of life in objective, social contexts through learning or, whether through learning the learners can only achieve a prevention of their degradation and threat” (Holzkamp 1993, p. 190). To achieve truly sustainable learning, in the sense of retention and competence-building, the subject learns only in the expansive form, i.e. when learning “permits”, enables and encourages development of the subject.

Self-reflection 4: What ideas of the learning subject form the basis of these four learning theories? How is the learning person seen? Complete the sentence: “Learning is ...” for each learning theory.