Clarifications, Examples, and Elaborations

Hello everyone. Moved by former and ongoing conversations with students, I have formulated the following description in the hopes of better clarifying the intentions underpinning Assignment 1. First let me emphasize that, though we definitely value your opinions, this particular task is in no way meant to be an opinion piece. Rather we want to assess your deep understanding of coherence theories of learning and how they look when enacted in a teaching situation.

Consider the following analogy: Let's say you were studying physiotherapy and you had learned different theories behind the various approaches for rehabilitating a knee injury. Then this assignment would be comparable to watching a physiotherapist in action and having to identify which choices were examples of say a theory about the physiology of knee tissues and their responses to exercise, rest, and stretching. In your description you would have to explain how you know that the physiotherapist's action is an example of that theory in action. In other words, you would be asked to think like the physiotherapist, to get into her mind, to get behind the action into the principles driving it. This is because, in this example, presumably one day you would be a physiotherapist and the person teaching and assessing your progress would want to be sure that you understood how key theories look when enacted.

Notice that to answer such questions does not require an opinion or value judgment. In fact you could absolutely disagree with the theory. But that is not the point. Rather, you need to demonstrate that you know what is going on here: That you can recognize a particular theory in action and explicate how that particular action is consistent with that theory.

So, to take a counter example, let's say I was watching a popular enactor and promoter of correspondence theories of learning (e.g., Carol Ann Tomlinson) teach and I saw detailed lesson objectives and a lot of individualized student testing. Say, the classroom was highly structured with different students doing different activities tailor-made for them, with each of the activities preset by the teacher. Moreover, I saw clearly laid out rewards and consequences for student actions. Watching her, I could identify such teaching practices as exemplifying a correspondence theory of learning—in particular I might interpret them as enactments of behaviorist principles for conditioning children and mentalist principles underpinning the matching of activities to student.

Notice again that in no way do I have to make an evaluative judgment to conduct this critique. That is, I could entirely describe her teaching as enacting a correspondence theory of learning without ever giving my opinion about that theory, the actions arising from it, or the educative consequences of those choices. In the present case, you are being asked to do the same thing. The only difference is that it's Dr. Davis, the examples are the one's you've experienced in the course, and the theory is a coherence one.

So, for this assignment you need to pick something that Dr. Davis does that is consistent with a coherence theory of learning, describe why you think it exemplifies this coherence theory in action, and explain the theory behind the action. No judgment. [And bonus: even if that's not why he did it, you'll be fine as long as the example you picked matches the coherence theory you describe and you give an explication that clearly shows you understand what a coherence theory in action would look like and why.]

Further, let me advise you to make generous use of the text’s index. As well, do make a point to revisit the posted lecture notes, especially lecture 6 and the coherence theory slides. These particular slides provide a preliminary list of what might be called "principles of teaching" or pedagogical guidelines. You will also find on this blog sight a beginning sample of pedagogical decisions and enactments by Dr. Davis. I hope that these supports and the above examples set you well underway in terms of understanding our expectations and the rationales behind them. We look forward to reading your thoughts.

Let me add that I am personally thrilled at the possibilities that will unfold for you as you begin to envision how coherence theories might move your choices in teaching. Indeed, I have had the wonderful opportunity to watch practicing pre-service teachers grappling with such enactments and have witnessed the most inspiring of growth. Moreover, these students did not have the benefit of having attended Dr. Davis’s lectures nor of having access to the text Engaging Minds. So I can only begin to imagine where—emerging from these particular beginnings—you will take this.

Always, our best wishes go to you and your future students.

Lissa