Week 1: Accidental Learning

If Tuesday's class were a newspaper article and I had to give it a title, it would most likely be something like this: "Accidental Learning Runs Rampant: Students Unaware".

This "headline" is based on a conversation we had about one of the courses in the TSTM program - what we learned, and what we didn't (or so we thought...). One of the tasks for the day was to download and install Windows XP on a virtual machine in order to install the open source software for our upcoming training sessions. While we were supposed to wait for the ITS representative to walk us through it, many of us went ahead and installed it on our own. Those of us who had taken the advanced networking course had already done this once to create a server environment, and knew what to do. While explaining that we were already done with the install, the entire subject of discussion turned to this particular class and how many of us in the major do not feel like we learned anything about advanced networking. After listening to us talk about our experiences in the course, Dr. Keane asked something along the lines of "What did you learn in the course?". To which much of the class responded with an emphatic "Nothing!". She pointed out that we already knew what to do with the install - so we must have learned something...

...and this is when I learned that Dr. Keane has an uncanny ability to take the most banal conversations (like the ones students have while in class waiting on software to install), apply a training/learning objective, and throw it back at us as if she had put it in the lesson plan for the day. She has either mastered the art of mind control in order to produce conversation to which learning theories can be applied, or she's just THAT good . Considering the likelyhood of the former option, I'm guessing it's the latter. I thought it might have been a fluke, but this has happened multiple times in the past few weeks:
Step 1: banal conversation.
Step 2: application of learning philosophy by Dr. Keane.
Step 3: realization that it IS all connected - that our experiences really do reflect the theory.
Step 4: repeat step 1.

For the record, I AM IMPRESSED... and not just because she will most likely read this (haha!). There is something to be said for a professor that can align student experiences and the theories of their expertise together in a way that seems so down to earth and, well, relevant.

But I digress... Dr. Keane was pointing out that learning happens in unexpected ways, and much of what we learn is through self-directed learning. For the sake of this blog, I'd like to call it "Accidental Learning." During this exciting adventure we'll call "Laura goes to college a decade too late," I've noticed a trend to the contrary in the mindset of students. In general, they seem to believe that:
1. learning must be intentional, and/or
2. it is preferred that ideas are given rather than discovered.
When faced with the notion that knowledge might have been gained by a more natural process, students seem surprised.

I don't want to seem judgemental or age-ist... so I'll try and clarify this observation. I think the idea of "intentional learning" is simply a product of primary and secondary education. There are times that a more cognitive or constructivist approach is taken in primary and secondary education, but it rarely is the case (with the exception of the science realm). The majority of the knowledge is presented in a more structured way - common pedagogical methods that require endless lectures and memorization of facts without applying them to the bigger picture. Students are not often encouraged to take the initial exposure to information and explore to discover/gain more knowledge.

Not too long ago, a friend mentioned in frustration that most Americans know who won American Idol, but cannot tell you the name of the first president of the United States. A little while later, I came across an article on the Science Daily website titled Rote Memorization of Historical Facts Adds to Collective Cluelessness. The article makes the same point as my friend, and mentions that many students find history to be boring, resulting in the "collective cluelessness" described in the title. History is boring if all you are looking at is memorizing dates and events without exploring the context surrounding them.

When I was much younger, I HATED history. I couldn't remember the dates, and without context to make the events relevant - I was totally uninterested. I didn't enjoy history until I "experienced" it, until I found interest in the context of all the events that led to where we are today. I am now a reformed "history-hater". I didn't realize how much I loved history until returning from a trip to Rome 4 years ago. For three days I walked around Palatine Hill, The Forum, and the Colosseum with permanent goosebumps from being in the presence of the magnificent ruins there. I've always been a bit of an architecture freak, and I especially love buildings that are remnants of forgotten times/places. Every building has a story (a history!) and when I returned from Europe, I wanted to know what the stories of the structures in the forum were. It took me at least six months to post the pictures from my trip because every time I would start to sort and upload them I'd be distracted by another building or column that intrigued me. This always resulted in hours of internet research on roman history, and the history of that spot that I stood in months earlier.

It wasn't until I began to experience history first hand that I found it interesting. That is why a constructivist approach works so well - the knowledge affects you and becomes relevant. It is this relevance that allows you to learn, even if it is "accidental".