Do, listen, read, watch. Let’s think and talk about this together. Explain it to me. Show me. Once again. That’s good!
When teaching and learning are kept simple, children learn. Call this kind of teaching old fashioned. Label it as standard or traditional or “not very exciting” teaching. You may or may not see a lot of technology in this kind of lesson. And, it may not be the first thing a child talks about at the supper table when asked “What did you do at school today?” But, at the end of any day, acknowledge that this kind of teaching is exceptionally effective in causing children to learn.
This is how it works. The teacher sets the purpose of the lesson and helps children to connect the new lesson to what they already know. The children engage (do, listen, read, or watch) with what is to be learned. The teacher and children talk about it; children tell what they did, heard, read or saw and what they think and how they feel about it. The teacher asks questions of the children to clarify their learning story. Then, the teacher asks children to “do, tell, read or watch” again perhaps using different words or “stuff” to ascertain that each child actually accomplished the purpose of the lesson. Maybe children are asked to do it once again later or the next day to reinforce what they have learned. Children learn. Children conceptualize their learning. Children generalize from their learned concepts. Children grow from their learning and in their growth expand their expertise and capacity for more learning. And, this type of lesson design works in any curriculum and any subject. It works in reading and math and social studies as well as art, woodshop and computer studies. It works because it connects the child, teacher and what is to be learned and it applies good teaching and learning theories.
In the early 1900s John Dewey, American educator and philosopher, considered the linkage between children and their learning. He gave weight to the three components of teaching and learning by acknowledging the teacher, the matter to be learned, and the student. He conceived of the teacher as a guide to learning who adjusts the essential balance between the needs of the student and the integrity of the content, skills or processes to be learned. Dewey liked clear and simple instruction that challenged a child to create meaning from her experiences.
Madeline Hunter conceptualized the interplay of effective instructional practices with the theories of motivation, reinforcement and the transfer of learning in the 1980s. She understood the complexity of teaching and integrated research-based teaching practices and brain theories with schoolhouse practicalities.
Her methodology was popularized to an extreme in the 80s and 90s and later berated because it seemed too repetitively mechanical and overdone. In the rush to reform, the clarity and directness of Dr. Hunter’s methodologies were set aside for newer trends, especially trends that de-emphasized the importance of the teacher and emphasized the perceived needs of the learner. Interestingly, the current political mandates for improving the achievement of all children in U.S. schools is returning Madeline Hunter’s instructional practices to the front of the classroom. In his 2011 book, Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning, Mike Schmoker expounds on the values of Hunter’s methodologies.
In the context of school choice and educational consumerism, the need to keep children happy and their parents satisfied has changed our understanding of learning engagement. For many in our post-Dewey and Hunter century, the processes of learning often seem to supersede the outcomes of learning. A shortened attention span and need for quick successes connect millennial children with the advantages of techno-learning and fast-change options. Further, revolving choices of schools, curricula, and real and virtual teachers disconnects children and families from school communities. Whereas, speed and access to almost limitless experiences are a key stroke away at gigabytes per second, meaning and understanding that are checked and clarified by a knowledgeable adult operate at the speed of human conversation. The reality of that dichotomy aligns perfectly with a re-emergence of Dewey and Hunter. No matter how a child engages with a learning objective, “explain it to me, show me, and once again” are timeless in causing a child to learn and find meaning in what they learn.
The absence of “explain it, show me, and once again” may be analogous to manufacturing without a quality control. A child needs to know that learning has been achieved and that what has been learned is meaningful and matters in that child’s life. Good teaching completes and reinforces the loop connecting the purpose of learning, processes of learning, effectiveness of learning and application of learning.
Keep it John Dewey simple and meaningful. Keep it Madeline Hunter connected to sound learning theories. These two things keep teaching and learning effective and children learning.