What to do in Sheffield

[Fallow Way]

You have to acknowledge there is a world of difference between the level you are looking at and the fairly simplistic one we use. Plus, I learned enough during my psychology study that everything have support and arguments against it, particularly against it at it is always easy to point out the flaws in others, so just use what works. Surely you must agree that to have a grounding in theory to help inform your delivery method is more constructive than ignoring everything. Or else why bother having teacher training? Why not all just do what we think is best and get handed a certificate for it.

What I find is that it works, every time. If I see the patterns, I can use them, because I can recognise them as a result of the training. Watching those very same children taught to blankly without considering how they learn is for some of them, the `disaffected`, exactly what causes all of the problems, the wealth of research ongoing currently regarding Kinesthetic learners being mis-diagnosed as having ADHD goes someway to recognising there are patterns which are not being recognised. This training points out those patterns and is resulting is countless children actually being engaged.

I have yet to go through the document, which looks very interesting btw, thank you, but as it is post-16, could there not be a correlation between those who continue in formal education and visual/auditory learners as our education system is geared towards? There seems to be a dramatic drop off of those who learn kinesthetically, because that learning style is not being catered for.

It would be interesting to see a similar study which includes pre-16 and borderline exclusions/exclusions and compare the accomplishments of those learning styles. Is there anything?? I would be interested.

Should we waffle on about this in private? We have kind of high jacked the thread here

Theory and counter-theory are all fine, but what I find that works is something else.

 

[DoctorSpoon]

Explanation, Demonstration, Imitation, Practise.

That is a really sound way to teach and the best way to learn any practical skill. It might sound silly but what we're arguing over is how to help the learner at the imitation stage. To watch someone and then try to replicate their actions is not always straight forward; to place your hands as they do when yours might be half their size, to work out how much force they are using when they are so much stronger than you and so on. How you respond as a teacher when the learner is struggling is vital to their experience and how their learning progresses. In the Forces I'm sure you have ways of dealing with that which are quite acceptable given the power structure you have. These aren't necessarily appropriate for teaching kids at Forest Schools!

 

[DoctorSpoon]

Should we waffle on about this in private? We have kind of high jacked the thread here

You're right, we're a long way from what to do on a night out in Sheffield!! PM me if you want to continue on email...

 

[Fallow Way]

I would echo Doctor Spoon there exactly, you are instructing in a process, which you want repeated exactly and precisely so the military method is tried and tested and works well I know.

In Forest Schools we are trying to help people of all ages learn how to learn. It is not about the skills themselves, it is about the opportunties they present to develop personal, social and emotional skills. It also looks at alternative coping stratagies for those who display challenging behaviour and the like.

 

[spamel]

As far as I am aware, EDIP is used in the Cadet Forces as well! I'm not saying that the way you are teaching is wrong, the only people who could tell you that is the people you instruct. I just don't know why things have to be meddled with and wordings changed to make it "fit for purpose"! I never heard fit for purpose before whatsisname came out with it and now I hear it all the time!

 

[John Fenna]

Ahh - the wonderful theories of learning to learn to teach learning to those who are disafected and reject standard teaching methods and nead to be taught to learn in a way that teachers need to learn....
Now I think I understand - or am learning to...Takes me back to when I was learning to teach/coach and doing a very basic psyco course.
Now I am supporting those with learning disabilities of various sorts I too am having to relearn how to teach/support people who are in the extreme catergory of being failed by the learning of teaching learned by teachers who studied the standard teachings of Kolb and his confederates.
For those who are merely disaffected I use compassion and common sense/respect - with a smattering of VAK and EDIP combined with a timescale which is in keeping with the needs of the student, and and understanding (where possible) of the reasons for their disaffection. Basically treating each individual as an individual - a practice seemingly abandoned/ unbudgeted by mainstream teaching.
Seems to work most of the time
My last post on this thread.

 

[spamel]

I have no argument with anybody, I'm not usually that way inclined and don't want people to think that is how I posted. Sorry if it has come across that way. I just get a bit fed up with mumbo jumbo, I like to call a spade a spade, and I'm talking about a gardening implement here, before anyone calls me a racist!

 

[Ogri the trog]

Hang on again,
could I ask that you DO continue your discussions on here rather than PM as I am learning from the thread as it develops - I'm not saying I understand it fully just now but there'll come a time when it'll sink in, if it goes to PM's I'm stuffed!
I must say that I used EDIP teaching in the forces and it worked spectacularly well amongst people of similar mind-set/abilities/capabilities - but I'll have to move with the times and adapt my ideals to relate to younger learners.
For those of you wondering about what I actually got up to. I ended as chapperone and dedicated driver for two young ladies, one form Edinburgh and one from Brighton. We visited a few eateries around Stannington and further afield for our evening meals and spent the evening chatting about the days events and other pleasantries.

Cheers all, time for bed

Ogri the trog

 

[British Red]

Fascinating thread I agree!

I fall into the John Fennah school right now. Too much silliness is talked about "learning styles" in much the same way that too much rubbish was talked about personality profiles" at one point. Each time a flaw was exposed in personality profiling (be it Belbin or whatever) another "we have cracked it" theory was proposed - and subsequently dismissed.

In my view (as someone who has been teaching in a vocational and professional context for 25 years or so - and spent the previous 25 listening to a parent with a PhD and another half century in education)any "box" based system is inherently flawed.

Its easy to say " I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand", but the world is not that simple. I have seen and experienced educators who illustrate spoken learning so well with illuminating and entertaining relevant examples that it beats any "visual aid". Equally I have seen dull and dry "hands on" learning that the trainees have been eager to finish as its obvious that exercise only exists to satisfy some teaching method.

Stimulation, and above all engagement are the key. In an exercise that is primarily cerebral understanding the theory is key (no amount of "hands on" teaches accounting), in an exercise that is primarily physical, no amount of theory beats experience (no-one learns to drive from a book). The teacher must learn to gear the teaching to both the pupil and the subject matter. its not "either or" its "both".

Pupils who can't learn theory, can't be research scientists. Pupils who can't grasp the practical can't be cabinet makers.

Red

 

[h2o]

this thread got a bit complex.Go to the pub mate!!!

 

[DoctorSpoon]

The major problem with educational theory is that it was largely developed in the classroom, looking at people who were learning maths, geography, history and so on. This is dealing with what I would call ‘explicit’ knowledge, the sort of knowledge that can be written down and tested. The skills we are interested in teaching and learning are practical skills; using tools, building shelters, making things. They contain a large proportion of the sort of knowledge you can’t write down, what I would call ‘tacit’ knowledge.

It just doesn’t make sense to apply the same educational theory to this because there is only one way to learn these tasks; by taking action, by doing them. You simply can’t learn them just by watching or listening or reading. You can learn only about them in this way. You learn by doing, you can either just do it and work it out yourself (pure discovery) or you can accept some guidance. That guidance has traditionally come from the apprenticeship model - in the style of the Forces training discussed previously - where the expert is the holder of the knowledge and gradually initiates the novice into the practice through imitation and correction.

Whilst effective, the apprenticeship model can be very controlling, taking any sense of discovery away from the learner. What I have been trying to do, and others who maybe don’t realise it, is to come up with a better model, one which puts the learner more in control of their learning to re-introduce the element of joy, of discovery. However if you try to describe your model on a classroom-based one like learning styles it doesn’t really work because the kind of knowledge we are trying to transmit doesn’t work in the same way.

I could go on more, but it seems a shame to have this discussion under ‘what to do in Sheffield’ - shall we start a learning and teaching thread somewhere and hold a discussion with others about how practical skills are best transmitted?

 

[Fallow Way]

A person clearly learns well through a visual representation, that pattern has been observed time and time again, more so than if they are told what to do or physically do it.

In showing them a skill, should I just do it how I want to, or pay special attention to this pattern and use it to help them learn more?

Regarding this "silliness", we are trying to learn as much as we can to help these children.

There have been lots of comments made which appear to give a viewpoint as having `the` way to teach. I much prefer to be passionate about learning and trying new things and admitting I dont know everything but will try to if it gives children on these programmes a better experience.

People are making grand sweeping rationalisations regarding a supposed limited view because as part of the Forest School programme we pay attention to learning styles, multiple intelligence’s, schema etc etc to name a few. Those on a course are carefully observed and the programme is specifically tailors for their development.

John, treating an individual as an individual is the whole point of Forest Schools. Everything you say you do is what we do also, but we add a lot more onto it in order to give them the most rewarding experience possible.

Spamel - mumbo jumbo is what you need to be qualified in to become a teacher or work with complex cases. This is not about over complicating how to use a tool, the process is very simple and well thought through in that regard, this is about how to teach and encourage social and emotional development, something you just cant do by luck or best intentions.

In my view (as someone who has been teaching in a vocational and professional context for 25 years or so - and spent the previous 25 listening to a parent with a PhD and another half century in education)any "box" based system is inherently flawed. - who said anything about boxing people in? People have traits, in trying to identify these traits can it not aid in understanding them and this understanding how to help them? In addition to the strong relationship formed with them, you can tailor the experience to them.

Stimulation, and above all engagement are the key. - This is exactly what Forest Schools does.

The teacher must learn to gear the teaching to both the pupil and the subject matter. its not "either or" its "both". - exactly, and in understanding what to look for in the pupil, they can gear the experience to them, learner led.

Pupils who can't learn theory, can't be research scientists. Pupils who can't grasp the practical can't be cabinet makers. - so in effect what you are saying is that we need to look at how people learn? So basically we are looking at their style of learning????

What I have been trying to do, and others who maybe don’t realise it, is to come up with a better model, one which puts the learner more in control of their learning to re-introduce the element of joy, of discovery

Forest Schools tries to take as wide a view as possible. Being learner led. Being about discovery and learning through play. Having them inspired and engaged is the focus of it. I dont know how you can have a learner led experience, without recognising how they are learning and knowing how to provide experiences for them.

If i were to sum up from everyone’s preferences, it uses a learner led apprenticeship model with recognition of VAK, multiple intelligence’s, scheme etc to inform the experience.

I am a woodsman, through and through, I do not put my time and effort into anything unless it is something good and positive. I firmly believe Forest Schools is one of the best opportunities available to children and adults. There is nothing there that is not conducive to a positive experience.

 

[DoctorSpoon]

Paul, don’t feel this discussion is an attack on Forest Schools. They are offering really valuable experience to youngsters in a very thoughtful manner which is brilliant. However, there are other people doing things in other ways (or maybe the same way but with different names) and it has to be useful to discuss the meaning of it all if we are all to improve what we do.

I’ve started a new thread over on bushcraft chatter to draw a few more people into the debate!

 

[spamel]

I'm not having a go at Forest Schools at all. I can understand that learning something from a book is possible as long as it is an academic subject, but to learn something like pole leathing may be a bit difficult to learn from a book. To learn that properly would need somebody to tell you exactly when to apply pressure with the chisels and gouges, how tight you need the cordage that turns the work piece and all sorts of other bits and bobs.

Maybe I'll find out one of these days, I'd love to have a go on a pole lathe!