browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

Blog Reflection 5: Teaching for Reflection

Posted by on November 3, 2013

learning_experience-reflection2

Photo Credit: Langwitches

Discovery learning in action is highly important for our new generations of learners. The lesson plans conducted in Models of Teaching, illustrate two different methods of instruction. In the “presentation cum group”, students are engaged in the study of a botany unit that requires studying the textbook with tutorial help of their instructor. This approach is a traditional teacher presentation method. Another group of students are also studying a botany lesson but are following an inductive approach by using hands-on methods for learning about botany and how to classify specific plants.

Mrs. Baveja’s inductive approach allows students to make the subject material meaningful by expanding the students thinking into creative and critical thinking. Mrs. Baveja’s approach follows problem-based learning because students are pushed beyond retaining information from a textbook and must apply it to solve classifications from new or existing plants (Woolfolk, 2013). These students scored higher on the test than the cum group of students because they were taught to comprehend their research findings and apply them to the problem at hand. This type of exploration in the classroom in called inquiry learning (Coffman, 2012).

After reviewing the post-test, it is clear that the two groups had different results because of the instruction used to teach the same subject material. The reason the inductive group scored higher was because the test asked students to analyze more specimens and to name their structural characteristics. Mrs. Baveja asked her students to label, categorize, and make relations between plants based on their structural characteristics of roots, stems, and leaves. Since this is what they did in their instruction, the inductive students used what they learned to expand their knowledge. The cum group of students scored two times lower than the inductive group because they were not exposed to making the subject material meaningful, therefore stopping creative thinking.

References

Coffman. T. (2013). Using inquiry in the classroom: Developing creative thinkers and information literate students. (2nd Ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education

Joyce, B. and Weil, M. (1986). Models of teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 40–41

Photo retrieved on November 2nd, 2013, from http://langwitches.org/blog/2009/05/13/it-is-about-reflecting-and-analyzing-our-teaching-practice/.

Woolfolk, A.E. (2013). Educational psychology (12th Ed). Pearson Education

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *