Make it stick... and Bates

I just read the excerpt from Brown, Roediger and McDaniel's "Make it Stick" and I'm inspired to try it myself.  I read Bates chapter 2 last week, and I remember there were some pre- and post-questions.   Here we go.

1. Which theory of learning do you like best, and why? State what main subject you are teaching.

I'd have to go Constructionist.  The subject I teach is interpreting for deaf people (two different kinds, one is ASL-English and the other is called Cued Speech), which I equate to sort of like teaching applied linguistics.  There are some academic theories and principles but it is also a skill.  So there's no passive learning, students must start with what they already know and build their own knowledge, because in the end they can't cheat.  In the end it will be them up on the platform, with one person talking and a deaf person waiting to find out what they're saying.  

2. Does your preferred way of teaching match any of these theoretical approaches? Write down some of the activities you do when teaching that ‘fit’ with this theory. Can you think of other possible activities you now could use within this theoretical framework for teaching?

Yes, I actually think a LOT of my teaching is behaviorist, especially for teaching Cued Speech classes.  Cueing is a combination of handshapes that, instead of forming words, form syllables.  So a person puts them together to make visual English syllables and then puts more together to make English words, then English phrases, etc.  The point of that is to have visual access to English itself, whereas signing is visual access to a separate language-  ASL.   So when I'm teaching people how to cue, I start with the first handshape, cue a word, and everyone copies me.  I say "yes, you got it!"  and move on to the next word.  After a while I add a new handshape, and it's like learning a new letter on the keyboard-  now you can make more words.  I cue a word and when they do it too, we move on to the next.  Because I'm relying on them presenting a visual, measurable response to me, that seems very Behaviorist.

3. Does your teaching generally combine different theories – sometimes behaviourist, sometimes cognitive, etc.? If so, what are the reasons or contexts for taking one specific approach rather than another?

The first two I can think of that I do are behaviorist and constructionist.   The behaviorist is what I talked about in the last question, and the constructionist part is when I have them in pairs or groups and give them words, sentences, and phrases to practice cueing.  I started doing that because everybody was staring at me too much and I felt like we were doing the same thing over and over, and I needed to change it up.  BUT the outcomes that I found reinforced why it worked:  the students could own the practice by moving at their own pace, not waiting for me to cue something.  Also they had to cue to each other, which means they are seeing someone do what they are trying to do, so a lot of mistakes get corrected without me being involved.  

4. How useful are these theories in terms of teaching practice? In your view, are they just jargon or useless theorising, or ‘labelling’ of commonly understood practice, or do they provide strong guidelines for how you should teach?

Well I think they ARE useful, because I just taught myself something-  my class is VERY behaviorist.  I think I need to think about mixing it up!