What's old is new again. . .

My reaction to the first few pages in the text emphasizing "the new science of learning" incorporating "new ideas" and "new instructional practices" based on "new approaches" because "learning research suggests that there are new ways to introduce students to traditional subjects" is to sigh and fall into a cynical slump in my chair. Too many times have I heard how education desperately needs reform, how finally we know how to do it based on innovative research and successful pilot models, and how these new ideas and methods will save the next generation of doomed children. In my lifetime, thanks to learning science and research, phonics fell to whole language; spelling fell to Peter Elbow's freewriting; memorization, diagramming, and handwriting are gone forever, perhaps without particular significance. My high school in the 1970's was a modern, multi-circular structure of large open areas with dividers instead of interior walls to allow flexibility and team teaching of larger groups. Within a few years interior walls were added because the open design was too distracting, and smaller groups were considered preferable for effective instruction.  Now, of course, the classroom dividers are pulled back again to accommodate new, innovative team teaching models. With the help of new learning science and research, agile charter schools with flexible staffing will replace the dinosaurs of public education, those impersonal business-model institutions (a management rage of the 1980's) dominated by selfish unions (created to guarantee quality staffing). And student learning? Well.

This is not to say change is unneeded or futile. Despite a skepticism of reform trends, I find the current focus on student-centered learning and individual achievement a much needed shift from universal standards and benchmarks, which make few concessions to the variability of student experience and cognitive growth. An awareness of pre-existing knowledge and the emphasis on active learning are fundamental teaching principles, and a learning-centered environment with context is inarguably preferable to a top-down, teacher-centered lecture. The chapter on experts and novices reviews material from my educational psychology course, and I am particularly happy to reconsider the notion of adaptive expertise, being well aware that my own education and tendencies toward instruction resemble Jake's, not Stephen's, in the Hamlet example. How wonderful to be so creative! My best classes here at the U have been active, learning centered courses that prompted me to try new tools and activities, much as this course is designed. The more pedantic classes involve research papers and yet another power point presentation on the paper written--exactly the sort of assignment I might have given as an English GSI, back when the writing process and peer editing were new and innovative ideas. Teachers now have a wealth of accessible, innovative tools, ideas, strategies, and theoretical approaches to consider, all supported by learning science and data driven research. What I need to do is sit up in my chair, put skepticism aside, and reconsider the possibility that this time, this year or next, the new science of learning will show new results.