“[...] technologies need to be used as cognitive tools for learning rather than as simply alternative delivery platforms.”
Herrington, Reeves & Oliver, (2010), A Guide to Authentic e-Learning, page 3.
5 Comments
As a student enrolled in Murdoch University's Masters of Education, one of the units I am currently completing is about adult learning in education and work. For my first assignment, I am to conduct an exploratory study into expertise and intelligence. I would greatly appreciate your time if you could complete one or more of the following questions.
Emotional IntelligenceTo say the words emotional intelligence (EI) and one starts to generate a list of questions: What is it? Why is it important? Does EI replace IQ? How is it fairly tested?
In short, EI is a relatively new field: it has risen to international popularity since its inception in the 1980s and refers to “the competence to identify and express emotions, understand emotions, assimilate emotions in thought, and regulate both positive and negative emotions in the self and in others” (Matthews, 2002, p3). As with any science, there are the professionals both for and against the measuring of one’s EI: critics argue that EI is actually not new and that a psychologist has the knowledge, skills and expertise is in a position to make the same judgments about an individual as an EI test does (p4). Others argue that high EI is directly correlated with success in all areas of life (p5). Matthews cites Herrnstein & Murray’s 1994 book The Bell Curve what suggests measuring one’s EI is socially just for all members of society, as EI is “more equally distributed” (Matthews, 2002, p7) compared to cognitive intelligence which, as suggested by Herrstein & Murray (1994) is more likely to be found in members of society who “were born into economically and educationally advantaged family backgrounds” (Matthews, 2002, p6). I suggest that in measuring EI, there is still the challenge of cultural norms/expectations that is to be overcome. For example what is considered a common occurrence in Australia is not necessarily the same as in the UK or America - and there are our westernised counterparts. What about the cultural norms from countries such as China and Vietnam? Or Kenya and Somalia? My point is that I believe EI has a lot to do with a society and culture’s norms/values/expectations - what is socially accepted in one place may not be same in another. Further, if an individual knows they are being assessed on their EI, could they not simply provide the ‘right’ answer? I believe that measuring one’s EI should not be the determining factor for the job, the promotion, inclusion in a program, etc. Rather, I feel that in measuring one’s intelligence a variety of pieces of evidence should be collated to provide a holistic representation. It’s the same as when I sit down to parent-teacher conferences to discuss a child’s less than favourable academic progress: I triangulate my data to give a valid and fair representation of the child’s learning. Thus, I feel in evaluating an individual’s ability to “identify, express and understand emotions [...] and regulate emotions” various pieces of evidence must first be collated. Reflecting on Goetz, Alexander and Ash (1992) I was taken back to my days as an undergraduate, trying to get my head around the social-learning theorists, specifically Piaget and Vygotsky. Comparing my reading of Piaget’s learning theory from then to now (as described by Goetz et al (1992), it’s highlighted how far I have come in my own learning journey.
Reading about Piaget’s stages I consider how I support my own students to assimilate and accommodate declarative knowledge: in Kindy over Semester One my goal is to enable each child to independently write their name. It is not just something as simple as a one off lesson where I tell each child “this is your name, take a photo, now write it”. Rather, it is a complex process: we start with many name recognition activities, then move onto name building activities (referring to our name card so we know in which order to put the letters), then we start tracing the letters, then copy the letters, then slowly one letter at a time (usually starting from the first letter) we remove the scaffold. For a Kindergarten child to recognise, read and write their name I consider it declarative knowledge, it is factual knowledge. However, the process of being able to independently write their name involves procedural knowledge too: if a child needs their name card to support them independently writing their name they I teach the strategy of finding their name card and bringing it over to the table to copy from, if a child has poor fine motor skills their letters will not be formed correctly so I must provide alternative opportunities to strengthen their little fingers, if a child uses dagger grip on their pencil I must give them a reminder (usually both verbal and visual) about using a tripod grip. Over time, these procedural skills become automatic and this is when I know the child has accommodated this knowledge into their schema. Finally metacognitive knowledge: although my name writing example is simple and related to ECE, metacognitive knowledge is evident in my daily practice. When working with children we set goals together and I inform the child how I can help them and how they can practise and improve. When the child reaches the goal we celebrate their success and then set the next goal. It is also evident in the WALT and WILF statements: today we are learning to hold a pencil using tripod grip. I am looking for people who are holding their pencil with their thumb, pointer and middle finger - and those people who remember to tuck ring finger and pinky into their palm. Once again, Piaget for me has highlighted the importance of activating prior knowledge for students, and making explicit connections between learning areas/topics. I see this as relevant for learners of all ages: How many times do we explain something through an analogy? Or what about during professional learning conferences when we complete KWL posters? Even as I read Goetz et al (1992) I was making connections to what I already know about knowledge acquisition and learning theories. This week I enjoyed reading and reflecting upon knowledge, expertise and intelligence. As I read Candy’s article (2000), specifically his discussion about knowledge-based workplaces and his statements that new technologies and opportunities have impacted organisations and occupations, “both in their external relationships and their internal structures” (Candy, 2000, 266) I couldn’t help but think of my context as an early childhood teacher. Specifically, I refer to the close relationships I have had to form with other professionals in related fields in order to best meet my children’s needs.
As an early childhood educator I spend my time working with children in Kindergarten and Pre-primary: these children range in age from 3 (at the beginning of the Kindy year) through to 6 (at the end of the Pre-primary year). Although this isn’t a large age bracket, there are many developmental milestones children reach in this period of time. A part of my role is to understand these milestones, and if a child is showing concern, discuss these concerns with the parents, and to involve allied professionals such as the speech therapist, occupational therapist, paediatrician and so forth. I have worked at my school for a few years now, and every year my working relationship with the allied health professionals becomes more productive. We endeavour to identify at risk children, provide collegial advice and collaboratively work to design and implement intervention programs to meet the needs of children. As I have participated in these collaborative relationships my knowledge and understanding of strategies to support the achievement of developmental milestones has improved from the perspective of a health professional. I suppose considering the stakeholders who work for the child’s needs - one child of mine vividly comes to mind - it is important that we all acknowledge the expertise we bring to the table. The allied team for this child, each member has been to university and has the piece of paper to prove it - but it’s not the piece of paper that deems us each an expert. Each of us, the paediatrician, speech therapist, occupational therapist, psychologist, teacher and learning support coordinator have all demonstrated multiple times the when, why and how to address this one child’s needs. Each of us for professional (and intrinsic personal motivations) are up-to-date with our professional learning and are aware of current developments in our respective fields. Together we, as described by Sternberg (1997, 1031), have gone through the process of recognising and defining the child’s difficulties; constructing strategies, representing information and allocating resources to help the child; and monitoring and evaluating our strategies to support the child’s learning and development. We also take into context our geographical location and the facilities available (Sternberg, 1997, 1032). Given this, further agree that we are demonstrating intelligent behaviours for the context within which we operate. I honestly believe that this child is making exciting progress because we are a team of dedicated experts working to meet the child’s needs - we’re not just professionally invested because it’s our job. I believe we are all so personally invested in our chosen field and want to be the best we can be. |
|