BAB VIII
ANTARA TEORI DAN PRAKTIK
The relationship between theories of learning and educational practices is complicated by several factors. One would think that instructional practices should be based on the best theories of learning available, but this relationship is not as straightforward as one might think. Schools and educational practices are far more likely to be based on philosophical beliefs than on empirical studies and theoretical understanding of learning. Schools are established according to different community and cultural beliefs about the world, the nature of humankind and children, locus of authority, and what should be learned. Schools also differ in their beliefs about teaching and learning, but the philosophical beliefs often come first. Every educational system and instructional program contains a theory of learning, although frequently this theory is implicit and goes unrecognized.
These philosophical and theoretical differences are formidable. Many have endured for centuries, and the debate is unlikely to end anytime soon. For example, the “factory model” of schooling dominated education in the United States for many years. This model is based on production and management procedures successful during the industrial revolution. It stands in sharp contrast to the voices of Henry David Thoreau (1817– 1862), John Dewey (1859–1952), and others who advocated discovery, social reform, and freedom as the appropriate means of education. Both perspectives are clearly evident in modern-day discussions of education and instructional practices.
The correspondence between these philosophical perspectives and the various theories of learning is quite apparent. Classroom activities in a traditional classroom, for example, revolve around and are controlled by the teacher, who presents the to-be-learned material and dictates the type of learning activities in which students engage. Students are expected to study the information (via classroom activities and homework) until it is mastered. The knowledge being learned is seen as a commodity being passed from one individual (the teacher) to another (the student).
Very different classrooms emerge from different philosophical perspectives. If one believes, for example, that knowledge is something created afresh by each student, that learning occurs from working on authentic tasks in a social environment, and that the mental activities of the student determines what he or she learns, then the resulting classroom is likely to be one in which students work in groups and/or on projects, discussing how best to solve a problem, or negotiating the meaning of a concept. Once again consistency exists between theoretical beliefs and classroom practices. However, it is not always clear which comes first, for there is evidence that individuals seek out and accept information that confirms their existing beliefs while tending to reject information that would disconfirm those beliefs.
This reality leads to another realization regarding the relationship between theory and practice, namely that the relationship is two-way. A common belief is that knowledge flows from scientific theories to the development of effective practices, that sound theories of learning dictate effective educational practices. Science, however, does not always operate in such a linear fashion. In both the physical and social sciences, ideas often come from observing and questioning things that occur in the real world: “Why did that apple fall from the tree?” (a question asked by Isaac Newton [1643–1727] that led to his discovery of the three laws of motion). Scientific breakthroughs also come from trying to solve a practical problem (Stokes, 1997), such as “what is the best way to teach the concept of photosynthesis?” Established educational practices that teachers have found effective can and should be a source of ideas in developing a viable theory of learning.
A third caveat in understanding the relationship between theory and practice is realizing that the student is more important than the teacher in determining what is learned. This does not mean the teacher is not important; only that it is the students' perceptions, prior knowledge, and beliefs that determine what and if they learn something approximating the instructional goals of the teacher. The bottom line in the teaching-learning process is the learning activities in which the students engage, not the instructional activities in which the teacher engages.
Modern-day conceptions of learning and teaching recognize that students are active, often proactive, participants in the learning process, even if they appear otherwise. This dynamic nature of the learning process is one reason why instructional interventions that appear the same to the teacher can result in very different student outcomes and why rather different instructional methods can result in very similar outcomes (e.g., Nuthall & Alton-Lee, 1990; Olson, 2004).
Back to Top Download Back To Arsip Diktat |
