Q) What would B.F. Skinner like (if anything) about KIPP schools, and how would he say that they should be improved? What would Dewey like (if anything) about KIPP schools, and how would he say that they should be improved? Compare and contrast.
A) Skinner underscored the principle of reinforcement. If the students are affected by the intermittent reinforcement, their behaviors would be changed. He added that positive reinforcement is more effective for students than negative reinforcement. The positive reinforcement refers to the method that provides an award to students. The award could be compliment or compensation whereas negative reinforcement is including penalty or punishment. Comparing with positive and negative reinforcement, he believed that negative reinforcement could be a good method in immediate purposes because they just want to avoid the punishment, so it could be possible for them to pretend that they are good students. However, in a long run, it causes the aversion of learning. Thus, rather it can cause a side effect such as boredom, anxieties or aggressions.
KIPP is a highly goal driven. The school approaches with high expectations of learning achievement, a strong academic foundation, succeeding in college, helping them to grow as professionals, etc. Among these goals, the primary goal that they have is to enlighten the students so the KIPP would help them to enter the college at the end. However, the problem is that many students in KIPP are controlled by the strict school’s rule or regulation, in order to manage the high expectation. In the process of teaching, the punishments are often conducted such as wearing a special distinguishable shirt, spending the day in silence. These strict punishments were not what Skinner pursued. The punishment should be avoided because it may cause side effects such as lack of long-term motivation, tentative avoidance of the punishment. Therefore, those negative reinforcements did not affect to change the learner’s behavior. In that sense, if Skinner says about what KIPP school should be improved, it would be using more positive reinforcement than using negative reinforcement to control the students.
Whereas, John Dewey emphasized the experience of learning. He tried to build a progressive school which is different than traditional school. This is ideal school where allows a freedom to students. With freedom, the students would develop the self-control skills in absence of teacher intervention. Lastly, he mentioned that a good experience would affect to their future experience. This can increase student’s continuity of learning.
As aforementioned, the students in KIPP school are under control. The slogan in KIPP is ‘no excuse.’ It means, “no matter what” the students are required to follow the teacher to accomplish the goal. They believed that teacher’s authority and strict precision would make students to reach the goal. Another example was SLANT (sit up, listen, attend, nod your head, track). The students are expected to follow the standards every day. It could be arguable from the John Dewey’s perspective because the students in KIPP are required so many regulations, which is the opposite idea as a freedom of learning. Thus, too much control could cause stress or burden and it might bring out an unpleasant experience. Overall, KIPP’s approach is not match with John Dewey’s philosophy.
In summary, Skinner and John Dewey has a similarity that both researched how the students are affected their behaviors by the stimuli (e.g., school rule/regulation, teacher’s authority, etc.). The both concepts contributed to increase students’ efficacy and motivation for study. On the other hand, there are differences. While Skinner concentrated the extrinsic aspects such as reinforcement, John Dewey concerned intrinsic elements such as self-control or experience. Also, the standard whether there is control or not makes to distinguish those two eminent educators (Skinner and John Dewey).
Q) Imagine that you are designing an afterschool robotics club for a public middle school in Bryn Mawr, PA. What activities would the students participate in, how would they go about them, and what would be your role? How does your vision compare to (and contrast with) Piaget and Papert?
A) The curriculum we provide for afterschool robotic club in Byrn Mawr middle school is consisting of three parts: (a) learning robot theory, (b) problem-solving (c) project.
First, before we start actual simulation of making a robot, we should know the theory such as what robot is, how it works, and how we can utilize the robots in the future. Thus, this lecture helps to provide the basic knowledge of robot. In the process, I will stimulate robot learning theory. The students will have development processes such as assimilation, accommodation, equilibration. I will analyze how the students perceive the robot lecture. (1) assimilation is a stage to receive the basic knowledge. For example, I will ask them the question,
“What is robot?”. I suggest the definition of primary robot. Robot is able to move and consisted of metal (2) Then, it turns to accommodation. In this process, I will ask them again depending on the students’ answer of the first question. Then, I ask. “Then, do you think Sphero BB-8 in Star Wars is a robot?”, “What about Lego bot?” It does not consist of metal. “Is it robot?” (3) Like those questions, I will teach them to revise the concept of robot through equilibration stage. After teaching I will explain how a robot works. In this time, I will show the instruction and let them follow how to make a sample robot step by step. Jean Piaget believed that this is how the children develop the cognitive thinking.
Second part is problem-solving. After finishing the lecture, I can assume the level of making a robot. Now, it is time for simulation. In this stage, I will give them one mission, which is how to connect sensor to Arduino and make them activating lights if they touch the sensor. In this time, I will take a facilitator role. They already have knowledge and allow them to solve problem themselves. Piaget pointed out the importance of constructivist as an individual learning.
Third part is collaboration. In this stage, project-based learning is a key word. They have studied theory, mechanism, simulation. It is time to use advanced knowledge with their classmates. They will join the group of 4 or 5 and have a mission to make a small ‘Wall E’ robot with touching sensor. Basically, they will test all knowledge they acquired and cooperate each other. Wall E is a movable robot by touch sensor. Thus, if they touch a sensor, it detects the hand and move forward by the hand proximity. According to Papert, project-based learning is important. Thus, the final project is constructionist which tends to make a real product.
My vision has a similarity with the point that both, Papert and Piaget, are student centered learning and is less teacher intervention as a facilitator role. The teacher’s responsibility is helping the students to gain the knowledge by themselves. Whereas, as I separate second and third stages, the substantial difference between constructivist (by Piaget) and constructionist (by Papert) are weather hands on product experience conducts or not. Supporting Pepert’s constructionist, the third stage is projected based learning that the students simultaneously learn how to design the robot and make an actual robot with the colleagues.
Q) If you were called in to design a new computer science education program for an indigenous community that you do not belong to, what steps would you take to increase the probability that the program is effective and well-received by the students? How does your vision compare to (and contrast with) Freire?
A) The statement presents that I should make a new computer science education program for an indigenous community that I do not belong to. It indicates that they might have a gap between teacher and students since I do not know the culture or color of the community. Thus, my first step is talking with students to increase the effectiveness of the program. It is preliminary research before planning a curriculum. Having a conversation is important because it can reduce the gap between what the students want and what I plan. Freire asserts that having a dialogue is indispensable to see through the reality. Even though he used a dialogue as a method to solve the problems in regard to inequality, it also includes the inner meaning that they can communicate with each other regarding what the students want. It also helps to close the gap of relationship. He used dialogue to change the vertical relationship, but I want to use Freire’s strategy before I misunderstand what the students want to learn.
Another one is making a computer science education program in the perspective of the students in the community. I mean that I will consider the level of students, ages, technology proficiency in their perspectives. If I think myself that I am a student in that community, then, I would properly know their desires and their perspectives. According to Freire, he asserted that vertical communication needed to be replaced because the teacher’s power oppressed the students’ authority. In Freire’s philosophy, teacher and student should not have hierarchy. In terms of banking education, Freire reflected an educational problem as students passively receive and store the knowledge like banking. He asserts that banking education is neglecting student’s creativity and interest. He also addressed that when the students are oppressed in a class from a teacher, the experience would continue to the discrimination in the society. Thus, the authority from teacher could cause a serious social problem, which makes to justify that the discrimination is legitimate. Back to my vision, like the Freire’s efforts to reduce the reinforced authority of teacher, I also want to prevent the problem in regard to hierarchy of education system. Thus, I want to start to make a curriculum on the student perspective.
Although my vision adopts a few concepts of Freire, there is one difference between my vision and Freire. While Freire argued that hierarchy system makes an inequality, I want to make students leaders in each group and participate in my computer science education class as assistances. It is because (1) I am not familiar with the community color and (2) to avoid disturbing class. The students’ leaders participate in the process of making a curriculum for teaching. Thus, the rest of the students in the group can study together with the student’s leaders who are at the same level. In that case, we can keep the equality of passing knowledge and having an active learning. If the friend teaches, they would be more concentrated and interesting to learn computer sciences. Therefore, I would like to provide a new way to learn, which is different Freire’s philosophy.
Comments