Below is the actual blog post from Bernice McCarthy with John's answer to the question. John's thought processes have always amazed me. Over the past few years, even before he got his masters in Curriculum and Instruction- which I might add, was a very difficult degree to work on over those 3 years- he has been passionate about the different learning processes and the different TEACHING processes that teach to each learning style! He's a big picture thinker but his detailed and focused analysis of the 4MAT Learning Cycle is truly amazing!
3 Transformations of 4MAT
Blog, week of April 14
The 4MAT Cycle of Learning is a transforming design for learning. Three transformations happen when it is used. The students inside feelings are connected to possible outside learning usefulness, they are moved from their past experiences to the future the learning could bring, and they move from being receivers, orderers of information and knowledge, to producers and users, the ultimate learning result.
These transformations were first listed in James Zull’s book, The Art of Changing the Brain, 2002, as he compared the Learning Cycle with how the brain works. Recently one of the online course graduates of our 4MAT training answered the question of how these transformations really work, and this is his answer.
“The Cycle is an expansion of who we are and who we are becoming from the inside out (from our thinking to our acting, from the germ of an idea till its fruition as application, crystallizing the process of human growth, etc.), and is a transfer of what someone else gives us to what we eventually give back to everyone else.
Less obvious is the idea that the cycle is actually a representation of life, of our humanity, of who we really are as a sentient species. I'm sure that the About Learning crew has had this epiphany many times, but I see the whole 4MAT system as a constantly evolving model that can even be used to explain some things metaphysically. 4MAT as a way of explaining the meaning of life may be a stretch, but there are times when the model makes the TRULY big questions more palatable and amenable to be asked.
More concrete and embraceable, though, is my thought that Bernice has finally - after two and a half millenia of argument - given us a simple way to epistemologically reconcile Plato and Aristotle, the idealists and the realists, the constructivists and the perennialists, Gardner and Hirsch. As we move around the 4MAT Cycle from noon to noon and from six to six, we are literally embracing and applying the precepts of both of the foundational philosophies of Western civilization and schooling and education as we know it today. Within the model is the idealistic canon of inside-out thinking, connectedness to each other, and the collective consciousness. But it also creates room for the rigor of subject matter expertise, of what is already known and still emerging, the pacing and sequencing that Aristotle and Aquinas pushed so heavily. This is the essence of the answer to the question about the three transformations. Those smarty-pants Greeks were searching for reconciliation of these two very different takes on this issue of temporal (past to future), personally intrinsic (inside to outside), and interpersonal (receiver to producer) transformation. And now, thanks to Jung, Kolb, Dewey, etc., and especially Bernice for synthesizing it all, we have the means by which to effect that reconciliation.
I really believe it is time for we teachers to quit choosing philosophical sides and realize that ALL great thinking is just that: great. Why did Dewey have to be wrong if Adler was right? The answer to those questions is "Duh." Has the research on educational best practices (i.e. that LOTS of good things work, depending on the students, their environments, the teachers, etc.) meant nothing? It is a condemnation of our too-frequent anti-intellectualism of educators where we see everything as either or. Bernice has - perhaps unwittingly, but I doubt it - given us the means by which to change the course of educational history. That is the truly most powerful transformation inherent in the cycle. Will we organize and inform and ourselves to make it happen?”
–John F. Devos, Instrumental Music Director, Reeds Spring R-IV Schools, Reeds Spring, MO
Needless to say, I was absolutely delighted with this answer and wanted to share it. Sorry about the braggadocio, but this is truly how I see the Kurt Lewin cycle, (1951) taken up so prodigiously by David Kolb(1982) and to which I added the instructional design template. (1982)
I never tire of probing the depth of it and find teachers grasp the common sense of it readily.
Many thanks to John Devos for his lovely thoughts.
The 4MAT Cycle of Learning is a transforming design for learning. Three transformations happen when it is used. The students inside feelings are connected to possible outside learning usefulness, they are moved from their past experiences to the future the learning could bring, and they move from being receivers, orderers of information and knowledge, to producers and users, the ultimate learning result.
These transformations were first listed in James Zull’s book, The Art of Changing the Brain, 2002, as he compared the Learning Cycle with how the brain works. Recently one of the online course graduates of our 4MAT training answered the question of how these transformations really work, and this is his answer.
“The Cycle is an expansion of who we are and who we are becoming from the inside out (from our thinking to our acting, from the germ of an idea till its fruition as application, crystallizing the process of human growth, etc.), and is a transfer of what someone else gives us to what we eventually give back to everyone else.
Less obvious is the idea that the cycle is actually a representation of life, of our humanity, of who we really are as a sentient species. I'm sure that the About Learning crew has had this epiphany many times, but I see the whole 4MAT system as a constantly evolving model that can even be used to explain some things metaphysically. 4MAT as a way of explaining the meaning of life may be a stretch, but there are times when the model makes the TRULY big questions more palatable and amenable to be asked.
More concrete and embraceable, though, is my thought that Bernice has finally - after two and a half millenia of argument - given us a simple way to epistemologically reconcile Plato and Aristotle, the idealists and the realists, the constructivists and the perennialists, Gardner and Hirsch. As we move around the 4MAT Cycle from noon to noon and from six to six, we are literally embracing and applying the precepts of both of the foundational philosophies of Western civilization and schooling and education as we know it today. Within the model is the idealistic canon of inside-out thinking, connectedness to each other, and the collective consciousness. But it also creates room for the rigor of subject matter expertise, of what is already known and still emerging, the pacing and sequencing that Aristotle and Aquinas pushed so heavily. This is the essence of the answer to the question about the three transformations. Those smarty-pants Greeks were searching for reconciliation of these two very different takes on this issue of temporal (past to future), personally intrinsic (inside to outside), and interpersonal (receiver to producer) transformation. And now, thanks to Jung, Kolb, Dewey, etc., and especially Bernice for synthesizing it all, we have the means by which to effect that reconciliation.
I really believe it is time for we teachers to quit choosing philosophical sides and realize that ALL great thinking is just that: great. Why did Dewey have to be wrong if Adler was right? The answer to those questions is "Duh." Has the research on educational best practices (i.e. that LOTS of good things work, depending on the students, their environments, the teachers, etc.) meant nothing? It is a condemnation of our too-frequent anti-intellectualism of educators where we see everything as either or. Bernice has - perhaps unwittingly, but I doubt it - given us the means by which to change the course of educational history. That is the truly most powerful transformation inherent in the cycle. Will we organize and inform and ourselves to make it happen?”
–John F. Devos, Instrumental Music Director, Reeds Spring R-IV Schools, Reeds Spring, MO
Needless to say, I was absolutely delighted with this answer and wanted to share it. Sorry about the braggadocio, but this is truly how I see the Kurt Lewin cycle, (1951) taken up so prodigiously by David Kolb(1982) and to which I added the instructional design template. (1982)
I never tire of probing the depth of it and find teachers grasp the common sense of it readily.
Many thanks to John Devos for his lovely thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment