The dean of my program is known for his "paper tear" talk. I've heard him give the speech several times over the past four years, but I only decided recently to give it critical thought.
Here is what the "paper tear" is about: every audience member starts with a blank sheet of paper. Del, the dean of my program, delivers a simple set of instructions that requires folding the sheet of paper several times over and ripping it at specific corners. The catch to this straightforward exercise is that no one can talk and everyone has to keep their eyes shut at all times.
Although everyone followed the same set of instructions to complete the relatively easy task, each individual's final product was inevitably different.
What can be gathered from this demonstration?
Del believes that too often than not we aim for conformity and fail to acknowledge individual differences. For example, in a formal education environment, lecture-based teaching promotes a one-size fits all model for learning. Everyone gets the same dose of information, but it is obvious that the interpretations of such information will differ. Yet, when it comes time to evaluate our learning progress, we are expected to share similar interpretations in order to arrive at the same answers. The "paper tear" reminds us that while learning in this idealistic way is necessary for cognitive development, it has its limitations in the real world where complexity can shatter our overly naive thinking.
This brings me back to my program. BHSc. is rooted in the philosophy that a more personalized approach to learning allows its students to acquire knowledge at their own pace, using various mediums, and with the support of facilitators and peers. The "paper tear" exercise demonstrated that everyone arrived at a different final product because they weren't able to communicate with each other. It's no surprise then that collaboration is at the heart of the program. Were we able to work together, I have no doubt that our paper products would look similar if not the same.
In addition, we should understand how we arrived at the final product rather than if we had the same design. Focusing on process promotes the identification of strengths and weaknesses that is necessary for growth in learning. Exclusive orientation to outcome, on the other hand, can be maladaptive should it detract from understanding one's learning process. Unfortunately, most systems, especially those pertaining to education, are rested on measuring and standardizing outcomes. For example, good marks and grades are necessary for getting into professional school even though they are debatable indicators of your competency to learn.
It bothers me that I can't seem to remember my interpretation of the "paper tear" demonstration back in first year. Being young and reckless at the time, I suspect that I didn't have enough experiences to appreciate and internalize the value of the underlying message. Moving to a new school next year with a somewhat different pedagogical paradigm, I wonder how my interpretation of the "paper tear" will change. Will I still be a strong believer of problem-based learning? Only time, in the length of 4 years, will tell...
WC
Here is what the "paper tear" is about: every audience member starts with a blank sheet of paper. Del, the dean of my program, delivers a simple set of instructions that requires folding the sheet of paper several times over and ripping it at specific corners. The catch to this straightforward exercise is that no one can talk and everyone has to keep their eyes shut at all times.
Although everyone followed the same set of instructions to complete the relatively easy task, each individual's final product was inevitably different.
What can be gathered from this demonstration?
Del believes that too often than not we aim for conformity and fail to acknowledge individual differences. For example, in a formal education environment, lecture-based teaching promotes a one-size fits all model for learning. Everyone gets the same dose of information, but it is obvious that the interpretations of such information will differ. Yet, when it comes time to evaluate our learning progress, we are expected to share similar interpretations in order to arrive at the same answers. The "paper tear" reminds us that while learning in this idealistic way is necessary for cognitive development, it has its limitations in the real world where complexity can shatter our overly naive thinking.
This brings me back to my program. BHSc. is rooted in the philosophy that a more personalized approach to learning allows its students to acquire knowledge at their own pace, using various mediums, and with the support of facilitators and peers. The "paper tear" exercise demonstrated that everyone arrived at a different final product because they weren't able to communicate with each other. It's no surprise then that collaboration is at the heart of the program. Were we able to work together, I have no doubt that our paper products would look similar if not the same.
In addition, we should understand how we arrived at the final product rather than if we had the same design. Focusing on process promotes the identification of strengths and weaknesses that is necessary for growth in learning. Exclusive orientation to outcome, on the other hand, can be maladaptive should it detract from understanding one's learning process. Unfortunately, most systems, especially those pertaining to education, are rested on measuring and standardizing outcomes. For example, good marks and grades are necessary for getting into professional school even though they are debatable indicators of your competency to learn.
It bothers me that I can't seem to remember my interpretation of the "paper tear" demonstration back in first year. Being young and reckless at the time, I suspect that I didn't have enough experiences to appreciate and internalize the value of the underlying message. Moving to a new school next year with a somewhat different pedagogical paradigm, I wonder how my interpretation of the "paper tear" will change. Will I still be a strong believer of problem-based learning? Only time, in the length of 4 years, will tell...
WC
No comments:
Post a Comment