Extra credit post

Dr. Belland asked that we take a look back over the course and see how our view of teaching and learning has changed with all the different methods of teaching we've learned. For me, I've seen a great change, though not necessarily because I learned about behaviorist theory or meaningful learning theory. The change I've noticed is understanding.
In my previous post I talked about how I define ignorance and understanding (feel free to look at it to get an idea of how I define both). What I see is that I was ignorant about the different methods I employed in my teaching, though I still used most of them in some way. This class has helped me understand many different teaching methods, to distinguish them from other methods, and know when is the best time to use them. As a result, I don't use any particular learning theory exclusively, I orchestrate them in a way that provides variety to my students and caters to each individual students needs. I knew well before this course that every student learns in their own unique way. This class has helped me know how to reach more of my students in ways that result in real learning.
I love my job as a seminary teacher, because it let's me create each lesson in a very different way. I am not a math teacher, luckily for my students (they would learn nothing from my class even at the elementary level), and so I am not teaching them formulas everyday. For me to be successful, I must use variety (though I'm sure that's also true for good math teachers as well).
This class helps me understand when a lesson should be more schema theory oriented, and when it should cater to human development. I've found that a great lesson to create participation and love for learning is case-based learning. Even aspects of behaviorism and functional behavior theory make it into my lessons, though I admit I use it more to demonstrate how the adversary tries to entice us to do wrong more often than not.
This new found understanding for methods I've used in teaching for years helps me see why I choose to teach a lesson focusing on frameworks of previous knowledge when I discuss journal keeping, and why I should have a ready story to tell about faith when a student asks a sincere question. With understanding comes an ability to be a better teacher.

week 11 blog: what is learning and how can it be best effectuated by a teacher?

I still see learning as the process through which understanding replaces ignorance. Looking back on past postings, I see that I haven't really defined understanding or ignorance. Though both might seem fairly obvious, I'm going to use this week's blog to define them anyways. First up is ignorance: ignorance has nothing to do with lack of intelligence. Instead, ignorance deals with a person being unaware. Intelligence personnel in the military are often unaware of the enemies whereabouts and intentions. It doesn't mean they aren't smart, it just means they haven't received the necessary information to abolish their ignorance. However, understanding is not necessarily the opposite of ignorance.
Understanding is what someone has who is not only educated about a topic or concept, but also knows how to accurately apply the it. for example, knowing that fire burns is not understanding as I define it. Understanding takes the knowledge that fire burns and applies it. For example, "because I know fire burns, I won't put my hand in fire".
I believe teachers do a disservice to their student by simply replacing ignorance with inert knowledge. Teachers have the best results with their students when understanding replacing ignorance. understanding is at the heart of real learning.