Thursday, January 14, 2010
Entry #2
In Richard Skemp's article he explains two meanings of the word understanding and discusses the pros and cons of each meaning. The words relational and instrumental are used to distinguish between the two. Instrumental understanding is knowing what to do. It is understanding how to apply a formula, a procedure, a rule etc. while not fully grasping why the rules work out the way they do. An instrumental understanding is usually easier to come by. Correct answers will be produced and can be provided quickly. The rewards are more immediate and evident. The skills obtained may be all that is necessary in order to understand other areas such as science. Because less knowledge is involved for an instrumental understanding, answers also come in a more reliable fashion. A relational understanding expands beyond instrumental, and the two are not completely unrelated. Relational refers to not only knowing how to do something, but why you do it in such a way. A relational understanding is more adaptable to new problems that don't exactly fit the rule taught. Relational mathematics are easier to remember than instrumental, although harder to learn. It may take more time than is available to understand relationally. With a relational understanding, results are not as easy and quick to obtain. However, unlike instrumental, the need for punishment/rewards are lessened. This is due to the fact that motivation can come from trying to attain a relational understanding. This motivation can also lead people to seek beyond their current level of understanding and explore new material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really liked your summary because it gave a glimpse of your thoughts on the types of understanding while explaining Skemp's paper. And my only complaints are structural ones. Firstly your first sentence is kind of like a thesis where you stated relational understanding, then instrumental. but then you went on to talk about them in the opposite order. And secondly, you explained both types well, but then I didn't get the final summary of both at the end like I'd hoped. So really, great job!
ReplyDeleteI followed your post very well and agreed with everything you said. I would be careful not to be too biased towards relational, since some students learn better instrumentally, me included. Some other disadvantages of relational learning could be pointed out, like the fact that it takes longer to teach, and can be confusing. But I definitely agree that relational is usually preferable and I loved what you said about reward/punishment. Great job!
ReplyDeleteI liked the structure of your paragraph. I agree that it might have been better if the two types of understanding in the topic sentence had been reversed to match the order in the paragraph, but I thought that splitting the paragraph in half, each devoted to a type of understanding, worked well. I also thought that you did a nice job of capturing Skemp's major arguments.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I have a slight disagreement with is what is included in the definition of relational understanding. I typically also include understanding why the rule or procedure works and when to use it. It may be that Skemp intended other things to be included under this category, but this is all he includes in this paper.
I was confused about the punishment/reward part but other than that it was a very good summary! I liked your pros and cons yo!
ReplyDeleteI like the way you set up your paraqragh, talking about one kind of learning first and then the other. I wish that I had thought about that because now mine seems a little messy. I also agree that in writing I would generally talk about topics in the order they were respectively introduced earlier in my writing.
ReplyDelete