September 14 Reading

Skemp's article touches upon a topic that I struggle with to this very day, yet it doesn't provide a sure answer. For as long as I taught and wanted to teach, there was always a divide between relational and instrumental teaching (even though I did not know it by these names). Do I just teach the student the most optimal and efficient way to solve a problem in the shortest time possible? Or do I go through the gritty process of having them understand the concept behind the solution to a problem? There are clear benefits to both ways of learning, and I agree with Skemp's point that the goals of the teacher and student are important when considering this, but in a school setting with so many students, how would one decide what approach to take?

The article mentions that difficulty in assessing relational learning contributes to why teachers might prefer instrumental understanding for a particular subject. This brings up the question of how one would actually assess relational understanding in a school setting with so many students. This leads into another point addressed in the article on how teachers will accommodate all the students and restructure their lesson plans to push relational learning. It is very hard and may be impossible in a school setting to push relational learning to all students, as it isn't as easily universally understood as instrumental learning. On the other hand, the article claims that learning will be intrinsically pleasurable and voluntary for relational learners. To some extent, I'd agree with this claim, but who's to say that someone who already enjoys learning and finds it pleasurable and voluntary is someone who prefers and connects with relational learning more? This touches back to the alignment of a teacher and a student's goals and the impossibility of accommodation in a classroom setting with dozens of students. I'd hope to learn of a solution to this problem in the future.