Goals + Doing = Learning... Schank's Goal-Based Scenarios (GBS)

Okay. I have to go ahead and lay it out on the line. Not so much on feeling the love for this week's theory. And that actually makes me kind of sad considering the high of last week's with the modeling and coaching and boom! pow! wow! The GBS kind of fell flat for me... and I've been trying for the past few hours to figure out exactly why.

But, honestly? I'm not close to an answer.

Maybe it's that all of the examples seem to be driven and are directly connected to Schank. Does that make sense? It seems like the other theories that we've experienced were tested and explored by a variety of scholars and teachers and practitioners. Only this week there's Schank and then two others who basically copied Schank (I know, I know - it's not "exactly" copied, one was for business training/development and the other was for teaching stats... but you get what I mean).

I didn't originally feel this way when I watched/listened to the overview of the theory this past weekend. I kinda got what direction we were headed in, GBS made sense. I had a happy party in my head thinking of ways to use this theory (and even some elements of the theory that I lived while in the classroom). Then I sat down to read the Hsu & Moore piece - and I don't know if it was the tone (or lack of one) or the matter-of-fact-ness of their writing... the whole piece just left we with an "eh..." attitude. So I grabbed the Schank piece thinking that reading the creator's words would lift me a bit.

I think it's interesting that the theory grew from his studies of memory and the innards of a computer. I don't think the theory is as radical as he makes it out to be. Sure - teaching skills within a context is a shift from the traditional view of teaching/learning. But we've seen (and will see) other models that will accomplish the same goal. His thoughts on memory were so ... "Well, this is it, as you can plainly see, my rationalization of the rational is completely rational. Therefore, doing = learning = memory = rational = good."

I may be being a little too harsh... but if you could hear me talk about this in person, you'd hear the tone of my voice and you'd know that I was only metaphorically poking a stick at Schank and the theory.

I don't agree with his analysis of memory, which he uses as a foundation for GBS. Back to what I was saying about not that drastic of a shift... Skills are still what's important in his theory. Instead of cramming them down students' throats, however, now teachers just need to figure out how to create a scenario to motivate them to learn the skills. (Remember, learn = do.)

I've learned lots of stuff that I haven't "done." I learn tons of things from books and videos.

And I also learn by "doing" as well.

And then there's "goals." Just doesn't sit well with me. Feels too familiar... too similar to what's already there. Like a friend who's just had a makeover to come back to you with a bad haircut and poorly done makeup... do you tell them they look amazing?

Okay - that might not have been the best analogy. Let's try this.

Years ago - when I was preparing myself to go and teach at a Quaker school - I read everything that Parker Palmer had ever written. (His research ranges from the spirituality of education and learning to higher education administration.) I would be 100% lying if I didn't admit that his beliefs and theories about learning did not color my own - and this is probably why I'm struggling this week.

Palmer says (in a horrible simplification) that learning involves three key factors: the learner, the teacher/facilitator, and the content/discipline. The only way anything ever really works in teaching/learning is when all three of these components are in relationship to each other. And he's written pages and pages about what these different relationships can look like.

In this theory, it seems to me that the teacher/facilitator has been all but left out. Sure they make the goals and the "cover" story - but then there's the learner... and there's the content. My job as facilitator is still to "make" the student learn... to motivate them. While I'll embrace that part of my job is to motivate students - it doesn't jive with me that my job is to make anyone do anything.

I guess if the GBS was truly authentic - and it was created with great care, I could go there. I could try it on, and it might be wonderful! This is the section of the course where skills/content drives the theory - and this may be the ultimate cause of my discomfort.

In terms of using this theory with technology/multimedia... I could easily see a series of webpages on a wiki creating an environment like this. Flash too - but I'm not as well versed in Flash. Seeing as I'm currently just beginning to explore SecondLife, I'll throw that hat in the ring as well. Can't you embed links within a YouTube video? If you could... think of how cool THAT might be... (I'm thinking of the "create your own adventure"-ish perspective.)

Must stop before I offend anyone else. Will have to trust that my peers will elder me and show me the error of my ways!

Hoping reading all of y'all's blogs will help me see more possibility with GBS.