Sometimes, delusions of omniscience can lead to the belief that, thanks to the internet, one can be an expert on everything and everyone. It is not so.
We know that discernment must be part of any research, as must the quality of the source. It wouldn't hurt to initially orient ourselves on which source to consult, beyond simply typing a search term into Google. Likewise, subsequent discussion with an expert or with others seeking the same information could be helpful.
So far, nothing to object to, you might say.
This reflection interests me in understanding how teaching works, and perhaps not only that: it's the inductive method I'm thinking of, a process that seeks to establish a universal law starting from individual, specific cases. What I've recalled above, although a common experience for everyone, arises from a specific, concrete observation, defined by each of our current experiences.
Now the question is: "Can that experience define a teaching methodology, or an applicable law?" The answer is Yes!!!
In recent years the model has been developing flipped classroom,Literally, "classroom flipped." Although the term arouses a certain curiosity by stimulating the imagination towards futuristic scenarios, the flipping doesn't refer to space but to time and roles.
Let's think about time: traditional teaching involves a first half where the teacher gives the lesson and a second half where the student completes their homework. Let's think about roles: in traditional teaching, the teacher guides the student by imposing rules and time.
Il flipped classroom It's exactly the opposite. It all begins with the student scanning the internet for information based on basic ideas provided by the teacher. Already at this stage, the student is encouraged to use an exploratory approach to the information, evaluating the impact of any "shortcut" they may adopt on their approximate or poor understanding of the topic.
Then, in the classroom, the student engages with other students, reporting on what they've learned or believe they've learned. A genuine debate, with the teacher acting as moderator: fostering attitudes of tolerance, dialogue, and collaboration, suggesting values and ethical principles, refining knowledge, correcting perspectives on the topic, discouraging prejudice, encouraging silence, and providing new insights for subsequent exploratory investigations, which will then lead to further debates.
How much does this teaching change learning? Very much so, in my opinion. First, the centrality inevitably shifts from the teacher to the student, the latter being the "actor" in the process. And then, finally, we're moving towards personalized learning: the student constructs knowledge according to their cognitive needs. (the quantity and quality of information research) that is to say "hook up" the new knowledge about his "hooks" that the teacher and the entire debate phase correct, consolidate, expand and define correctly.
However, one final consideration remains. According to this methodology, the trainer, the teacher, is not a mere transmitter of knowledge but something more: a director, a conductor, a careful observer or, to put it bluntly, the creator of a teaching format that must be conceived beforehand, modified during the course, and evaluated at the end.
Well, how willing is this guy to take on this role?
Vincenzo Di Prisco
Training center manager.