Learning with understanding

Learning with understanding comprises a number of key characteristics that rely upon, (a) The differentiation between knowledge and understanding and, (b) The ability to unpack what is meant by the term “to understand”, which is loaded with varied connotations. According to Tomlinson and McTighe (2006), the major difference between knowing and understanding is that knowing is “binary”, whereas understanding is “more a matter of degree” (p.65). Hence, a person either knows something or they do not, but their understanding can be categorized as any value between extremely limited and exhaustive. Additionally, in many cases, a person’s degree

of understanding is continuously evolving, which is not the case with knowing (unless one counts the acts of forgetting and remembering as evolutionary).

The term “to understand” implies a variety of meanings. Meanings range from a person’s ability to use one’s understanding, to an ability to reflect on one’s own understanding, to an ability to empathize with another’s view or “understand” a situation from a certain perspective (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006). In fact, “to understand” is used in such diverse ways in the English language some researchers and educators suggest avoiding the term, altogether, when defining learning goals. Alternatively, one group of researchers, Wiggins and McTighe (1998; 2005), note that instead of sidestepping the phrase, its varied meanings can help to formulate major indicators of understanding, which can be used to evaluate the approximate extent of a learner’s comprehension.

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) define these indicators of understanding in their book,

Understanding by Design (UbD). This book outlines a theory by the same name, and in

collaboration with Tomlinson’s Differentiated Instruction (DI) theory (1999), has resulted in the

UbD/DI approach to education. Consequently, Tomlinson and McTighe’s (2006) book, Integrating Differentiated Instruction + Understanding by Design (2006) is a well-cited

reference for educators seeking to design curricula in ways that help all learners work toward learning with understanding. UbD/DI, as an approach to curriculum planning, denotes ways an educator might infuse Learning Science principles into the contemporary curriculum, while also respecting the culture of each learner.

As it relates to learning with understanding, UbD/DI defines understanding along six facets that can be observed in learners. These facets include: apply, empathy, perspective, explain, interpret, and self-knowledge (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998; 2005). These indicators

represent the idea that understanding is broader than a learner’s comprehension of a concept’s consensus-driven meaning. It involves other ways of understanding beyond cognitive

comprehension, as well as other kinds of meaning beyond those that are highly consensus- driven. These ways include, but are not limited to, the six facets of understanding (listed above), and help to explicate the possible breadth of components to consider when aiming for helping a learner enlarge his or her understanding.

Another key definition of understanding comes from researchers, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000). They define learning with understanding as, both, the degree to which meaning is constructed (Bransford & Stein, 1993) and one’s ability to apply what has been learned in one circumstance, to new conditions and within new contexts (e.g., Byrnes, 1996; Morris, Bransford, and Franks, 1977). As such, these researchers posit learning with understanding is a complicated act that requires time for learners to build and refine meaning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p.8). They note the complexity of such an aim must be acknowledged, before it has a chance of being realized.

While Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) and UbD/DI (2006) both proceed from a Learning Science framework, their definitions of understanding vary somewhat from one

another. In my mind, they both contribute to a working definition of learning with understanding, but their definitions required synthesis. Therefore, in order to reconcile these two definitions, I examined their similarities and differences, and abstracted a set of three characteristics that I believe captures the elements of both.

The first characteristic comes directly from Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000)- “meaning construction”. The second characteristic, “externalizing meaning”, was a synthesis of ideas found in both sources. It emerged as a result of my realization that applying meaning

within new contexts and under new conditions (as expressed by both sets of researchers and sometimes called transfer [Byrnes, 1996])- whether through the creation of product outcomes or participation in specific actions- was essential in two ways. First, (a) It assists the learner with further construction of meaning and, (b) It provides opportunity for learners to come to realize that transfer is the ultimate practical aim of learning.

The third characteristic of understanding surfaced from my acknowledgment that it is important for a learner to make his or her meaning (which is personal and internal) “available” for application in external contexts, and specifically, to new contexts beyond those faced in initial meaning construction. In this way, meaning must be existing, accessible, useable, and/or useful for transfer (Byrnes, 1996). As such, there are certain key conditions that must be present to make transfer possible. Thus, the third characteristic, “neural organization”, describes the

conditions of meaning construction and the ways in which meaning is cognitively organized in

order to support its externalization.

In this project, I use all three elements to define understanding and to frame it in practical terms. I reason that to “possess” and express understanding, meaning must be both internally constructed and applied externally to new contexts. However, the application process is mediated by the use-ability and usefulness of that internal meaning, just as subsequent revisions to that meaning are mediated by the use-ability and usefulness of applications. Thus, given the

interrelatedness of these characteristics (which are distinct from one another only in an academic sense), it is important to include all three elements of understanding when considering how to help primary learners learn in this way.