A couple of weeks ago, I read about mindful learning in a book I was reading on mindfulness (Siegel 2007) that suggested that providing gaps in the teaching material stimulated student learning as the brain seems to want completeness (or at least that is my very broad interpretation). This made me stop and consider what I had been doing in the history of nursing course this year which is using primary sources as a key part of the learning activities. It would seem that what I have inadvertently done is built in these gaps. Primary sources by their very nature are incomplete. It is not possible to compile a complete picture of a time and place when using them and indeed, that is the role of historians to try and construct an explanation of events based on these incomplete pieces. By providing 3 or 4 primary sources for each time period and context each week, I am giving students only fragments of the whole. When they read secondary sources, they are provided with someone’s interpretation and the pieces have been filtered, even sanitised – there is no challenge in that. However, by providing students with both primary and secondary sources, plus a thinking tool to help them pull it all apart and put back together, and encouraging them to work in small groups in order to accomplish these tasks, there is a level of interest and thinking this year that I have not seen before. This is reflected not only in the group discussion that have been going online, but is also evident in the extent and depth of the summaries the groups are putting up on the main discussion board.
I don’t think for a minute that it is any one of the factors that I have changed in the way I am teaching this course this year that is responsible for these changes in thinking (and I hope learning), but could be a combination of all. I am also not ruling out that it just might be this cohort of students as well. Either way, the idea of providing gaps in which learning can be stimulated has intrigued me.
Mindful learning has a number of dimensions: openness to novelty; alertness to distinction; context sensitivity; multiple perspectives; present orientation (Siegel 2007, p. 237). It may be that as first year students, learning within an online classroom, and (for many) learning about history, there is undoubtedly a great deal of novelty in my classroom. Whether students themselves are open to that novelty depends very much on themselves. I have tried to smooth the way as much as possible so the levels of anxiety are not disabling, but there will certainly be those who are not open to this novel experience for a number of reasons. My very style of teaching has always tended towards highlighting differences and exploring the grey areas so there are numerous instances throughout the course that draw attention to distinction. Furthermore, history is context based and full of discrepancies, so the very subject area lends itself very nicely multiple perspectives. Finally, I have become more aware over the years of bringing the concepts I have been teaching to the present – to try and provide some linkages for students as to the relevance of these historical events to the present culture or status of nursing. I know I have been increasingly mindful of my teaching over the past couple of years. I didn’t know I was essentially encouraging ‘mindful learning’. Hmm, yet another little synchronicity. Had a few of those lately.
Seigel, D 2007, The mindful brain, WW Norton & Co, New York.
