Part 3: To learn, you must be able to choose
If you force 30 children to sit in a class and conduct a lesson on mathematics they have never seen before, some proportion will (probably) learn the lesson and some will not. What is the difference between those students? There is only one: some choose to learn and some do not. That is to say: some are interested, and some are not.
But almost no one involved in education today genuinely accepts this. That is to say: almost no one takes seriously the idea that one must be interested if one is to learn. To learn you must be able to choose. Genuinely choose. You must be able to choose whether to be there at all in the first place. This is where Sir Ken Robinson does not go far enough. He wants to offer choice - but only a limited number of choices in the context of having no choice at all. He, like all authorities involved in "education" will not offer the most important choice of all. The choice to go to school.
Think back to my example on Russian Literature. If a lesson is being conducted about the intricacies of the history of some Russian novel - then actually being interested in the subject matter is a precondition of learning. If it were me being forced to attend that lesson, I would be thinking of other things. If I were threatened with punishment for not learning - perhaps I would be motivated a little more. But why would that be fair? Why would that be moral? What if I were offered some reward - perhaps a star on my test? An "early mark"? The offer of a better job? Again - I might be motivated a little more. But never as much as someone with a genuine interest in the subject.
If I were able to actually choose what to learn I would do so much better. Of course, as an adult, most of the time - this is exactly what I can do. And so I learn a lot - about things I am interested in. And I learn fast. I really wanted to make a website. So I learned how to use the program that makes the website - and fast. I was motivated. I was interested. No one offered reward. No one threatened punishment. I got to choose. So I learned. No one needed to make “interesting lessons” for me. No one needed to engage me. I engaged myself. And there is absolutely nothing special about me.
We all know this. But we pretend otherwise when it comes to children. We think we can somehow subvert the cognitive process. Indeed there are entire academic fields of study: psychology most especially - educational theory definitely - that are motivated by the false assumption that learning can best, or should, occur in the context of compulsory schooling. And in the most perverse inversion of philosophy and morality - any person who fails to learn through compulsory schooling is regarded as having a “learning disorder”. And yet it is culture which has a “schooling disorder”.
One need only spend a moment with those indoctrinated with educational theory - the academics of education schools in universities and the teachers who graduate from them to hear the misnomer of “student-centred” learning. That too, in the context of compulsory schooling, is a complete oxymoron. If a school was truly “student centred” we would ask them what they wanted to learn. And when. This never genuinely happens. Mere lip service is paid to the concept.
There are always severe constraints. This is the way “Student-Centered” learning works in practice in the context of compulsory schooling:
1. Force the child to attend school.
2. Force the child to attend a mathematics lesson at exactly 9:00am.
3. Force the child to remain “supervised” in the presence of the maths teacher until 10:00am (duty of care).
4. Force the child to study mathematics. Even constrain the specific topic area as well as the general subject
5. Tell the child they have a choice about how to study mathematics (worksheets, group work, problem solving, watching a video, visiting a website, playing a game, etc. Give them the illusion of choice and control).
6. Label the “choice” at 5 “student-centered” learning.
Let me hasten to add: this is an incremental improvement over giving the child no choice whatsoever at any point about how to study. But it is still not a real choice and it no more achieves the aim of promoting genuine learning than does giving the child no choice whatsoever. After all, they have no choice whatsoever about what subject to learn in the presence of the mathematics teacher during the mathematics lesson. The child has been compelled, coerced - forced (under pain of truancy laws, punishments, withholding of rewards, humiliation if they fail, etc, etc, etc) to attend a lesson they frequently do not wish to be at frequently about a subject they have little interest in.
And of course there will always be students in the class who really do want to be there, who will do well and who will make the others feel “less capable” because they don’t “perform” as well on the tests and so get lower marks.
The truth is this: Anyone can learn anything.
It’s just that they don’t want to. I could learn all about the history of Russian Literature - and in Russian - if I wanted to. But I don’t want to. Short of offering me an extremely large sum of money - or similar - I am not going to see any reason to engage. Why should it be any different for other subjects like history or science or mathematics? Why should it be any different just because the person is a younger person?
For part 4, see here
If you force 30 children to sit in a class and conduct a lesson on mathematics they have never seen before, some proportion will (probably) learn the lesson and some will not. What is the difference between those students? There is only one: some choose to learn and some do not. That is to say: some are interested, and some are not.
But almost no one involved in education today genuinely accepts this. That is to say: almost no one takes seriously the idea that one must be interested if one is to learn. To learn you must be able to choose. Genuinely choose. You must be able to choose whether to be there at all in the first place. This is where Sir Ken Robinson does not go far enough. He wants to offer choice - but only a limited number of choices in the context of having no choice at all. He, like all authorities involved in "education" will not offer the most important choice of all. The choice to go to school.
Think back to my example on Russian Literature. If a lesson is being conducted about the intricacies of the history of some Russian novel - then actually being interested in the subject matter is a precondition of learning. If it were me being forced to attend that lesson, I would be thinking of other things. If I were threatened with punishment for not learning - perhaps I would be motivated a little more. But why would that be fair? Why would that be moral? What if I were offered some reward - perhaps a star on my test? An "early mark"? The offer of a better job? Again - I might be motivated a little more. But never as much as someone with a genuine interest in the subject.
If I were able to actually choose what to learn I would do so much better. Of course, as an adult, most of the time - this is exactly what I can do. And so I learn a lot - about things I am interested in. And I learn fast. I really wanted to make a website. So I learned how to use the program that makes the website - and fast. I was motivated. I was interested. No one offered reward. No one threatened punishment. I got to choose. So I learned. No one needed to make “interesting lessons” for me. No one needed to engage me. I engaged myself. And there is absolutely nothing special about me.
We all know this. But we pretend otherwise when it comes to children. We think we can somehow subvert the cognitive process. Indeed there are entire academic fields of study: psychology most especially - educational theory definitely - that are motivated by the false assumption that learning can best, or should, occur in the context of compulsory schooling. And in the most perverse inversion of philosophy and morality - any person who fails to learn through compulsory schooling is regarded as having a “learning disorder”. And yet it is culture which has a “schooling disorder”.
One need only spend a moment with those indoctrinated with educational theory - the academics of education schools in universities and the teachers who graduate from them to hear the misnomer of “student-centred” learning. That too, in the context of compulsory schooling, is a complete oxymoron. If a school was truly “student centred” we would ask them what they wanted to learn. And when. This never genuinely happens. Mere lip service is paid to the concept.
There are always severe constraints. This is the way “Student-Centered” learning works in practice in the context of compulsory schooling:
1. Force the child to attend school.
2. Force the child to attend a mathematics lesson at exactly 9:00am.
3. Force the child to remain “supervised” in the presence of the maths teacher until 10:00am (duty of care).
4. Force the child to study mathematics. Even constrain the specific topic area as well as the general subject
5. Tell the child they have a choice about how to study mathematics (worksheets, group work, problem solving, watching a video, visiting a website, playing a game, etc. Give them the illusion of choice and control).
6. Label the “choice” at 5 “student-centered” learning.
Let me hasten to add: this is an incremental improvement over giving the child no choice whatsoever at any point about how to study. But it is still not a real choice and it no more achieves the aim of promoting genuine learning than does giving the child no choice whatsoever. After all, they have no choice whatsoever about what subject to learn in the presence of the mathematics teacher during the mathematics lesson. The child has been compelled, coerced - forced (under pain of truancy laws, punishments, withholding of rewards, humiliation if they fail, etc, etc, etc) to attend a lesson they frequently do not wish to be at frequently about a subject they have little interest in.
And of course there will always be students in the class who really do want to be there, who will do well and who will make the others feel “less capable” because they don’t “perform” as well on the tests and so get lower marks.
The truth is this: Anyone can learn anything.
It’s just that they don’t want to. I could learn all about the history of Russian Literature - and in Russian - if I wanted to. But I don’t want to. Short of offering me an extremely large sum of money - or similar - I am not going to see any reason to engage. Why should it be any different for other subjects like history or science or mathematics? Why should it be any different just because the person is a younger person?
For part 4, see here