Still looking for my "voice", but did want to say a little about a book I recently read. It's by Frank Smith and it's titled The Book of Learning and Forgetting. Smith states that there are two perspectives on learning and forgetting. One is the "Classic View" which says that we learn effortlessly, without even knowing we're learning. We learn from the people around us that we identify with. We learn about things we're interested in. The other is the "Offical Theory of Learning" which basically says that learning is work and anything can be learned with enough effort put forth and enough control applied to the learner.
The book is really quite good and a very easy read. My favorite part is the discussion on measuring learning and comparing humans. Smith says that Hermann Ebbinghaus, a philosophy instructor at the University of Berlin in the 1880s came up with a scientific method for studying learning and forgetting. Here it is: "If you want to study how people learn without the involvement of interest and past experience - study how they learn nonsense." This theory gave us the learning curve and a guarantee of learning. It says, anyone can learn anything, provided they spend enough time. Learning is based on effort, so if something hasn't been learned then not enough work or time has been put in. So, essentially this psychological "scientific" theory of learning is all based on how people learn nonsense; it doesn't account for student interest or comprehension.
According to Smith, Ebbinghaus' theory was eagerly adopted by education for the following reasons: the people outside the classroom (politicians, experts, etc.) were captivated by a theory of learning that claimed to be scientific and to guarantee results, and this new "scientific" theory offered control. In the long run, this "official theory of learning" changed the teacher's role from one of collaborator and guide to the one in charge of work and a collector of scores.
I found that it explains a lot about why schools are like they are.
2 comments:
As part of our presentation on 21st century skills and SL yesterday, we asked our audience (of educators) where they themselves learned the skills they need to be the successful adults they are. Everyone raised their hand for "life experience", and no one for "school". Are all of us in education just living out a dissonant logic about what we're trying to accomplish?
This is probably too deep a topic for me... as I was reading the question in my mind was regarding who was making the decision about "what is important" to learn. If control is the issue then learning "nonsense" seems like the perfect choice.
gxeremio introduces "successful" as a criteria - should schools open up this can of worms for their mission? - wow it may turn out to be chaos and uncontrollable. [I happen to like chaos sometimes] What I now remember from formal "school" settings tends to be project based (a real product as an outcome) including an opportunity to share this with the "real world" outside the classroom. More of this is needed! (my two cents)
Post a Comment