The lessons about teaching and learning:
- The capacity to learn is an inherent characteristic of all human beings.
- Higher level learning does not require the presence of a teacher.
- Higher level learning can be accomplished within the context of a group of learners who interact with each other and have access to some form of information that they seek to understand.
- Interest is a key factor in learning.
Interesting to note:
- Teachers developed among the students . . . so while no adult teacher was assigned to this project, it does not indicate that no mediation was required to allow students to access and understand what they were learning, simply that something else happened
- Specific content/questions were targeted for this research, not complete school day/structure/curriculum
- Students in schools accessed for this research were generally in systems that are closely related to the British education system
- Sugata posed a question, provided a resource for accessing information to lead to the answer. Question: At what point did these students extend their learning beyond the question originally posed? And what did that look like?
Implications:
- Colleges of education in America have long been engaged in the conversation of "teachers as facilitators" with varying degrees of success in this endeavor in terms of what is seen in the classrooms. I am curious about what happens. If this is something we value, what causes us to set it aside as we practice the art of teaching?
- Does the British system closely align to the practices we see in American schools or does it vary?
- ESA has selected the Schoolwide Enrichment Model as its administrative model. The underlying tenants of this model come from Joe Renzull's three ring conceptualization of when student will exhibit gifted behaviors. One of those rings is "when the student is operating in an area of interest." This feature is found within our classrooms and content areas as well as in Enrichment Clusters. I'm thinking Joe and Sugata would enjoy meeting one another.
- So, the question that comes to mind is, "What exactly is a school or teacher bringing to the table if all learning can be accomplished spontaneously?" As professionals in the field, I believe we will be faced with answering this question in very direct ways. Our constituencies are watching TED talks too and asking themselves these questions. My sense is that what we were designed to bring to the table is a sense of the organized body of knowledge and how to access it in a systematic way which makes learning more efficient and effective. And, when a child struggles, providing alternate routes to learning and/or knowing when specialized strategies, accommodations, or environments may be necessary.
Gayle Dauterive reacting to Anne Johnson on The Child Driven Education
ReplyDeleteYou make some very good observations in your last paragraph. While listening to the talk, I wrote down two of Mitra's quotes. The first was "Children will learn to do what they want to learn to do." So true! If I give my students a grammar book and tell them to learn all about phrases and clauses, I would bet that the greater majority of them would learn little to nothing and would have poor grades on a given assessment. However, if I gave them the computer and told them to learn how to create a podcast or a video, etc., I do believe that the greater majority of the students would be wildly successful...because it is what they want to learn.
The second quote is "If children have an interest, then education happens." I think that says it all. What we have to figure out as educators is how to get them interested in those things that we know they will need for the future but that may not be of high interest to them.
Why do we need teachers? Well, one short answer may be because "children will learn to do what they want to learn to do" but what about those things that they don't want to do but still need? And, "if children have interest, then education happens" but what about those things that may not interest them but that they still need?
Anne responding to Gayle,
DeletePoint well taken . . . one of the criticisms of "child driven or child centered" philosophy - always the concern that we will overlook what is needed . . . not just what is wanted. Thanks Gayle!
Anne
Stephanie Fournet responding to Anne Johnson on The Child Driven Education
ReplyDeleteI watched the TED talk and read your response, and I could not help but recall an NPR piece I heard a couple of weeks ago titled, "Physicists Seek to Lose the Lecture as Teaching Tool". While the first part of the story was about the failure of the conventional lecture in university level physics classes, the second half was about peer instruction, leaving the model of the "sage on a stage" for the "guide on the side
(http://m.npr.org/story/144550920?url=/2012/01/01/144550920/physicists-seek-to-lose-the-lecture-as-teaching-tool&sc=fb&cc=fp).
Your observations about the limited scope of these findings are very important to remember. I think that an educator's job, ultimately, beyond providing access to the information, is to guide the students in analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating what they learn so that it has value in a larger context and at in a different situation/time.
Anne responding to Stephanie
DeleteSuch an excellent point . . . do you think that we are accomplishing this goal? I am going to have to incubate on this one . .
I've always wondered if the best teacher is the one who really could be a practicing professional in the field (math, science, writing, etc.), but has the added quality of designing experiences in such a way that a student can grasp the content/big ideas/theory and see its connection to the greater world of careers and life paths.
Anne