Spirit of Learning

by Brian on 05-25-2010

in creativity,education

Ken Robinson’s 2010 TED talk is up  titled, “Bring on the learning revolution!“ (via @hjarche)

Of course it is full of moving sentiments and wonderful ideas, presented with great wit, and I’ll recommend it to everyone (not that I have to, as it recommends itself)… but I think it falls short on substance:

Criticizing schools is easy (which is not to say unjustified). Saying we need a “revolution” is easy. Talking about doing what “resonates with your spirit” is easy too — and too easily parroted by people with less genuine intentions and appreciation than Robinson’s.

While the education system certainly needs to be updated, focusing all of our attention on the system itself is, in some ways, perfectly counterproductive. The autonomy and creativity we want to foster is inherently defied by any type of systematic scheme — even a revolutionary one. The way to teach autonomy and creativity is to just become a model of autonomy and creativity, allowing others to observe and mimic while enabling or complementing their self-driven attempts to cultivate personal mastery.

In the classroom there are techniques teachers can use (which I know nothing about, except through casual conversation with teachers) to nudge students, and no doubt there are many anecdotal cases indicating a teacher can intervene successfully to put a student’s life on the right track, but I think those are exceptional cases (balanced by perhaps just as many negative outcomes), impossible to repeat and replicate on a mass scale, so we have to say it’s ultimately up to each student to learn what their own story is and follow through on it.

And up to each of us too…

(Matrix fans will jump in at this point to say, “I can show you the door, but you have to walk through it.”)

The kind of education system Robinson gestures towards can’t exist within a society that still works on old assumptions. Kids aren’t going to learn to think dynamically and critically if everything outside of school is still framed by fixed rules and linear goals.

Approaching it from the other direction, if students live in households and communities that are open and generative (in Zittrain’s sense, not just Erikson’s) then schools should naturally evolve that way as well, as they are immersed within that culture, from which they take not just demands and ideas but also staff and leadership, importing generative norms and behaviors with them.

It goes both ways, and it might seem hard to know where to start. Education has always been a bit of a “chicken and egg” thing: schools make people while people make schools. But it only looks that way when we make the problem abstract. When we look at the challenge in context rather than in the abstract, the question of “what comes first?” dissolves into “what can I do now?”

What you can do now — i.e. while you wait for some super-genius to concoct a brilliant scheme for revolutionizing education — is simply start challenging yourself to keep learning new things: pick up a book on a topic you’ve always been fascinated by, or try answering a question you’ve always wondered about, or try making something to find out if it really works. What you learn will naturally lead to new questions and interests — which is exactly what we want. We want this ongoing learning process to take on a life of its own, influencing others and softening the rigid barriers to personal growth that ossify in our schools and workplaces. It builds positive feedback cycles as the evolving institutions become more hospitable to autonomy and creativity.

Having a sense of purpose helps; eventually it isn’t enough to go from one book to the next without a sense of coherent mission.

What worked for me was, ironically, trying to invent a better way to learn (and account for learning). I figured, what’s the worst that could happen — even if I “fail,” I’ll still learn a lot about learning!

So if you’re looking for a purpose, try answering these points and let me know how it works for you:

  • Explain exactly how you learn most effectively (when self-directed).
  • How do you demonstrate or account for what you learn that way?
  • How might you teach others that way and scale it into a “system”?

Maybe you learn best in a traditional school environment. If that’s the case… why did you read this?

More via my Best On Education page and my book, Truth, Will & Relevance.

Related Posts:

  • http://www.smartpei.typepad.com robpatrob

    I think you are right – KR does not say how – My bet is that the system as it is is un-reformable – like most newspapers. The cultural momentum as you point out is too strong.

    So how to set a revolution in motion? KR says there has to be one. Revolution is not reform – it involves destroying the old.

    So history tells us you have to work on the edge and find a wedge in that will weaken the system and grow a new one. A Trojan Horse?

    What could that be?

    On PEI where I live the Trojan Horse might be the After School Programs? Run by the community and by daycare folks. 2.30 – 6pm – as long as the school day with maybe 50% of the kids.

    What if we could fit in a system that was all about the kids? What if we could find the folks out there that really knew stuff?

    A beginning of a system?

  • http://brianfrank.ca Brian Frank

    I don't know enough about the system itself to speculate much, but your idea sounds interesting. Are there any arts (or otherwise creative) activities currently integrated into those after-school programs?

  • http://www.smartpei.typepad.com robpatrob

    Yes and the whole arena is open for good ideas – there is no entrenched system there

  • Dave Lee

    Brian,

    This made me think of a couple of things happening in our own extended backyard. None of these represents any sort of systematic change but could be considered as either:

    a) the first steps in a longer, more incremental change process than the word “revolution” suggests

    or, more likely,

    b) instances of more localized models that could be replicated elsewhere if they prove to be successful.

    The first is the early learning program being introduced across Ontario over the next five years. The curriculum for the program is explicitly “play-based”. This invites charges from opponents that the program is nothing more than glorified babysitting, but in fact it's the result of a deliberate choice to take advantage of more natural learning processes in children. To succeed, the curriculum requires skilled educators who can recognize moments of self-initiated learning opportunities and extend them, and a sufficient diversity of motivators to elicit those opportunities. With those inputs, it's certainly a more organic than mechanical approach to early learning.

    The curriculum is partly based on this document – search for “play” and see what I mean: https://ospace.scholarsportal.info/bitstream/18…

    The second thought comes from the other end of the education system. There are a number of incubation/innovation/research clusters attached to universities. MaRS Discovery District at U of T is one. Ryerson’s Digital Media Zone is another. UWO has a similar thing going with its Research Park. These are places that involve some combination of business, academia, government, and nonprofits. Innovate students (and, of course, others) can engage in some of the more creative work that I think you’re talking about. They can pursue their interests and use different tools and sources of advice to further their work.

    I'm no expert on learning or creativity. And I take your point about a radically different system being unable to exist in a society operating on old assumptions. But there may be little points of incremental change or one-off models that deserve some attention – and Ontario is not a bad place to look for them, in my humble opinion.

    Looking forward to reading the book!

  • http://brianfrank.ca Brian Frank

    Thanks Dave!

    I love this: “skilled educators who can recognize moments of self-initiated learning opportunities and extend them.” I would much rather see those *moments* emphasized rather than expecting teachers to identify a student's “spirit” or “true potential” — or even “individual gifts.” Teaching seems to be difficult enough without insisting teachers be psychoanalysts too (though that probably has never been an expectation at such early stages).

    As for bigger kids, some friends have actually started what they call an “UnLab” at UWO's Research Park, mainly to generate digital media innovation under the name UnLondon. At this point I don't think there's much student/education involvement, but it's a very early stage and I think that's an aspect they are hoping to see develop.

  • Jesse

    I have learned a wee bit about temperament and learning styles. The best teachers will learn to recognize how their mixed entourage of young minds gather and process information, and feed them common curriculum based on their particular learning traits and created interests in a way that they can excel. The worst teachers/systems will try to mash all students and their learning styles into submission without consideration of specific gifts each learner can come to cultivate and benefit society with. There is great value in tradition, but not at the expense of future generations. When we can raise people that patiently understand (or seek it) and value our similarities, our differences, and enjoy each other for each of them (including the inevitable occasional frustrations), we will have found one more way to eliminate some of the oppression that brings strife to mankind out of fear and misunderstanding.

  • http://brianfrank.ca Brian Frank

    Sounds like we're in agreement on education Jesse — though I'm not sure we share the same general outlook on life.