Inspiring Inspiration (30th Apr 2012)
The teachers we remember fondly are those who inspired us - they made it fun to think.
The previous blog tied down the meaning of the words intelligence and genius. The conclusion was reached that they could both be relative (i.e. relative to the person using the term) or absolute (i.e. when compared to the entire population). May I now add another term, educated, to this list of relative/absolute terms. You may be educated relative to me, i.e. have more pieces of paper. However, I may still be better educated than you in my field (it is about 60 miles north of Ulaangom in Mongolia - the closest I was allowed to get to civilisation). Someone else may be the world expert in their field (probably closer to normal people than mine). They would be absolutely educated in that area.
... and that begs the question of what is education? Michael Faraday had no formal education and started his working life as an assistant in a laboratory. By the time he died in 1867 he had been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (at the age of 33), but had no idea about algebra or calculus, yet he is credited with having created several fields in physics and chemistry. His work underpinned much of what James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein produced. But was he educated?
Our views of education have been influenced by the system in which we were brought up. Teachers are special, lecturers more special whilst Doctors and Professors, well they can cross roads without waiting for the little green man! That maybe what these groups want us to think, but they all started as little oiks in the backs of classrooms too. Being educated is not a matter of pieces of paper as Faraday, Clack and a host of others have proved. It is the ability to travel new roads, make new roads and explore uncharted territories for the rest of humanity.
Education is not just about pieces of paper because it is the thought processes that matter. Nor do lots of pieces of paper make you educated - they make you learned (as used in, "my learned friend" in in Parliament for someone who is a lawyer). Knowing a long list of facts does not make you educated because you may not understand any of the relationships between them. On the other hand, knowledge is a precursor of education and therefore the more knowledge someone has the greater are the opportunities for links to be made.
Could an analogy for inspiration be the willingness to wander off the usual path and see whether this new route leads somewhere? If so, this must also be accompanied by a lack of fear of failure. Faraday had nothing to prove when he started to experiment - he was at the bottom anyway. Jenny Clack had a thoroughly supportive home life which did not judge her the way others did. It is this fear of failure, losing credibility, that hinders progress.
Wandering paths and re-winding from dead-ends takes time, effort and patience. Even the esteemed Prof. Clack has "only" made two significant discoveries. She must have wandered miles and miles of intellectual paths to find the two that brought her out into sunlight. Why would these mental full-stops detract from her achievements? Do these achievements disappear if your current path does not work out? Of course not - but those who are jealous of her achievements can focus on those dead ends as proof that she makes mistakes - therefore she is not so much better than them after all (their perception rather than hers!).
This may seem like academics at play, but this thinking filters down the ladder. You are told off if you get your sums wrong (or are one of the few not praised - which is just as damaging). You are told not to do it that way, but must use the way "Miss" or "Sir" does it. No, you cannot experiment with different methods - we don't do it that way, that is next year, etc.. The system discourages inspiration by controlling both the time available for independent thought and by controlling the paths that are allowed to be trodden. This cannot be good for anyone or let alone society.
Giving direction and motivation is necessary in a classroom ... controlling the detail is not. It is hardly surprising that there are problems in the classroom if people feel that education is done to them rather than by them. The use of schemes of work, lesson plans and crowd management all foster the view that the learner does not matter. There is no room for experimentation under such a system. There is no time for exploration under such a system ... and a system that does not serve its purpose should be reformed. We then wonder why there are so many disaffected learners. Why would anyone be enthusiastic about a system which tries to force them down paths? Some of the most disaffected student I've met have also been the brightest - I wonder why!
So what would be a practical solution? Obviously, as you might expect, atomisation. However, there is more than that. There should be a core curriculum - one that enables learners to benefit from the acquisition of small pieces of learning, which we are calling atomisation. The skills required would start with basic literacy, the use of computers and the concept of the connectivity between ideas. This core curriculum would then spread upwards and outwards as we become more confident and learned.
Numeracy is only of use once you understand connectivity (numbers are connected, addition and subtraction are connected, multiplication and division are connected, etc.). These skills are very useful in all spheres and should not be acquired as if they are distinct from all other subjects.
We CAN make education more fun. The number of facts learned may be slower for the first few years, but that should be grossly outweighed by the number acquired when the learner is on our side - rather than the dark side.