Open Syllabus Education

One Response to 'Missed serendipity and exposure of imposed learning'

1. Eugene Matusov says:

   March 17, 2014 at 3:34 pm

   Here is an interesting exchange with one of my students, Cathy, from an Opening Syllabus (Open Curriculum + Open Dialogic Instruction) relevant to this controversy:

      Professor Matusov,

   I think your argument is a good one. However, I am of the opinion that teachers should be the final authority as far as what topics are "important" and must be taught. I agree with Tonya's original statement: "an open curriculum can have disadvantages, such as the class not getting to topics that are really important." That being said, I disagree with the idea that because the topic is chosen by a student is cannot be important. I think students can come up with very good ideas for topics, but sometimes one topic might simply trump others in terms of importance. Which means the teacher has to decide what to teach.

   My ideal model of this would included reduced teacher authority as the students advance in grades and into college. However there are some caveats to this:

   1. the teacher must be open to the students counter-arguments and willing to adjust as needed
   2. As you stated, the professor is able to make an effective case as the utility of the subject matter

   I am of this opinion largely because I have found many of the subject which I would have dismissed at first glance to be unimportant to my life, uninteresting or otherwise. These subjects include spelling, geometry, algebra, physics, french, etc. While i did not want to learn about these topics, when I did have to learn about them, I found them surprisingly interesting. As a result, although I agree with the "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"  mentality to some extent, I believe that the horse can be convinced of the necessity of drinking. While that is easier said than done, I think it is the most functional mindset. For example, a student may enjoy English, but hate grammar and, given the choice, would rather not learn it. However, in order to be successful in the discipline, grammar is essential. Therefore, the student must learn grammar. For this reason, I believe the teacher should be the final authority in these matters; because they maintain a perspective on learning and the subject matter that students simply do not have. 

   While some might say that forcing topics on children causes them to tune out learning, I would agree that while this is often true. I believe that has more to say about our approach than the actual utility of the topic. Also, while those "forced" topics may not be as meaningful to those students they still learn. Maybe not as much, but definitely something. Finally, in life, we are often confronted with tasks and subjects which we are forced to learn how to do even though we are not interested. So, why should school be any different? Yes, it should be interesting, but it can't be that way all the time because life is not like that. 

   In full disclosure, I was homeschooled for the majority of my pre-college academic career and therefore always had some say in what I was learning. However there were some subjects, topics that I was required to learn (based on my mother's opinion or state requirements) and while I was not thrilled with learning them then, I am grateful for that knowledge now. It taught be how to handle those times when, even now, I am required to take courses that are of little interest to me personally(though thankfully not this one )

   I would to know what you all think! Should students be that final authority after all? Am I missing something in my argument? 

   What do you think? 

   Here is my reply to Cathy:

    Dear Cathy–

   Thanks for pushing this interesting discussion further! In my view, your argument about serendipity of imposed learning is very good and valid! I agree with you that serendipity and exposure for diverse activities and subjects, caused by forced learning on a student, can be very important for the learner. However, let me share my professional struggle with this regard, please.

   My big concern is that impositions of learning on a learner can suppress the learner's agency. I'm really concerned about the current situation in formal education, in which a high majority of students spent 13 or 17 years of their formative life being constantly and, if not,  totally forced to learn that they did not choose to learn. I think that successfully suppresses learning agency in students and do not prepare them to be active citizens in a democratic society, in which their own desires, interests, opinions, curiosities, analyses are important. Academic alienation and mindless memorization of facts and procedures for tests are documented results of forced learning.

   My other concern is that we promote universality in current K-12 schools while it is both impossible and even undesirable. Life is always specialized.

   So the questions about imposed learning and its potential benefits that I have are:

   a) should students' agency be sacrificed in the name of students' serendipity exposure to new exciting learning? Is it worth of sacrifice?

   b) can serendipity and exposure to a new exciting learning be done some other ways without imposition, for example, by advice by trusted person, by exposure to a rich learning environment with many diverse activities, subjects, and learning, even by bribing? Other means that can promote learning serendipity?

   c) should we teach students learning how to learn following their interests (i.e., learning on demand) instead of specific curriculum selected by experts? Learning on demand can prepare former and current students to learn WHEN they face with necessity or interest to learn something important (if there is not need, may be it is not that important for this particular person). Can learning on demand be better and more helpful on a long run than learning any particular skills, knowledge, and subjects predefined in advance?

   Currently, I'm very ambivalent with regard to imposed/forced learning, its benefits and drawbacks, while probably leaning against imposed/forced learning. But I still remain indecisive.

   Also, you may want to read my reply to Mary on a similar topic "Learning on demand" http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/OSER/?page_id=206 I wonder what you think about the video that I provided.

   What do you think?

   Eugene

   PS Please feel free to share your homeschooling experiences. I recently found that homeschooling is one of 3 exponentially growing types of schooling in the US along with charter and magnet schools. I'm very interested about your experiences, judgments, and reflections on homeschooling….. Maybe we should have this topic in our class…. 

   Cathy's reply to me:

    Professor Matusov,

   You bring up some good points. I will do my best to respond to your questions. 

   a) I don't necessarily think you have to sacrifice agency for serendipity. The reason I say this is that, at least as far as the US system  of education goes, elementary school is the age where children have the most structure. They a very structured curriculum. However, studies have shown that that is the age where children are most engaged int he learning process. We do more project and field trips in elementary school to try to and stimulate the students love of learning. However, as students progress through school they often begin to resent the structured learning model especially because we remove the "fun" part of the learning process. Thus, if we maintained the same "explorers" mindset throughout k-12 education, I don't think we would deal with some of the issues that come with sacrificing agency for serendipity. That being said, there is danger in both leaving students to their own agency and using the serendipity model. Therefore, I favor a blend of both.

   b) While there are other ways of promoting the serendipity described, other than bribing, I am not convinced of their effectiveness on a classroom scale. Also, just because the option to learn this material is available, or suggested doesn't guarantee anything, especially for those students who are resistant to suggestions. Often, especially with younger students access to more information isn't necessarily helpful–at least not as helpful as direct instruction. However, I am a fan of teaching students HOW to learn so that they can learn things that they would like on their own. I often find that when students are given the tools to learn things they often surprise you with what they come up with on their own. Serendipity should often be balanced with time for students to use their agency to develop their learning. 

   c) I agree that we should equip students with the skills to follow their interests but not necessarily at the expense of a curriculum. While I am not for excessive prescription of of curriculum such that is forces teachers to squash the agency of their students to prepare them for a test, I think curricula can be helpful. 

   I see a lot danger in the idea that students should decide what they should learn based on what they perceive or what their parents perceive as what they will need. I thought I was going to be a zoologist or a vet for years before I changed my mind. Also, what if my student is a budding artist. does that mean that biology and geology are a waste of his time. I disagree with that idea on the basis that we don't know what information will become necessary to us at different stages of our lives. More learning is not harmful, in fact, I believe it to be helpful because if nothing else it teaches students different ways of thinking about the world and thus different skills.

   Nevertheless, I feel that this view does not preclude learning on demand. In fact, I believe we continue to learn on demand until we die. Live is a learning experience. 

   What do you think?

   My reply to Cathy:

    Dear Cathy–

   Thanks for your most helpful reply!!! Our discussion is very rich. Let me pick up only one of many interesting points you made as I'm very interested in it, please.

   You wrote, "More learning is not harmful, in fact, I believe it to be helpful because if nothing else it teaches students different ways of thinking about the world and thus different skills."

   On the one hand, I agree with you, especially, personally. I LOVE to learn!

   However, on the other hand, I have a concern about FORCED learning and its short- and especially long-term detrimental effect on students' education and even well-being. When asked students what academic subject they dislike, if not hate, they often produce a list of them (some shorter but some longer). In one of my classes, all 100% of the students told me that they hated Shakespeare. When investigated where these students LEARN to dislike or even hate these academic subjects, they revealed that they LEARN to dislike them in school. Sometimes, I wonder if school teaches more DISLIKE/HATE learning than positive learning.

   So, I guess I'm not against "MORE learning" but I am questioning "FORCED learning". I'd probably prefer LESS learning that is positive and exciting for the students than more of FORCED learning that students learn to dislike or even hate.

   What do you think?

   Eugene

    

    

    

   Reply