These keywords have been on the agenda of all education Ministries for the past years. Is it invocation? Empty promise? Visionary policies?
Technology has been around for the last 20 years in a way or another. Seymour Papert at the very beginning of the internet era wrote that technology was “going to displace school and the way we have understood school.” He saw the “fundamental nature of school coming to an end” but 20 years later schools are still there and just about to change.
As inconceivable as it may seem, schools, as we have known them, have continued. The same buildings host the same classrooms with a standard spatial organization and the same “curriculum dictatorship” even though core curriculum has changed many times in every country. What is taught remains more important than what is learned and it is not enough to add coding to the curriculum to change the way we learn at school.
Schools have not changed enough when children have changed drastically. School children belong to the generations who have been raised in a context where digital technologies form an inextricable part of daily life. The so-called New Millenium Learners “NML” or Digital natives spend the same time on electronic media a week than an adult at the workplace.
When children come to school, they already know lots of things that schools will never teach them. We have (re)discovered that children have this incredible ability to learn by exploring and in specific contexts even to teach themselves. They can access knowledge when they want to, when they need to. But school is certainly the only place where they can’t exercise freely these abilities. Teachers in their vast majority are still unable to use the technology they have access to in a creative way for educative purposes. How come could these children still accept to study the French revolution when they have the possibility with a video game “Assassin’s Creed” to be french revolutionaries themselves
It is still unclear how schools should and could transform themselves to better respond to the needs of these “NML” and the society they live in.
On the organizational side, several questions are raised. Are we aiming at lesser pupils per classroom? Even in a no change context, classrooms will certainly experience a decrease in the number of students due to demographic trends. Will we be able to invest heavily on the teachers to recruit the best talents into teaching (and among the best, the very best in the most challenging schools as does Teach for All)? We have seen in the last 4 years how uncertainties regarding economic growth are rapidly translated into budgetary cuts in education and into less innovation.
On the pedagogical side, many question marks remain. How will we address the need for more creativity in the classroom? Do we advocate – as Paulo Freire did in the 80’s – for a pedagogy of the question (rather than of the answer)? Should we prioritize activity-based learning rather than traditional lecturing as in the flipped classroom model? Will we substitute – in words of John Seely Brown - a school of “learning about” by a school of “learning to be”? The answers will depend largely on our capacity to engage teachers in inventing new teaching practices to achieve these new pedagogical objectives and fully utilize the new teaching technologies made available to them.
A castell is a human tower built traditionally during city festivals in Catalonia.
A group of french teachers launched a movement against digital devices in schools: “appel de Beauchastel contre l’école numérique” available in a digital format (!) here
Beyond the usual rethoric against commodification of education and the Silicon Valley duplicity promoting technology in the classroom while sending their kids to non digital schools (see my blog), these teachers refuse to be simple intermediaries between students and their devices.
A similar movement started in the UK a couple of years ago. In a letter (paywall) to The Times, 198 academics and children’s authors accused the new national education policies “of taking enormous risk with the quality of children’s lives and learning”.
What these teachers don’t say is that technology will never be the solution if it is not accompanied by a change in pedagogy.
In 2015, an OECD report concluded that “school systems need to find more effective ways to integrate | technology into teaching and learning to provide educators with learning environments that support 21st century pedagogies and provide children with the 21st century skills they need to succeed in tomorrow’s world”. In other words, a tablet won’t solve it all (but a tablet is not useless). Another OECD report takes the debate a step further introducing the need for students to work independently, co-operatively and in projects with little teacher intervention. Would our French teachers accept to let students lead the learning process?
It is one thing to believe that technology can make learning more effective in certain conditions but it is another to believe that putting computers in the hands of all students can make all schools more effective. Examples abound in favour or against the role of digital.
The Bolton school – Essa Academy – became the first in Britain to buy touchscreen devices for all its students and went from being a failing school to be judged ‘good’ by Ofsted and a reference on how to teach with technology. On the contrary a report, based on research in 17 US states with online charter schools, has found “significantly weaker academic performance” in maths and reading in these virtual schools compared with the conventional school system.
Teachers are the cornerstone of change in education. We need more innovative teachers (let’s have a look again at an inspiring portrait of a young teacher who wants to change his class… and the world. Let’s go back to Frank Damour’s article entitled “Comment Internet m’a ré-appris pourquoi j’enseigne”.
Education will be better off with the committed children in the center and the committed teachers not left aside (especially on their own initiative!).
At the end of the day, one must decide whether education needs more plaintive letters or more innovative practices?
The famous tryptic: “anyone, anywhere, anytime” is often used to characterize the changes in the learning process. Innovative learning experiences will get rid of the constraints of space and time and be much more inclusive and personalized.
The education systems are mostly defined by their learning spaces. Schools all over the world still reproduce the teacher-students top down relationship and are directly produced by an industrial approach to education. Ken Robinson gives three of these industrial principles— conformity, compliance and linearity – that still define our learning spaces. Our universities’ amphitheaters tell the same story of unilateral and linear relationship under which a teacher tells the truth to a large group of often passive students.
A literature review on classrooms’ design made at Princeton University concluded that “the traditional transference model of education, in which a professor delivers information to students, is no longer effective at preparing engaged 21st-century citizens. This model is being replaced by constructivist educational pedagogy that emphasizes the role students play in making connections and developing ideas, solutions, and questions”.
Our new schools, our new universities will be characterized by the design of new learning spaces. Part of the problem we are facing with this new situation is that new spaces are not always made by those with recent experience of teaching or studying in classrooms. Architects and promotors have not fully realized that learning ultimately belongs to learners (and teachers). In a recent work done for one of the leading French universities, I addressed the need for new learning spaces as part of a global reflection on the future of learning and teaching. It takes a lot of effort and imagination to go beyond the clichés that characterize the “digital era”. Which are the genuine expectations of both learners and teachers? How can they overcome the dictatorship of spaces? Even though we are clear about the need to change our learning and teaching practices, we are still thinking in terms of traditional spaces. Even though our classrooms or amphitheaters will be smaller or more flexible, they will still be there.
Can’t we think learning and teaching without thinking of classrooms (large or small)? If a learning experience can take place anywhere, why should we bother about the space? Shouldn’t we insist more on the capacities and skills required by our students – and teachers – to recognize any space as a potential learning space?
In her book on learning spaces, Diana G. Oblinger reminds us that “there is value from bumping into someone and having a casual conversation, there is value from hands-on, active learning as well as from discussion and reflection, there is value in being able to receive immediate support when needed…”
Bumping into someone can take place anywhere. Learning is no longer or not only about technology. Learning has to do with the way we occupy the space, with the way we live together, we engage into conversation together.
Innovative learning has something to do with casual learning, transforming any space in a learning space: a waiting room at a doctor’s practice that creates new opportunities for patients to exchange and learn from peers, a fast food restaurant where wifi connection enables customers to take an online course, a park…
In a park or in a fast food… Anywehere. Everywhere…
Michael Kelly and Mary Barker from the University of Cambridge and the University of Southampton have just published a fantastic article in the Journal of Public Health – “Why is changing health-related behaviour so difficult?” – that conceptualizes in a very accessible way why changing health-related behaviour is so difficult and what we do wrong in no acknowledging it.
This article – is compulsory reading for all those who for years have been researching effective health strategies to prevent the rise in obesity, tobacco o alcohol consumption or promote physical exercise. It is worth reading for all those outside the public health field who are trying to design new change strategies for instance against climate change or for the introduction of new technologies in the classroom.
We are all convinced that changing behaviours is essential to respond to the health epidemics (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease…) affecting hundreds of millions and also puzzled by the fact that we are having a hard way achieving it (and bringing evidence)
The authors draw attention to six errors policy makers (and often we as education specialists) apply to health-related behaviour change in non-communicable disease prevention;
error 1. It is just common sense
“It is obvious what needs to be done, so let us just get on and do it”.
If changing behaviour was simply about making common sense simple changes and good choices then we would all be able to make whatever changes we wanted to whenever we wanted, but we do not.
Just because something appears to be obvious and simple does not mean that we should not bother to study it
error 2. It is about getting the message across
“If we could only get the message out there in some form which people could understand and identify with, then they would change in response”.
The investment in social marketing campaigns which borrow heavily from the commercial analogy and their lack of tangible success suggests that the commercial analogy is flawed if applied simplistically to public health matters. Campaigns can have an important role and can be effective, but they are but one part of a total strategy and behaviour change is not just about simple messaging.
error 3. Knowledge and information drive behaviour
“If we tell people the negative consequences of eating too much or exercising too little, they will change their behaviour accordingly.”
This is clearly not true and every front-line clinician and practitioner knows it is not true.
error 4. People act rationally
“If you tell people what is good for them and what they need to do to protect their health, they will do it”.
Most diets fail, not because people do not know what is supposedly good for them, but because knowledge and its rational assessment alone do not drive behaviour.
error 5. People act irrationally
“People have their own reasons for doing things”.
When someone with asthma refuses to stop smoking, we might regard them as very foolish or addicted or both. But what we tend not to see is that this may not be so irrational a decision after all given their lives and experiences.
error 6. It is possible to predict accurately
“We can say with certainty how individual people will behave in any given situation”.
While we can patterns of health inequalities, tobacco and alcohol consumption and trends in these over time and place in great detail, however, none of this has provided sharp-edged tools with which to tackle health inequalities, the obesity epidemic or the rising tide of alcohol consumption.
As a conclusion, the authors advocate to rethink the way health professionals work with the public. They insist on the need to steer away from information giving and towards empowering and motivating individuals to generate their own solutions to their problems.
At P.A.U. Education with the Avall project, jointly with Bjarne Bruun Jensen from the Steno Health Promotion Research (Denmark) and Esteve Llargues – the project’s designer and coordinator – from the Granollers General Hospital (Spain), we designed an educational intervention during childhood viewing children and schools as catalysts for health-promotion actions at community level and that could provide a key prevention strategy, with education on dietary habits and physical activity for children and their families being considered the foundation for healthy lifestyles in adulthood. Two years after the study completed, the intervention group showed a lower increase in BMI and the trend consolidated after 6 years.
Mark Hanson’s recent research from the University of Southampton has revealed the importance of healthy lifestyle in parents in the period before they conceive a child. This time in the life course offers a window of opportunity to reduce the risk of later NCDs as well as childhood obesity in two or more generations simultaneously – in parents and in their future children and possibly their grandchildren.
These examples help envision new effective intervention strategies that can only work with the active support and conviction of policymakers…
Back to school! A full school year is ahead of us and many countries experienced “innovative” school reforms. Does it make sense to change again and again our school programs, school standards…?
Educative systems are accustomed to change. Some would say that they are in a state of constant change. Over the past 30 years, all European countries for instance have been continuously engaged in a deep reflection regarding the future of their educative systems. The rhythm of these organizational and curricular reforms during this period more than doubles that experienced since the turn of the 20th century. Are we simply facing yet another cycle of change that will yield to a set of new reforms? Will it constitute a “controlled” change to adapt schools to new technological, social and economic conditions? Or are we on the edge of a true revolution?
Over 20 years ago, Seymour Papert argued that: “children will (no longer) sit quietly in school and listen to a teacher give them predigested knowledge. They will revolt.” The revolt didn’t take place at the time and our schools didn’t change (much).
There are several good reasons to think that times are now riper for a “revolt” of great magnitude. In countries like Spain or Portugal, more than 30% of early school leavers and more than 40% of unemployed youth aged over 18 throw the very meaning of school education into question. In the USA, we have just witnessed the first cases of higher education students filing a lawsuit against their law school for creating false expectations with regards to their future employability.
In this context, does it make sense to make school reforms as if we were trying to make up for some problems without changing the whole picture? Have we still time to adapt our school education systems in order to prevent resounding failure? Or should we totally rethink school education in a much deeper way?
The failure of our societies to provide work to youth and to fully integrate them into society may mark the end of school education as we know it until now: a continued process that should lead children and youth to progressively gear up for their futures as successful professionals and responsible citizens.
Policymakers that keep changing the schools without changing the life perspectives for young people may listen again to Bob Dylan:
“There’s a battle outside
And it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows”
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox
Join other followers