The future role of schooling

I’ve been reading a little of the literature on 21st century learning, including an article by Gunther Kress called ‘Meaning and Learning in a World of Instability and Multiplicity’ (Stud Philos Educ 2008 27:253-266). It was recommended to me by Rachel Bolstad at New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Aside: I’m doing this reading because I think that the justification for e-learning in teaching and learning is that it not only offers us powerful ways to enhance curriculum and pedagogy as it is currently practiced (eg self-paced learning, increased engagement, access to wider range of resources) but also to develop new kinds of curriculum and pedagogy that respond to and shape 21st century society. Namely, powerful ways to enact the new notion of knowledge as something you do rather than something you have and to support learners to learn how to learn. It’s my personal opinion that our focus should not be on bringing the technologies into the classroom as such, but on exploring young people’s cultural, social and ethical practices associated with these technologies, and what this means for new ways of learning in the 21st century. Anyway …

Kress talks about the ways that technology and changes in the traditional structures of authority have set learners free from the ‘church’ of education, which has historically mediated learners’ relationship with knowledge (see my blog post ‘The Digital Reformation‘). He says that the agency and the responsibility of the learner is one of the most significant aspects of the new environment of learning.

This argument has always left me thinking that the role of the teacher in the knowledge age is still critical but fundamentally changed, and Kress expresses the nature of this change very nicely indeed.

He says the school/pedagogue’s task remains essential. The schools is still the agent of culture and society, with the mandate to ‘propose’ what is to be learned. This task remains crucial to a functioning, cohesive society. However, ‘what is to be learned’ needs to be negotiated with learners in a way that recognises the constructed nature of that knowledge and those cultural values, and that affirms both the school’s expertise and the students’ interests:

All my arguments so far suggest that the school’s focus … must change so that the interests of the students and their transformative work are at the centre of educational attention. This is, in no way, to ask the school to abandon a clear sense of the importance of the culture’s knowledge and values; quite the contrary. The school needs to value that knowledge and those values, and show them as the result of the principled, transformative work on the world by the many members of a culture over a long period of time. The real and difficult task is to convey not only a sense of value but a means of showing its significance in ways that connect with the lives of the young. (p261)

Kress says that notions of assessment are at the heart of any attempt to bring about change in schooling:

Is [assessment] to be – as it has been – a metric of ‘acquisition’ of conformity to the authority of the curriculum, or is it a metric of principles and transformation of the materials engaged with on the basis of the evidence of signs of learning? In my view, only the latter opens up a newly essential window on learning. (p265)

image cc by mexican 2000

 

Related Posts:

7 Comments

  1. Craig McDonald
    Mar 19, 2009 @ 04:38:15

    ‘but also to develop new kinds of curriculum and pedagogy that respond to and shape 21st century society.’

    I really liked this post. I think digital technologies allow so much more ‘respond/shape’ in education than there has been in the past – especially the ‘shape’ part, and like you say, this is because of the scope there is for learners to take control of their learning, for it to be immediately relevant and communicated to an authentic (and potentially vast) audience.

    Knowledge as something you not only have but ‘do’ – absolutely. Why ‘create new knowledge’ if nothing worthwhile/transformative is done with it? We can affirm the students’ interests, but also expand them, and then demonstrate their significance.

    http://webb-edfeet.blogspot.com/

  2. rachel bolstad
    Mar 24, 2009 @ 11:02:09

    Hi Sarah, …and I in turn picked this article up from Rose Hipkins, so it’s good to see it’s getting passed along!
    I had to read it several times, with a highlighter, very slowly and carefully, but I think it’s worth it :) I think it’s really interesting – especially this idea of putting students and their “transformative work” at the centre of our educational thinking. It’s something that I can relate to more easily than some of the arguments around “creating new knowledge” – for the same reasons Craig has mentioned in his comment above.
    On the subject of shifting to 21st century thinking in education and learning, you might want to keep an eye on this (it’s still in development – and you’ll probably be hearing more from us about this in the coming months! We’d love to see some comments or feedback from you)
    http://www.shiftingthinking.org/

  3. Sarah
    Mar 24, 2009 @ 11:27:19

    Hi Rachel, Thanks for the comment. I’ve spotted your blog and looking forward to finding some time to have a good read :-) I think you and Craig are making a good point here – this is changing my thinking. Can you help me out some more? In concrete terms, what do we mean by ‘transformation’ and ‘transformative work’?

    I’m working with the e-fellows and their research mentors today, and Sue McDowall has suggested that learning is transformative if it shifts the focus of teaching away from filling learners’ heads with content knowledge and towards strenthening of the key competencies (I hope I’m paraphrasing Sue accurately) …

    I would appreciate your and others’ take on this too? (Perhaps I should read your blog eh!)

  4. rachel bolstad
    Mar 24, 2009 @ 17:15:13

    Hi Sarah,
    This is a great question and actually it’s a good segue into an invitation I wanted to extend to you – would you like to make a guest blog posting (or postings) on shifting thinking?? It would be great to have you open up a discussion on shifting thinking around this question you’ve posed above, and we (and others) can do some further thinking together on this! As a guess poster on shifting thinking you would be welcome to refer readers back to your own blog as well, it would be great to get traffic flowing both ways. Are you interested!?? Let me know and I will get in touch with you and we’ll set you up with a log-in. (In the meantime you are welcome to have a good look around the shiftingthinking and make comments- and so is Craig, and so are any of your other readers!)
    http://www.shiftingthinking.org/

  5. educEd (aka Ed Strafford)
    Mar 24, 2009 @ 20:00:49

    In the context of the online section of Kress (i haven’t read the rest , but i intend to) …

    …The “transformation of materials” seems to allude to Craig’s concern regarding the ‘mere’ creation of new texts. Whilst this is a big step forward from memorisation and test-based enagement with learning, it (probably) falls short of the – implicit?/espoused – underlying purpose of the key competencies which appear to be to further the goals of transformative education.

    What I’m trying to explore here relates to Sarah’s paraphrasing of Sue’s definition of “transformative learning”.

    It is the question of whether it is possible for a student to become more skilled in an area we have called a key competency and go on to use those skills to (unconsciously or otherwise) hinder one of the age old goals of education – to produce a more just/fair/happy society (this latter phrase being my take on the meaning of “transformative education”).

    I do realise that particular goal of education (the justice etc etc one) has not been universally pursued by nation states over the course of history – whether as a piece of rhetoric or via an actual set of actions.

    However, as any transformative potential of the revised curriculum is pursued, it might be interesting to see where various groups within our society imagine the process of transformation will/should stop.

    In other words is ‘transformation/transformative educational practice’ ultimately about

    i) teachers using texts differently in the classroom,
    ii) students being given control over text use in their learning,
    iii) the nature of schooled competency/ies being transformed -so that students leave with a more ‘functional set of tools’,
    or
    iv) providing students with increased access to those dispositions, values, and skills that might increase the chances of an increasingly equitable society – one that might just be socially sustainable. (Equity here can be imagined not as equal access to ‘soviet grey conformity’ but to equal chances for all young learners to a Beeby-like fulfillment of ‘individual’ potential suffussed with an awareness of the rights of others.)

    Enough educational romanticism …

    Must read that blog Rachel noted, but first a birthday cake needs to be baked. :-)

    and then back to Ken Robinson’s engaging critique of education: “The Element”.

  6. Sarah
    Mar 25, 2009 @ 11:34:11

    Wow – Rachel – thanks for your kind offer to contribute your blog – I would be please to do this. Let’s talk …

  7. Ram Chetty
    Mar 26, 2009 @ 07:16:32

    It’s my personal opinion that our focus should be on exploring young people’s cultural, social and ethical practices associated with current technologies as these keeps the young and vulnerable in tune with the current ‘transformative’ education system of the universe. In addition to this,I believe that the competencies are developed through providing more challenges to the ‘aquires’ of the laerning society.

Leave a Reply

*