Coronavirus had the potential to be a systems disruptor. Unfortunately, it seems the mainstream reaction to the virus and the global systemic flaws it exposed has been to return to the old ways of doing things. As an educator, I have witnessed the litany of illogical ideas and scrambling to respond to the disruptions of the virus in some acceptable way. But I would contend that the flaws of the education system were too deep. Their exposure calls for change. This article explores some ideas in that vein.
The basic premise adapted by our education system is that of “teacher knows best.” That is, a learned expert always knows more about a given subject or subjects than those they are teaching. The resulting model is one of knowledge transmission. In other words, the teacher acts as a conduit for the transfer of knowledge. The key asset of this model is the human factor: the teacher, presumably familiar with their learners, knows exactly how to transmit the knowledge in a way that a given learner can understand. This critical role of knowledge reception is one that arguably separates successful from unsuccessful teaching: it is a kind of tuning in to the audience that allows for connection and acquisition of the knowledge being conferred. This fundamental function in teaching is one that cannot and must not be forsaken (particularly in any future systemic change – as I’ll argue below), because it carries with it that which lies at the heart of learning: human connection. Yet, the growth of class sizes and standardization of the education system has corroded this role, or at the very least, made it difficult to perform fully (i.e., perform in such a way that every learner benefits).
The addition of various additives (e.g. presentations, handouts, videos, etc.) and methods (discussion, flipping the classroom) notwithstanding, the fundamental model of knowledge transmission has not changed. The senescence and spread of this system led to standardization across its component parts: infrastructure and design of educational buildings (i.e. desk-laden classrooms, separated for subjects), policies (e.g. teacher’s college courses focused on behaviour management), imposed curriculums, and testing (e.g. SAT’s, A-Levels). All of this has worked to vitrify our current model of education. Underlying it are deeply rooted philosophies of separation and individualization. As the COVID crisis has shown, online teaching exacerbates the flaws in these philosophies.
The proverbial (but ironic) disconnection that online media (and particularly social media) engenders, points, in part, to our evolutionary disposition for connection. We evolved to connect in person, to be seen, and to be heard, not through an electronic filter of any kind, but through that energy of presence that can only come with physical proximity. Education since ancient times has always had this primary element because our fundamental need to be present with one another as we learn was taken as a basic pillar. Even before a formalized education system existed, tutoring was performed in person. And even as regards modern online courses, their value arguably mostly lies in the certificates they produce, rather than in the experience. Indeed, in some cases, the school or university name on said certificates are the only markers of real value. Though some networking and shared experience exists in online learning, online media is fundamentally isolating and dissociative, and this may be why our knowledge transmission learning models fail to transmute to an online format successfully. That is not to say, however, that this model was successful to begin with.
We’ve heard it before, the education system is designed for submissiveness, for uniformity, and produces mediocrity. We know that the system was designed for education alongside the industrial revolution and that society has changed but that the system hasn't. With the onset of novel coronavirus and the economic disruption it engendered in 2020, it is time for new ideas. Education needs to be reimagined for a globally connected, online, and more empathetic world.
As Sir Ken Robinson has shown us, there are many wonderful solutions already in full swing (the LEEP model at Clark University, for example). The problem lies in the fact that these solutions are outliers. We need to mainstream new solutions. Educational research and progressive ideas abound, without significant effect. I would argue that the basis of this lack of change and many others is that they’ve tried to change education without changing the basic premise of a knowledge transmission model.
Every education expert will tell you that the science of learning indicates that curiosity and variability are the key. Curiosity is richest when it is self-derived, rather than imposed. This leads us to a simple imperative: we must eliminate an imposed curriculum. Instead, let the students choose what interests them. In this way, student motivation reaches the highest possible levels. As Robinson has asserted, “Building the curriculum around students’ interests leads to them performing at higher levels in all areas” (Robinson, 2015). Cognition is unique, and so education must be as well.
Let’s articulate this kind of system, with a curiosity-based, student-driven (CUBASD – “cue-based”) curriculum. To start, we must acknowledge that expert guidance in any learning model is critical. As such, a CUBASD system would require effective direction by a personal mentor. This mentor would fulfill the role of the main teacher in this new system. One important responsibility they would have would be to assist in designing learning around a student’s initial interest. This responsibility could include using the Socratic method in dialogue to come to a student-developed inquiry for investigation. This is, of course, what is well-known as ‘inquiry-based learning,’ apart from the method of getting to the inquiry. The method (i.e. Socratic dialogue leading to a question demanding further investigation) is, however, critical to the CUBASD model as it ensures two things. 1. Genuine interest of the student. 2. A focused inquiry deduced from extant knowledge, arrived at through question-based dialogue. As such, the curriculum is as individually customized as possible, meeting the individual student at their learning level, ability, and extant genuine interests (from which more can develop). This is the key and the future of education.
Having arrived at an inquiry with their student, the mentor-teacher would then guide the student in breaking down the inquiry into its component subject parts. For example, an inquiry into football includes some the following subjects within it: statistics, biology, physics, and history. This type of project-based learning would also require the help of experts. Therefore, the mentor-teacher would also need to arrange for lessons and/or examination of prepared knowledge in component subjects from industry experts. Additionally, the mentor-teacher could coordinate with other mentors to create group projects, where students take on the same project, break it down into component parts which are then distributed among the participating students according to greatest interest, and then teach each other what they’ve learned. So for instance, continuing with the previous example, if two students are interested in a football-based project, one, who might be more inclined towards STEM subjects, would learn the math and physics aspects, while the second student, inclined towards humanities perhaps, would learn the historical and social aspects. They could then work together to teach each other and their mentors what they’ve learned. This would reinforce the need to approach all issues and subjects with interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity in turn, helps to foster both a greater awareness of the way the world works and the great depth of all issues and queries, and it creates empathy in the investigator for their world.
Where the mentors construct knowledge together with their students we have what is already in place in some education systems as the ‘teacher-scholar model.’ Furthermore, by doing so, they might also make themselves available to work with other students in the future who would be interested in the subject via an online network. In this way, CUBASD learning would see the onus of teaching put on those genuinely interested and invested in their subjects, and in turn create a web of interdisciplinary CUBASD teachers. This also opens the process of learning and presenting knowledge to individual creativity and can encourage innovation. Furthermore, it does not discriminate against disadvantaged economic or social backgrounds, nor varied neurotypes. Instead, it aims to provide exactly what they need. Above all, it allows room for closely personal and emotional investment in teaching and learning, and this causes genuine, long-term retention of knowledge and understanding. Finally, this approach ensures the access, equity, and quality that Krishnan has discussed.
In this modern age where technology and social networking can be combined with ease, the idea of a network of students-teaching-students can be seen as the next natural step. Indeed, such teaching already exists. The CUBASD learning system would refine existing platforms by formalizing the network of mentors who would provide structure and a systemic approach to curiosity-based, student-driven learning. The mentor’s role would include connecting students to experts and to one another, as well as ensuring a learning trajectory by being someone to whom the student is accountable, particularly as regards the quality of the research and the understanding garnered by the student. As such, assessment would remain the responsibility of the mentor, however, this cannot be seen as the end of education, in any sense. Indeed, part of the failure of the modern education system is its capitalist-driven emphasis on pre-defined achievement, rather than self-growth. Assessment can be a means to motivate and provide constructive feedback, measure progress and potential, and set goals. It is an integral part of the process of education, but it should be natural, and like the curriculum, it should be customized for the individual for which it is being provided, with the idea that the mentor should learn something as well, in mind. Above all perhaps, assessment should unleash student potential by providing for the opportunity of growth in IQ (intelligence) + EQ (emotional intelligence) + RQ (resilience), as Krishnan has already recommended. In this way, the new role of the teacher in this system is to hone the students’ efforts into growth. So, rather than embodying the old model of a conduit for knowledge transmission, the mentor in this new model seeks to aid in knowledge transmutation.
There remains one more vital role for the mentors of this system, and that relates to the transition between secondary and tertiary learning.
Since a CUBASD system would preclude standardization of any kind, including grades as an evaluative tool, the question of how this system fits into the current tertiary recruitment and application cycle comes into question. The current methods that are employed — namely that of using standardized-exam results as a critical aspect of the application — would have to be eliminated. Instead, I propose a two-stage process that is not dissimilar to those used at the Oxbridge universities, for example. In the first place, mentors would provide a reference letter detailing their mentorship and the progress of their student. Additionally, the student would produce a portfolio of their education with a focus on defining how they are suitable for study at the tertiary institution to which they are applying. This is similar to, but not quite like the ‘personal statement’ of university applications in the current system (especially those coming from the UK-based curriculum). The second stage of this process would probably require further testing of some kind from the university, whether in the form of a written test (as, for example, with the History Aptitude Test at Oxford University) and/or a personal interview done by faculty members in the department to which the student is applying. Naturally, in cases where the mentor feels tertiary education is not necessary or helpful for their student, applications might be directed at potential employers or other mentors that might help a student ‘intern’ or apprentice for a career path.
This new application process should not seem a daunting bureaucratic shift, since with the elimination of standardized testing, the resources for this transition would become available. Over time, one might also imagine that mentors would begin to develop reputations and personal connections with various university faculty that would make judgement of familiar mentors’ students a smoother process in that universities would come to know what to expect. Also, in this way, individual mentors would become the critical link in a student’s educational career, in the same way that teachers are now, only with the overt recognition they deserve. One imagines that the prestige of particular secondary institutions (particularly private ones such as Eton, Chapin or Collegiate School) would shift (and perhaps quite rightly) to the individual mentors with the highest dedication, experience, and knack for educational mentorship.
A future development of this system would be to integrate all levels of learning in a CUBASD system. At the primary level there already exist similar models such as the Waldorf education system (which also teaches at the secondary level). The difference between the proposal herein and extant systems lies in the revolutionary model of the former. The extant progressive/alternative models of education had, as a foundation for their ideas, the 18th-Century-based schooling system: school buildings, classrooms, a pre-determined daily schedule, a curriculum following national standards, etc. This idea does away with all facets of the education models that formed the basis of systemized learning for the past 200 years. In our online age, we must return to a more personal form of learning: that of the single mentor and their student.
This brings us to the counterarguments facing the CUBASD idea. The foremost in the reader’s mind is undoubtedly the problem of numbers. That is, “There aren’t enough people to be mentors in such a system.” Yet, current teachers could take on several mentees to begin, since they would not be obliged to prepare classes and manage them. Secondly, at least to begin with, educational mentoring need not be restricted to seasoned teachers. Furthermore, the mentors would not be doing actual teaching in the traditional transmission-of-knowledge sense, but rather, they would become guides as the students teach themselves and one another, or while experts in their chosen interests share their insights with students to whom they’ve been connected via the mentor. Of course, with time, the role of the mentor would need to be as specialized and as highly trained, if not more, than current teachers. Taking Sir Ken Robinson’s thoughts on the needs of current teachers as a baseline, mentors would need to be trained in a similar way:
Initial training for teaching should involve extensive practice in schools, guided by expert practicing teachers. But it should also include the study of the practice and ideological history of education, and of the various movements and schools of thought that have driven it. Since the main business of teaching is to facilitate learning, it should include the serious study of theories of learning and research in psychology and, crucially now, in the cognitive sciences. And it should include some understanding of how education systems work in different countries and with what results and effects. (Robinson, 2015).
The next counterargument might be that in using the system suggested above (i.e., mentors’ references, personal statements, and perhaps subject-specific entrance exams), the process of evaluating a student’s suitability for study at a university would be excessively time consuming, even with resources diverted from the current bureaucracy behind administering standardized tests such as the British A-Levels, the American SAT’s or the International Baccalaureate. It is of course difficult to predict exactly how time consuming this process might be, but one suggestion in defense of the CUBASD system would be to incorporate gap years as a standard practice. This gap year would provide universities with extra time to evaluate the thousands of applications they’d receive. In addition, it would provide critical time for self-growth and reflection for the student, as gap years so often have and do to this day.
A final, important counterargument might focus on economic resources. Again, like the CUBASD idea itself, this is a question best left to the community that introduces such a model. It should suffice to say that the most effective financial resources are those that are intelligently distributed: investing in professional training, technology, and common support would probably have the greatest returns.
Though this essay proposes concrete ideas, it should be said that these ideas can work on both the mentor-student level, and on a systemic level: the conversation on education should be continuous and education itself must be flexible. It was the intention of these few pages to point to most of the necessary elements for change: a vision (CUBASD curriculum), skills (trained teachers and mentors), incentives (the current crisis), and resources (made available through a bureaucratic shift). The remaining element for change lies in the hands of the communities and education ministers reading this: an action plan.
This essay aimed to provide a basic guideline for schools, communities, and education boards; a blueprint or skeleton for each community to flesh out according to their unique needs and goals. Imposition of any kind is the opposite of what this essay seeks to advocate. Though many extant suggestions for educational change come from world-renowned experts, the COIVD crisis has revealed that immediate and comprehensive change is critical, as technological change and social interaction is exponential. And yet, though in this respect we are a single human family, connected by a globalized culture catered by the Internet, we remain individuals. We are social beings, in need of other individuals, in need of our tribe, that we might be recognized for who we are individually within that local tribe. We are thus in need of a global solution that caters to individuality and cultural sensitivity. I hope to have shown how the CUBASD model might be a starting point for this.
The COVID crisis has changed the world. It’s also given us an opportunity to reform and restructure our failing institutions. Let’s change education, now.
Yorumlar