A combination of a fairly feisty state of mind and George Siemen’s latest post on his Connectivism blog titled “Technologically Externalized Knowledge and Learning” has got me seriously riled up tonight – not at George mind you, but at the state of education as we know it.

In setting the scene for a discussion on “finding a cure for stale ideologies,” George discusses some of the issues with traditional views on learning, as well as some of the shortcomings of those who seek to affect systemic change in formal education.

Of more traditional ideologies on learning, he writes:

“…these views reflect an ideology that is growing in obsolescence in relation to the world outside of classrooms and training labs. When does a student know the structure of a problem in advance of solving it when she’s trying to create a YouTube video? When do a group of children know their learning outcomes when they choose to create and play a game? When does a salesperson know in advance that their is a correct way to engage a foreign client and thereby when the business of their organization? Learning, occurring under contrived conditions in classrooms, bears only a faint resemblance to real world problems and challenges.”

He points out, rightfully so, that we’ve been aware of these shortcomings for decades, and yet despite this we, as educators, have still failed to overcome the “stale” ideologies.

The reason for this, he argues, can be attributed to an inability to “rethink the learning model.” He continues:

“Reformers have largely worked within, rather than on, the system of education. Working within the system has resulted in status-quo preservation, even when reformists felt they were being radical.”

Certainly there is a great deal of truth to this criticism, however I’d like to add to the discussion by pointing throwing some additional ideas into the mix.

Systemic Integrity and Resilience

There can be little doubt that there is a strong and growing tide of discontent amongst some educators in formal education who believe the system needs to change. One need only glance quickly across the myriad of educational blogs, discussion forums, and Twitter for examples of this. And yet despite what are at times extremely vocal expressions of disapproval and calls for change, formal education has remaining largely unchanged in the wake of recent innovations. Why?

To borrow two terms from the life sciences:

Integrity refers to “The ability of an ecosystem to maintain its organization (i.e.,structures, processes, diversity) when confronted with environmental disturbance and change. ”

Resilience refers to “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance without shifting to another regime.”

In my view both of these terms would accurately describe characteristics of formal education. Contemporary educational institutions are in very real terms self-preserving systems.

While progressive mavericks may gain prominence, notoriety and indeed infamy within educational spheres, the reality of their influence at a systemic level is not necessarily as profoundly felt. Extraordinary webs of bureaucracy and a tendency for increasingly conservative philosophies in the upper echelons of institutional hierarchies combine to stifle many of the radical propositions of reformers.

It is little wonder why the disconnect between senior managers and front line instructors is so pronounced and so profound. The two realms are worlds apart.

So really, attempts to change the culture and underlying ideology, despite their sincerity, are largely absorbed by a system in which there not a direct and singular route to the top, but rather an endless interconnected web of catacombs and obscured pathways.

In such an environment it is very understandable how youthful fiery visions of making a difference begin to fade with professional maturity and eventually expire, leaving only jaded cynicism or a Borgian acceptance that “Resistance is futile.”

Some reformers vote with their feet

Continuing his commentary on the relatively minimal impact reformers have had, George argues: “Illich failed to account for how educational institutions are integrated into society.”

There is little doubt in my mind that George knows more about Illich and his work than I do, but just for a moment consider the following: Just because something is integrated into society doesn’t make it right. Perhaps Illich knew full well the extent to which educational systems, and their embedded ideologies, were deeply rooted in society. That doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that these structures should remain, or that he failed to account for them.

Thoreau once wrote, “He who shall be a man, must be a nonconformist.” He also spoke of Civil Disobedience, and the idea that, should we be ethically (or indeed philosophically) opposed to a standing policy or even law, we are morally obligated to defy it.

These individuals didn’t necessarily argue for remaining in a system they felt was inherently defective, they – in one way or another – decided to break from the system completely.

In the case of John Holt, for example, he went on to become one of the most famous and influential advocates of homeschooling.

“Holt’s philosophy was simple: “… the human animal is a learning animal; we like to learn; we are good at it; we don’t need to be shown how or made to do it. What kills the processes are the people interfering with it or trying to regulate it or control it.”

To me, Holt’s views bears close resemblance to George’s critique of traditional views on learning, and the idea that “Learning, occurring under contrived conditions in classrooms, bears only a faint resemblance to real world problems and challenges.”

What I’m really suggesting here, I guess, is that reformers come in many forms. Some choose to remain within the system and fight the good fight, some fall prey to disillusionment and cynicism, and others chose to leave the system entirely.

Educational Sacrilege or a Symbol of Change?

Here’s where things get interesting. Some would consider educators like Holt – who is perhaps the homeschooling movements most well known advocate – as though they are betrayers of learning, hardly reformers of education, and indeed not worthy at all of the title “educator.” Yet if what George is saying is true, and the failure of educational reformers lay with the fact they “have largely worked within, rather than on, the system of education,” then a complete split with the formal educational system is perhaps the ultimate symbol of a desire for change and reform.

Going further, if all this is true, and advocates of alternative methods of learning are indeed worthy of the titles Reformer and Educator, then no survey of the impact of educational reform or pedagogical innovation is truly complete without considering all forms of learning – not just traditional schools and institutions.

Indeed, if I may be so bold as to say, when considering the notions of Networked Learning and Connectivism in their uninhibited practice, homeschooling is perhaps one of the better places to witness it.

That’s a post for another day though…

In discussing the notion of how Connectivism relates to – or can be related to – the learning experiences of children, the conversation began by essentially echoing the sentiments I expressed in my last post.

Paraphrasing the response: In trying to implement a Connectivist model in an authoritarian, curriculum-based, hierarchical structure, educators are effectively trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.  In many regards the two are fundamentally opposed to one another.

You cannot empower learners and encourage them to sieze hold of their own learning experiences while at the same time controlling what they learn, how they interact, who they listen to, the networks they form, the way they are exposed to the information, and the time frame in which they are expected to learn it.  You can’t both give away control and keep it at the same time.

Then Downes went one step further, saying [49:23]:

“We teach our children by separating them from society and putting them in little rooms.  This strikes me as exactly the wrong way to do it…Education ought to be the process of integrating children into society.”

While Siemens took a much softer approach, reaffirming the importance of considering “multiple stakeholders” as well as the role of educational institutions, the implications of Downes’ message were pretty clear.

Thus brings me to my opinion on childhood learning and Connectivism.  The two can absolutely work together, and do it well; but not in traditional, highly structured educational systems.  In my view, Connectivism works best in learner-led environments, and the most learner-friendly environment of them all is the home.

As author, educator and proponent of homeschooling, John Holt, once wrote (source unknown):

“What children need is not new and better curricula but access to more and more of the real world; plenty of time and space to think over their experiences, and to use fantasy and play to make meaning out of them; and advice, road maps, guidebooks, to make it easier for them to get where they want to go (not where we think they ought to go), and to find out what they want to find out.”

Based on the next few minutes of Downes commentary, the above paragraph could have quite easily been said by Stephen as John Holt.

One of the key concepts for many homeschoolers is the importance of connecting interest with real world application.  Instead of lecturing on music, you encourage exploration of musical instruments or go to symphonic concerts; instead of looking at pictures of animals, you go to a zoo or an aquarium, visit a veterinarian or animal shelter.  If parents don’t understand a concept or subject their child is interested in, they don’t fudge it; they seek out someone who does understand it; or better still, explore and learn together.  You don’t teach your child; you facilitate connections with tangible, relevant concepts or people so your child can realise the learning experience themselves.

Furthermore, on several occasions I’ve read or heard Downes emphasize the importance of doing away with the idea that learning is done in a specific place, rather than being natural part of life that occurs anywhere and everywhere.  In my view, by conditioning children to see learning as something you go someplace to do – namely the physical classroom – you imply that learning doesn’t occur outside of there – or worse still, doesn’t need to.

Worse still is the notion of learning being scripted, and the motivation to learn arising from the external in the form of lesson plans with a grade or mark associated with them.  In those conditions, learning becomes something to get through in order to get back to real life, and the focus of the experience directed towards the achievement of a mark rather than the curiosity and fulfillment of the process.

In contrast to this, by tying learning interests back to real life examples and applications – and importantly letting the learner dictate the flow of the experience – with all the tangents that may entail – you reinforce the idea that learning is something to be explored, discovered and enjoyed, rather than endured.