While I cannot point to research right this minute, I am willing to bet that every human has experienced the joy of discovering something new. The key to that joy is in self-discovery, as opposed to forced learning. The truly rich figure out how to establish and stay within an environment that provides such self-discovery throughout their lives. As our valedictorian says, our current system results in most people whose goal is to get out of the system relatively unscathed. A classic case of opportunity lost.

Great point, Judi. Where, indeed, has the messing about gone?

Decades ago Dr. Donald D. Durrell, then Dean of the graduate school of education at Boston University said to me “It’s the output skills that count [writing, speaking] not the input skills… not a lot happen [in the way of learning] until the student goes to work.”

Another under appreciate insight is the benefit of collaborative learning. As far back as 35A.D. Seneca the Younger observed in his letter to his pal Lucilius “Docendo Discimus” — when we teach, we learn. In the late 1700s the Scot, Andrew Bell, wrote to book on the benefits of students teaching one another; in the late 1800′s the French had a system of “ecole mutuelle” with peer-team learning, in the past 100 years we’ve had Slavin at Johns Hopkins, and the Johnsons at the University of Minnesota with centers for cooperative learning, and Durrell at BU who published numerous studies on the benefits of peer team learning.

A unifying theory underlying ALL of the above is the work of Lev Vygotsky [who died of TB in Moscow at age 38 in 1934] and whose pioneering work lay untranslated for some 40 years. Vygotsky, in his book THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, identifies a profound connection between oral language (speech) and cognition (learning), i.e. the one talking is the one learning. Hence the power of project-based learning (lots of oral interaction), peer-team learning and cooperative learning (Durrell, Slavin, Johnson, et al.) ecole mutuelle, and, indeed, Seneca the Younger’s Docendo Discimuis.

Tomorrow’s effective teachers, mentors, and learnng guides, will best serve the following generation by arranging for learning to occur, and that may, on occasion, involve “teaching.”

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog …

I am interested in the ideas you expressed above and want to add that we need to include a way to foster working and learning together and to be sure everyone has the opportunity to be introduced to some of the best minds of the past and present, especially through literature. When we talk about children having more control over their own learning, most people think we’re talking about learning absent mentors, classical/cultural artifacts, and self discipline. I don’t think I’m as romantic as Rousseau but I strongly believe that all human beings feel both thrilled and satisfied when learning. And of course I’m referring to Piaget’s definition of learning and not school “learning.”

David Hawkins referred to “messing about” in science and how important it is that children (and adults) have lots of time to mess about with materials before they are introduced to any scientific information. That they have the opportunity to play, experiment and theorize as they mess with water, sand, tubes, etc. I think this is true in all domains and disciplines.

Where is the messing about? It’s all but disappeared.

You’re much deeper thinker than poor old me, but what are the underlying assumptions about people in general that would support the type or reform you are discussing?

In my observations there is a 85/15 rule. 15% of the population will take the responsibility to get involved to the point you’re talking about. The other 85% will have to be constantly pushed, cajoled or otherwise motivated. 85% of the population doesn’t want to think about or deal withe the effort required to make the kind of change you’re describing. So how do you move such a dramatic change to the education system forward?

One other aspect of your discussion makes me uncomfortable and maybe I just don’t understand your perspective. “Cultural learning would be homogenized”? I’m not sure I would want that. So I will need to hear more.

You also describe some behavioral issues in with the educational discussion. Are you saying changing the educational method is required to affect change in young adults so that they understand and accept responsibility for raising their children? My experience is a little different. I see the youngest parents accepting and showing more responsibility in raising their children properly from a behavioral and cultural perspective. It may be a regional thing as I have spent considerable time in the south and mid-west and see a more conservative social norm than is exhibited in the northeast or the the west coast or is reported since the mainstream media is dominated from those two regions.

Anyway its an interesting discussion even though I’m not as eloquent as yourself or Dan.

In particular, I appreciate O’Rourke’s observation that public education provided a crucial transition path out of the chaotic mix of cultures and education that we as a nation began with. But that is not the challenge of education now, nor is it the method best tuned to the lifestyles present and the technology available. I smiled at his reference to hiring Aritstotle, as I often use this image of a gathering of students around a sage, wise, loving mentor under trees on a mountainside, in a public library, or in a corporate data center when trying to help people see what I see for education of the future. Note that such a model of education is a free market, performance-driven model capable of being fine-tuned to the learning styles and needs of of the pupils, as well as the expertise of the teacher.

The implications of your statement, “… desirable for each citizen to be an active part of the education system” bear some discussion. It’s easy to think that what you are saying is akin to parent involvement in schools, as simple as chaperoning a field trip, or as intensive as committing 2 hours in the classroom per week. But that is not what I hear when I read that, and I suspect you do not either. I am not fully convinced of this, but very close to believing that public education is not a right. It’s a personal obligation. The access to tools (public broadband), societal understanding and support, and buy-in of companies of all sizes would have to happen first, but the perception of education as a public right somehow guaranteed by the Constitution is what leads repeatedly back to all the ills of the current system. How can a government at any level stand behind a system that is 400 million unique educational objectives, all on different time schedules, all with different standards for comprehension and completion? Or fund such a system if the sources of information and training (i.e. the end point of the money trail) are distributed throughout the globe?

The benefits of the new system—whatever it becomes—will be measured not in academic criteria, but in peace, self fulfillment, understanding, collaboration, and plurality. These are the criteria of global citizens, the only true end point of any education system. Do you agree?