In 1981 the Labour MP George Foulkes drafted the ‘Control of Space Invaders (and other electronic games) Bill’ because he thought it was addictive and causing deviant behaviour. The bill was defeated – but by only 20 votes in the House of Commons.Mr Foulkes was obviously very persuasive in his speech about the effects of games on the young:
“They play truant, miss meals, and give up other normal activity to play “space invaders”. They become crazed, with eyes glazed, oblivious to everything around them, as they play the machines. It is difficult to appreciate unless one has seen it for oneself. I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members who have not seen it should go incognito to an arcade or café in their own areas and see the effect that it is having on young people.”
It’s tempting to laugh, but recall that there are still serious voices urging control over childrens’ use of video games or online access in general. Anybody who watches children using online resources either in play or study will know how enormous the potential is for their learning and creativity. Of course, most schools ban mobile use and constrain use of social media and internet access, and there are obvious risks to be managed, but it means that the enormous potential is untapped.
For the first chapter or so of [amazon_link id=”1909979015″ target=”_blank” ]Open[/amazon_link] by David Price, I was disappointed, although (because?) it had been praised so enormously by people I respect. The first part sets out the case that we are churning out mass produced children for the post-industrial age, and it isn’t working. The children are as bored as can be, the testing and league tables distort incentives for schools and discourage them from innovating, and by the time they get to 18 young people have been drilled into expecting to be told whatever they need to know to jump through the next hoop. No politician can risk being honest about this. Of course, this is all true. But it’s been known for years, decades even. (I even wrote about it myself in 2001.)
[amazon_image id=”1909979015″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Open: How we’ll work, live and learn in the future[/amazon_image]
But before long, I was thoroughly enjoying this book. Part of the enjoyment comes from agreeing so wholeheartedly with what David Price has to say about the need for a complete re-engineering of so many organisations – schools and businesses so that they face outwards, engage with all relevant communities, and above all enable their students or employees to become creative and enthusiastic learners. Schools in particular are set up to do exactly the opposite – testing of individuals is seen as the only way to measure educational success yet it actively discourages collaboration, a key skill in the workplace.
Price urges readers to just get on with remodelling their organisations. “We are beginning to realise that we don’t have to wait for those who govern locally or nationally to act on our behalf. We now have the means to act autonomously.” Of course there are constraints – schools have to jump over the league table and testing hurdles. But there’s scope to just go ahead and remodel the approach to learning beyond that.
The book touches on MOOCs, quoting Arthur C Clarke: “Teachers who can be replaced by a machine should be.” Price, like me, believes that some successors to today’s MOOCs will overturn universities in the way file-sharing did for albums and the record industry. Universities are vital civic and educational institutions but they will need to find new delivery models both in what they offer online and what they offer face-to-face.
There are lots of examples of open organisations in [amazon_link id=”1909979015″ target=”_blank” ]Open[/amazon_link]. I was especially struck by a quotation from Patrick McKenna of Ingenious Media: “We give a lot of our knowledge away… The reason we don’t worry about giving that knowledge away is because most people can’t implement what they know. The capital value of something these days is the ability to implement it rather than to create it originally.” This is a profound point with lots of implications.
Finally, the book notes the disjuncture between life and politics: “If schools are coming directly into competition with the learning opportunities available in the informal social space, it has to be said that this is a pressure which barely registers within the political discourse. The gaping hole in the middle of the public debate on schooling is that we can’t even agree on what schools are actually for.” Preparation for jobs? Child development? National economic competitiveness? Civic cohesion? Policy mushes all of these together and compels children to find their own way through the obstacle course in between them and the thrill of learning. Anybody with a teenager will know how thoroughly they’ve had all the enthusiasm beaten out of them by a decade of compulsory schooling for tests.
The book is slightly prone to educationalese but it’s very clearly written. Even if you start out agreeing – as I do – the many examples are interesting and useful. I’ll be giving this book to quite a few people, I think.
As a final treat, it introduced me to this fabulous course.
Hi Diane,
The course of Walter Lewin at MIT that you put at the end is a great reminder that education can be done and presented differently (and this was before MOOCs).
I have been thinking a lot of the subject lately either through my work, my readings or my education.
I’ll apologize first because my comment will be long.
Some months ago, I’ve watched some lectures done by Richard Feynman about Physics (The Characters of Physical Law). It was eye-opening because Dr Feynman talked about newtonian physics not only from a scientific perspective but also from a historical one. He somehow humanized all these scientists and their work.
I mean when I was a kid, they taught us that Newton computed the Gravitational constant and the Earth mass. I know that Newton was a genius. But how the hell did he do it ? In the 17th century !
I also discovered the book “Against the Gods” thanks to you.
It’s an absolutely a fascinating because it also shows that the mathematicians were not some abstract loners. They were trying to solve real problems and the abstraction has a direct link to their lives.
Fermat’s triangle, Gaussian distribution etc … These are amazing concepts, but as a kid, they didn’t relate to anything.
I only discovered as an adult the fascinating lives of these scientists and how they did it.
The way I learned technical sciences was like teaching a religion or prophecy.
At the end of a school year, we could tell that we “knew” about about math or physics or history, but we didn’t “knew” it at a gut level.
And this is not only on technical subject. One of the reasons, I didn’t want to learn music was because the learning process involved memorizing symbols before touching an instrument. How can it be fun ?
Schools (on all levels) teach what people ought to know and most of the time in some abstract and boring manner.
Another issue was that teachers are supposed to know everything and have an answer to everything. Kids cannot question what is presented to them.
A friend told me this story. He asked his teacher why “x” is always the variable/unknown in equations. The teacher told him “it’s because it’s always been x” and invited him to shut up. It was off-putting instead of giving him a lesson in life : “we don’t know everything and maybe we can find some answers exploring”.
I believe I’m not alone in this. School only teaches answers. They don’t teach how to question and not to be afraid.
Alan Kay like to say that “A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points.”.
Schools don’t do that. They somehow actively try to stop kids from doing that.
And now the world is changing.
What is the purpose of education ? What is the role of school? What is knowledge? (I like the Patrick McKenna’s quote)
PS : sorry for being long and maybe off-beat.
I so wholly agree with you! It makes me despair to see my son soooooo bored by lessons at school, and I can’t blame him even though he has to do well in the exams.
The other depressing thing is that so many of us agree about the points you make about inspiring people to learn through practical relevance, the importance of experience and self-directed learning, and have done ever since John Dewey wrote about education a century ago! Why is it so hard to shift the public discourse?
Pingback: The education factory | The Enlightened Economist
File-sharing “overturned” albums and the record industry because people wanted to listen to the music in the files. But most people do not want to learn the things that schools say they should be learning. They want a credential. The “successors to today’s MOOCs” will be limited to a niche market unless they can 1) find a way to be an accepted but cheaper credential and/or 2) if they can provide some of the non-academic attractions of educational institutions (which might unfairly be characterized as sex and drugs and rock and roll, and sports).
I agree that credentials are a key motive but I think you underestimate people’s desire to learn – just maybe not ‘subjects’ as conventionally defined. The successors won’t look like MOOCs but will change formal education substantially. Anyway, that’s my prediction, having seen digital possibilities cut a swathe through other sectors.