This is a post from my original Mary's M.Ed. Journal blog which I've since discontinued. Much of that blog is specifically related to my study at USQ, however some of the posts contain thoughts, links, and insights that are key to ideas I'm developing here. Rather than flick between the two, I've decided to re-post teh relevant ones here.
Shirley put me onto the concept of transformative learning in her feedback on my project proposal. Bloody brilliant!
Here's one take on it from the Wikipedia link above [accessed 2Sept04] that sums it up quite well:
In other words, transformative learning gives us a model of learning as personal growth - which is what I believe true learning always is. So, what I want to know now is:
Two answers come to mind, and both of them quite cynical.
1 - Preserving academic power structures.
Academia takes itself quite seriously. And, in the world of academia, it's academics who define what's worth knowing and doing. And, not surprisingly, academics historically have tended to be older, male, use reductionist frameworks, and fit the definition of 'specialists' as those who know more and more about less and less, until finally they know everything about nothing.
(As opposed to 'generalists' who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything.)
In other words, what's worth knowing is defined in terms of what those at the top of the heap think they already know. And because of the way academia has evolved, what those at the top of the heap think they already know is defined in terms of domain, discipline, reductionism, and precedent. (All of which is perfectly valid as far as it goes, but still only one way of knowing.)
And what people like this know best is people like them. Older. Who learn the way they learned. Because that's how the system is set up, so to succeed in it you have to work the way it works. What people like this know least is - children.
So, the most important and relevant models are models of how successful academics have been taught. The least important and relevant models are the ones that deal with how children and young people grow and assimilate learning to become useful functioning adults.
Pardon?
2 - Preserving adult power structures.
In our society - in New Zealand anyway, formal education is defined in terms of teaching activity, not learning activity. When we think of the "education" of children and young people it is as something that is imposed on them, compulsorily, for 30 hours a week, whether they like it (or value it, or benefit from it) or not.
Now, before you start with the hate mail, let me hasten to say that this is my perception of the social and institutional aspect of our "education" system, not necessarily of individual teachers within it. There are some schools, some teachers, and some students, who do very well at creating meaning and transforming students' lives, in spite of the way the system is set up. But the structure and financing of formal "education" in New Zealand is institutionalised and collective - about the greatest good for the greatest number, NOT, as the rhetoric would suggest, about individual achievement of potential, about identifying and meeting individual needs, about nurturing the individual, about achieving personal growth.
The exception is the early childhood sector, (which isn't really regarded as "formal" education anyway) where the curriculum document, Te Whariki is framed in terms of the value and transformative effect of the curriculum on the learner. As the introduction to the curriculum explains,
Then they enter the school sector, and we spend the next decade or so training them out of the responsibility for their own learning and way of being. The emphasis changes, from who they are and who they can be, to what they know, and whether they can prove it.
Children and young people intrinsically have all the qualities required for genuine, reflective, transfoirmative, constructive learning. We just train it out of them until they get to graduate level. And then we wonder why they're not mature enough learners to take responsibility for themselves and their own learning. How ironic! It's our socialisation that erodes these qualities in children as they grow up, not any intrinsic lack of them. So, if you want to understand the essential nature of learning and teaching, take a look at early childhood.
And for God's sake, let's put an end to this patronising nonsense about old and young learners being different - it's not the learners that are different, it's how we treat them.
Perhaps one of the best definitions of transformative learning was put forward by O'Sullivan (2003):
"Transformative learning involves experiencing a deep,structural shift in the basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions. It is a shift of consciousness that dramatically and irreversibly alters our way of being in the world. Such a shift involves our understanding of ourselves and our self-locations; our relationships with other humans and with the natural world; our understanding of relations of power in interlocking structures of class, race and gender; our body awarenesses, our visions of alternative approaches to living; and our sense of possibilities for social justice and peace and personal joy." [My emphasis.]
Great stuff, eh?
In other words, transformative learning gives us a model of learning as personal growth - which is what I believe true learning always is. So, what I want to know now is:
- WHY IS THIS ALWAYS REFERENCED TO ADULT EDUCATION?
Isn't this the very essence of childhood and adolescence - to learn in ways that transform us from child to the adult we choose to be? Two answers come to mind, and both of them quite cynical.
1 - Preserving academic power structures.
Academia takes itself quite seriously. And, in the world of academia, it's academics who define what's worth knowing and doing. And, not surprisingly, academics historically have tended to be older, male, use reductionist frameworks, and fit the definition of 'specialists' as those who know more and more about less and less, until finally they know everything about nothing.
(As opposed to 'generalists' who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything.)
In other words, what's worth knowing is defined in terms of what those at the top of the heap think they already know. And because of the way academia has evolved, what those at the top of the heap think they already know is defined in terms of domain, discipline, reductionism, and precedent. (All of which is perfectly valid as far as it goes, but still only one way of knowing.)
And what people like this know best is people like them. Older. Who learn the way they learned. Because that's how the system is set up, so to succeed in it you have to work the way it works. What people like this know least is - children.
So, the most important and relevant models are models of how successful academics have been taught. The least important and relevant models are the ones that deal with how children and young people grow and assimilate learning to become useful functioning adults.
Pardon?
2 - Preserving adult power structures.
In our society - in New Zealand anyway, formal education is defined in terms of teaching activity, not learning activity. When we think of the "education" of children and young people it is as something that is imposed on them, compulsorily, for 30 hours a week, whether they like it (or value it, or benefit from it) or not.
Now, before you start with the hate mail, let me hasten to say that this is my perception of the social and institutional aspect of our "education" system, not necessarily of individual teachers within it. There are some schools, some teachers, and some students, who do very well at creating meaning and transforming students' lives, in spite of the way the system is set up. But the structure and financing of formal "education" in New Zealand is institutionalised and collective - about the greatest good for the greatest number, NOT, as the rhetoric would suggest, about individual achievement of potential, about identifying and meeting individual needs, about nurturing the individual, about achieving personal growth.
The exception is the early childhood sector, (which isn't really regarded as "formal" education anyway) where the curriculum document, Te Whariki is framed in terms of the value and transformative effect of the curriculum on the learner. As the introduction to the curriculum explains,
This curriculum ...is about the individual child. Its starting point is the learner and the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that the child brings to their experiences. ...Gosh, it makes them sound almost human!
Each community to which a child belongs, whether it is a family home or an early childhood setting outside the home, provides opportunities for new learning to
be fostered: for children to reflect on alternative ways of doing things; make connections across time and place; establish different kinds of relationship;
and encounter different points of view. These experiences enrich children’s lives and provide them with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions they need to tackle
new challenges. ...
The learning environment in the early childhood years is different from that in the school sector. ...This curriculum emphasises the critical role of socially and culturally mediated learning and of reciprocal and responsive relationships for children with people, places, and things. Children learn through collaboration with adults and peers, through guided participation and observation of others, as well as through individual exploration and reflection.
Te Whariki, page 9
Then they enter the school sector, and we spend the next decade or so training them out of the responsibility for their own learning and way of being. The emphasis changes, from who they are and who they can be, to what they know, and whether they can prove it.
Children and young people intrinsically have all the qualities required for genuine, reflective, transfoirmative, constructive learning. We just train it out of them until they get to graduate level. And then we wonder why they're not mature enough learners to take responsibility for themselves and their own learning. How ironic! It's our socialisation that erodes these qualities in children as they grow up, not any intrinsic lack of them. So, if you want to understand the essential nature of learning and teaching, take a look at early childhood.
And for God's sake, let's put an end to this patronising nonsense about old and young learners being different - it's not the learners that are different, it's how we treat them.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment