When I was a consultant for a school in Bandung, Indonesia, a parent came up to me for a short chat. His children had been raised in Australia and were adjusting to the school they were in. He told me that his daughter had asked him why she had had to learn the Sundanese language and whether it would be useful later when she joins the workforce. He said that he told his daughter that he did not think it was important to learn Sundanese. He went on to say that there were many things that she had to learn in school that was not important for later employment. He told me, almost apologetically, that he had always tried to be honest with his children. I knew he was right then because here was a man who has been out working in the real world, and he knew that much of what is taught in schools today would have very little relevance to the real world.

In my last posting, “Where are we heading?”, I suggested that perhaps most schools are not doing a good job of preparing students to be part of the real world; to be part of the future work force. Much of the skills that are required in the future workplace like “abstract reasoning, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration, attributes associated with so-called “knowledge work”, are seldom consciously taught and emphasized in many, if not most, of schools today. These skills require students to “do” not just sit, listen, memorize and regurgitate.

Marshall McLuhan, who coined the phrase, “The medium is the message”, in his 1964 book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man,  advocated what Dewey had already advocated before, and that is we learn what we do. When McLuhan said that the medium is the message he meant controversially that the medium in which we function will determine what we learn and not the content. For example if in a Geography classroom the teacher lectures the class about plate tectonics, Marshall would contend that what is learnt by the students in the class is not plate tectonics but obedience and deference to authority. This is because that is all that the students do in the class (the medium). McLuhan would probably argue that it is fallacious to say that schools today teach anything else except obedience and deference to authority.

If McLuhan’s (and Dewey’s) argument is correct, then even more so that the current and most pervasive model of teaching in use schools today is in need of a great overhaul. Where is the abstract reasoning that is asked for of the student today? Where is the problem-solving? Where is the communication and collaboration? Even in Singapore, a country that is often lauded for the success of the education system, such skills are seldom taught or students are seldom put into situations that require the use of such skills in the school setting.

One may ask if these skills are student-friendly or to put it another way, are students able to function in a school that emphasizes the use of such skills? Perhaps some clues can be found in the way that students interact with their peers today. Just look at the social networking, blogging and instant messaging phenomena that is so popular with teenagers today. What are the skills that we see teenagers using when they interact with their friends and peers from all over the world? I believe schools can take learn from this world wide need to communicate and collaborate. If teenagers today learn the skills of the future workforce today it is most likely not from schools but from their peers online.

Stumble! for WP