Following up on my previous blog post about John Seely Brown’s lecture on ““A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change”, I wonder what are the changes needed for schools to reflect how real everyday learning takes place.

Based on JSB’s observations, real learning takes place when there is passion. Passion as I have mentioned previously is the fuel that drives the learning process and, if I may add, the learning aptitude. The existing framework of schools today do not encourage the passionate pursuit of a subject or a skill. Most learning done in school is done in pursuit of examinations or test scores. Not exactly, the kind of goal that will excite most students. So how do we create passionate interests and pursuits if schools today still stick to standard, highly compartmentalized “subjects” that must be covered within a given frame of time and with the ultimate aim of getting their students to pass tests?

How do we also change the in-built time element of traditional schools. The time element concerns a few aspects of traditional schools. The curriculum is almost always dictated by a time element specifying when the curriculum starts and when it ends. This is in turn usually dictated by pressures to meet the demand of summative assessments to meet administrative needs.

The second aspect of time is the breaking of the learning period into fixed, bits usually called periods. Does real learning take place in fixed bits of time or does learning take place according to the learners’ needs? This fixed bits of time are in turn cocooned within the official school (read, learning) hours.

The other aspect of time is that most schools run on the Piagetian approach where learning is closely linked to developmental age (usually conveniently implemented according to the child’s age). Through this implementation, students are placed in the same levels regardless of whether they are of the same ability or otherwise. In general, a seven year old must stick with a seven year old. Do people learn only from people of their age group?

Lastly, do the physical structure of schools also lend to an a real learning environment? Do the walls that compartmentalized the adults in the schools and the students from each other encouraged the formation of groups of passionate people with common learning interests? This reminds me of Marshall McLuhan’s (in?)famous dictum, “The medium is the message.”

These are just some questions that come to my mind due to JSB’s lecture. Do you think those questions are relevant for schools or are JSB’s ideas only for the more (perhaps) fluid adult world and their organizations? If you think JSB’s ideas are relevant to schools, are there other questions that we should ask ourselves?

“In Hamburg, we had to play for eight hours.”

- John Lennon

I have just read a book called “The Outliers: the story of success” (click cover on the right), written by Malcolm Gladwell. The book is a study of success. The writer tries to zero on the factors that leads to success. One of these factors is what he calls the “10,000-hour rule”. In his book, he quoted neurologist, Daniel Levitin, who said:

“The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being world-class expert – in anything…In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, and what have you, this number comes up again and again.”

Levitin was again quoted to say:

“…no one has yet to found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery.”

The Beatles, perhaps, the greatest band the world has ever seen, paid their dues in the strip clubs where they played for hours on end. John Lennon described this in an interview:

“We got better and got more confidence. We couldn’t help it with all the experience playing all night long. It was handy them being foreign. We had to try even harder, put our heart and soul into it, to get ourselves over.

In Liverpool, we’d only ever done one-hour sessions, and we just used to do our best numbers, the same ones, at every one. In Hamburg, we had to play for eight hours so we really had to find a new way of playing.”

Pete Best, who was the Beatles drummer at the time, was quoted as saying:

“We played seven nights a week (emphasis mine). At first we played almost non-stop till twelve-thirty, when it closed, but as we got better the crowds stayed till two most mornings.”

The last word perhaps about the effect of their time in Hamburg is from Phil Norman who wrote their biography, “Shout!” He wrote:

“They were no good on stage when they went there and they were very good when they came back….They learned not only stamina. They had to learn an enormous amount of numbers – cover versions of everything you can think of, not just rock and roll, a bit of jazz too. They weren’t disciplined on stage at all before that. But when they came back, they sounded like no one else. It was the making of them.”

What about Bill Gates? He started doing real-time programming since he was an eight-grader back in 1968. Gates said this about that period:

“It was my obsession… I skipped athletics. I went up there (Information Services Inc.) at night. We were programming on weekends. It would be a rare week that we wouldn’t get twenty or thirty hours in.”

By the time he dropped out of Harvard, Gates had been programming non-stop for seven years. As Gladwell puts it, “He was way past ten thousand hours.” We all know who Bill Gates is today.

What about Singapore schools? We make our students sit quietly for hours for much of the school year. We discourage them from asking too much or being curious for most of their time in school. We also teach them to wait for notes and answers. We also trained them to work for individual success. We drill them fully for the examinations for hours. We do these for at least ten years until they are sixteen.

We all know how well our students do in examinations and international surveys like TIMSS!

But, with the ten thousand hours spent on such things, will the Singapore student be able to acquire the soft skills required for life? Will they be creative problem-solvers? Will they be able to learn independently? I believe we know the answers to these questions.

Seems like Marshall McLuhan is right. “The medium is the message”. But at least we have something in common with the Beatles and Bill Gates.

In my last post I mentioned that the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore has set up a mock classroom at Raffles Place as part of its recruitment drive to get more people to join the teaching profession. I also said that the layout of the mock classroom with its neat rows of tables and chairs indicates the kind of activities that take place in the classroom. Any serious educator will know that such classrooms represents a certain paradigm that the owner of such a classroom has about what schooling ought to be. Thousands of Singaporeans have gone through such an environment, myself included. We all know that such a classroom layout typify a schooling environment in Singapore where the teacher does most of the talking while the students are expected to sit quietly and give their attention to what is said by the teachers.

While the MOE is lauding itself with the latest TIMSS release, the reality is that the Singapore education system, the Singapore school and the Singapore school principals and teachers have only one thing in mind; the examinations. Schooling in Singapore is, even after acknowledging the diverse views about what is education, not about education. It is about or examination or test preparation.

The static layout of the Raffles Place classroom suggest a uni-directional approach to teaching. Very old-fashioned and certainly mostly irrelevant in this day and age. It is irrelevant on many counts. John Dewey and Marshall McLuhan (click on the book cover on the left if you want to learn more about McLuhan’s ideas) has already argued that what students are allowed to do, that is what they will learned. If all they get to do most of the times is to try and sit quietly and intently, then all they learn is to sit quietly and intently, and also total obedience and deference to authority.

The neat rows with each chair and desk separated by a space also implies that little team work or co-operative learning is done in the Singapore classroom. This is again easily proven if you ask any Singapore student of today or yesteryear about what goes on in the classroom. How do we expect to produce team workers or even a harmonious society if everyone sits in his little island?

Instead, what we will produce are people who will just await instructions about what they ought to do and how they ought to do it. Forget about cultivating the spirit of inquiry. Even in Science they do not teach scientific inquiry, they teach FACTS! Forget about independent learning too. It does not take place. The only form of independent learning valued is the mugging that one does on your own to ace the examinations. We will produce great muggers willing to work very late. This parallel is seen at the work place where workers in Singapore stay up till very late but showing little in the way of productivity. The Raffles Place classroom will produce people with little initiative. They will expect to be told of the only way of doing things, just as there is one way to answer the questions in the examinations in school.

Worse, as I have quoted from Schmoker in my last post, the continuation of this paradigm of schooling as promoted by the MOE at Raffles Place, will hinder quality teaching and learning from taking place. Teachers and schools will see no need to change their paradigm to fit the present world. The methods of yore still works fine because our students still are among the best in the world based on their performance in international examination scores and wonderful international surveys like TIMSS. We have come to believe our own delusions.