Our ‘knowledge’ is different to theirs

Recently David Didau wrote about ‘neo-progressivism’. His post summarises the traditionalists’ current critique of progressive education. Apparently, Didau believes in social justice, wants children to be creative, collaborative and critical and grow up “to be tolerant, compassionate, open-minded, curious, cooperative and to help leave the world in a better condition than that in which they found it.” Before we mistake Didau for a modern-day Dewey, he quickly establishes his traditionalist credentials by declaring that “knowledge underpins all of those attributes.” He upholds the traditionalists’ two-stage prescription for education: students should acquire knowledge, then use that knowledge as an object for critical thought.

Traditionalists think knowledge is their trump card in debate with progressives. In their caricature, we focus on skills and let children learn what they want. They don’t realise that progressives are as interested in knowledge as traditionalists, but our ‘knowledge’ is different to theirs. The traditionalists’ concept of knowledge cannot lead to all those worthy goals Didau aspires to achieve.

Looking at the traditionalists’ two-stage model, it seems obvious to me that if you need knowledge before being able to think critically, there must be a point when a child has attained sufficient knowledge (or, as Greg Ashman puts it here, “reached a certain level of expertise”) to move on to the second stage. What’s more, a serious theory of learning would be able to provide the conditions necessary to make that move. When I asked about this on social media, Didau replied disdainfully.

Children have enough knowledge to think critically when they can think critically. This is a curious response, which on one level is laughable. In an earlier post, Didau asserts that “the more you know, the better you can think,” hinting at a more complex relationship than the two-stage theory allows for. Progressives would want to add its converse: the better the critical thinking, the more knowledge acquired.

However, there is a more profound problem with the traditionalists’ concept of knowledge. They define knowledge in a purely cognitive way isolated from the developmental and social aspects of learning:

[Mind] is regarded as something existing in isolation, with mental states and operations that exist independently. Knowledge is then regarded as an external application of purely mental existences to the things to be known, or else as a result of the impressions which this outside subject matter makes on mind, or as a combination of the two. Subject matter is then regarded as something complete in itself; it is just something to be learned or known, either by the voluntary application of mind to it or through the impressions it makes on mind. (Dewey, Democracy and Education, p. 153)

In their impoverished model, traditionalists reduce knowledge to a body of disjointed facts and hollow verbal definitions that the student is expected to commit to memory (or desks-2“bank in long term memory” in the traditionalists’ crude terminology). Curiosity and open-mindedness are limited to the approved canon of facts; critical and creative thinking become the manipulation of those facts in vacuous scholastic reasoning; and learning turns into a purely intellectual and passive pursuit.

For the progressive, knowledge is stripped of meaning if the process by which it has been developed is missing. At the centre of this process of coming to know lies students’ activity. Knowledge then becomes “an outcome of inquiry and a resource in further inquiry” (Democracy and Education, p. 220) and, as such, takes its place in critical and creative thinking that informs and is informed by an active process of learning.

Also missing from the traditionalists’ concept of knowledge is the social side of learning. Knowledge acquisition is something engaged in by individual minds in direct relationship to the teacher. Students might check with each other that they have the correct interpretation or engage in a limited analytical debate. But these are stunted forms of collaboration and cooperation, which originate in self-interest and are just as likely to lead to selfishness and feelings of superiority as they are to Didau’s aims of tolerance and compassion. Only when the individual mind acts in the interests of the social advancement of knowledge, as happens in progressive classrooms, can collaboration and cooperation take on their full significance.

Lastly, we turn to Didau’s aims of social justice and teaching children to take responsibility for their world. Here again, it is the progressive model that secures these outcomes by promoting intellectual freedom. We leave the last word to Dewey (who, it might surprise the traditionalists to know, had more to say on knowledge in Democracy and Education than any other subject):

The individual who has a question which being really a question to him instigates his curiosity, which feeds his eagerness for information that will help him cope with it, and who has at command an equipment which will permit these interests to take effect, is intellectually free. Whatever initiative and imaginative vision he possesses will be called into play and control his impulses and habits. His own purposes will direct his actions. Otherwise, his seeming attention, his docility, his memorizings and reproductions, will partake of intellectual servility. Such a condition of intellectual subjection is needed for fitting the masses into a society where the many are not expected to have aims or ideas of their own, but to take orders from the few set in authority. It is not adapted to a society which intends to be democratic.” (Dewey, Democracy and Education, pp. 355-356)

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Our ‘knowledge’ is different to theirs”

  1. Cognitive scientists are in consensus that a student (non-expert) brain is limited almost entirely to thinking about knowledge that can be recalled quickly and accurately from long term memory. They say some material (“exact” facts and equations) take substantial effort and practice to memorize. As with many findings of science, that may not be the answer anyone preferred to hear, but can effective teaching be constructed on a platform of denying consensus science?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I think the writer is confusing the expert researcher with a pupil learning a subject. Certainly, when a researcher looks at a proposition they can ask questions about it, for example what were the results of the agrarian revolution in eighteenth century Britain, and then research this – but unless they know about the agrarian revolution, for example, they cannot ask the question. And school students are only likely to know about the agrarian revolution if they have been directly taught about it – it isn’t really something a young person would be interested in at face value. You cannot, therefore, rely on the process of discovery to produce knowledge about the agrarian revolution in a school student, nor can you rely on discovery and co-operative learning to tease out all the knowledge of the agrarian revolution to allow someone to think about it, nor assume that such discovery learning will fix the knowledge in long term memory. You need to teach it to the group and then test what they know, over a long period of time so that the knowledge is rehearsed and stored in a way that makes it retrievable – and discuss that knowledge with them, which also helps to practise retrieval. Dewey’s definition of intellectual freedom can only exist if a person ‘commands the equipment’ to question – that equipment includes knowledge of facts, held in long term memory, otherwise it won’t function.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. All learning is social in process, all knowledge is socially acquired. One question that arises is what are the structures which are evident within the social process? How do these structures both affect what is learned and how that knowledge is learned? Or, is it possible to fully disconnect the ‘how’ from the ‘what’?

    Like

  4. Very interesting, thank you for writing this. There should be more even-sided debate on these issues. However, can I just query your point about ‘process’? Are you in fact arguing that some knowledge is less real than other knowledge, because the student didn’t acquire it in the right way? That someone who learnt something in a ‘traditional’ way does not really ‘know’ it as much as someone who has learnt something in a ‘progressive’ way?

    Like

    1. Not sure this counts as even handed. To be clear I do fall in opposition to the authors arguments having moved from Progressive to a more Traditional approach. It is frustrating to read obvious strawman arguments rather then engaging with the key points.

      Which needs more emphasis – critical/analytical thinking or core knowledge
      When does discovery become more powerful then directed. (Obviously there is a spectrum). I believe Sweller argues it is when someone is an expert but that then needs defining. Personally I have never taught anyone even close to being that. (I teach 16-18 year olds with SEN though)
      What makes a more effective curriculum. A clearly defined group of knowledge which will always be inadequate but can be shared and easily analyzed/reinforced or a more unpredictable but far reaching approach in which students can explore there own ideas. (I want to say skills here as well but I think someone else could better define it).
      What process facilitates well structured behavioral systems
      and the big one
      What does well run (thats important) research and our current evidence base support. This needs to compare approaches and has to consider opportunity costs.

      Obviously I am biased but I have tried to tone it down. I do come from a science background and find concrete arguments vastly more useful for exploring.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s