Teaching or Learning?

I have been sitting here with the feet up reading “the answer to how is yes” by Peter Block. The book is leading me to think and reflect on all of the measurable things we get focused on in life. One of the things that I am pondering is education and learning. In some of our own conversations we have been questioning whether the current testing methods are effective and the best thing for children and youth which I would like to continue in here in this blog post.

What I am pondering is what is it that really lies behind testing? Is it to show who is better than another? Who is smarter than another? Who is harder working than another? Is it about measurements and statistics that can be reported back to authorities to maintain funding? Or is it about motivating children and youth to study and learn?

I suppose in some ways we cannot just choose one of the drivers and say “that’s it” but rather choose to explore each one as depending on what angle we come from we can find each present. I want to consider the last one listed which is whether one of the drivers behind testing is to motivate children and youth to study and learn more.

If this is the case then it seems quite sad that the modern world lost hope in people and in the natural passion and desire each person has to live and succeed. I have studied Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y with a corporate or workplace lense and am only thinking about it now within the context of learning institutions.

In his book, "The Human Side of Enterprise" (1960) Douglas McGregor examined theories on behavior of individuals at work, and he has formulated two models which he calls Theory X and Theory Y.

Theory X Assumptions

• The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can.
• Because of their dislike for work, most people must be controlled and threatened before they will work hard enough.
• The average human prefers to be directed, dislikes responsibility, is unambiguous, and desires security above everything.
• These assumptions lie behind most organizational principles today, and give rise both to "tough" management with punishments and tight controls, and "soft" management which aims at harmony at work.
• Both these are "wrong" because man needs more than financial rewards at work, he also needs some deeper higher order motivation - the opportunity to fulfill himself.
• Theory X managers do not give their staff this opportunity so that the employees behave in the expected fashion.

Theory Y Assumptions

• The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest.
• Control and punishment are not the only ways to make people work, man will direct himself if he is committed to the aims of the organization.
• If a job is satisfying, then the result will be commitment to the organization.
• The average man learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but to seek responsibility.
• Imagination, creativity, and ingenuity can be used to solve work problems by a large number of employees.
• Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average man are only partially utilized.

When considering the theory X and Y assumptions it would appear reasonable to say that the current school systems at large are founded more on the assumptions of Theory X. This can be seen from the strict timing and bells to the formal seating in a classroom. My son Shaughan just turned 6 and his lunch break is from 12.39pm to 1.28pm. I think this is utterly daft. As if the one minute at each end really makes a difference. I don’t know how it works at home with you but precise timing hit the wall years ago. What is this doing to how a child views the day and what is important?

I do realize that children have a lot to learn and they need boundaries and limitations but this is more like a sandbox than a set of rules. Because of this perception/view teachers have been turned into managers instead of educators of facilitators of learning.

Many teachers are more focused on making sure they have delivered the curriculum that is the “right” and “proven” way to teach as if all children where the same. This is not a rant on teachers but rather a challenge to the institution to think about how they are thinking. When a group of people agree that there is a right and best practice of teaching then anyone who does not comply is seen as dysfunctional. The people who do not succeed in this system are seen as the “others” or outsiders. More effort rules and regulations are then established to make the dysfunctional more functional. The energy is focused on changing the children to fit within the establishment and to meet the institutions goals.

What would it be like if schools and learning institutions began to lie closer to the assumptions of theory Y? If teachers began to believe that all children want to learn and succeed and be their best then I believe that when a certain child was not learning the teacher would stand back and change their approach as many times as was necessary until the child learned.

The more that a teacher can believe that every child has a unique contribution and inner mission I believe that they will find the inner resource and commitment to become curious and flexible to help each succeed. This would allow the secondary non-test related measurables to come to the fore.

More later…

Comments

[Mark Dowds]

Adrian, do you have access to that article? could it be scanned and logged here?

[brillant]

Mark, it is interesting that the times had an article recently on this. research has shown that children thrive educationally in an atmosphere of play, trust and support such as the Montessori model than the traditional educational system. the culture of schools is much more based on one of comparison and fear than trust and affirmation. i will post on this over the next few day - the culture of fear in education