What is the purpose of education? What are your pedagogical beliefs?

The purpose of education is unique to schools and individuals since children have a range of needs. Therefore, the purpose of education may be to have structure in their lives, interaction, a role model or to develop themselves as a whole, which highlights the importance of having high quality teachers that are able to adapt. Ball (2013) argues that no education system can be better than the quality of its teachers. However, this is a recent development since around 80 years ago education meant gaining knowledge in order to get a job and for the country’s economic gains (Anonymous, 2015). Before the subject based National curriculum in 1988 most teachers had an individual autonomous teaching approach since the national curriculum had not standardised education which meant that they had more freedom to tailor their lessons to the needs of their pupils (Waite, 2011; Rawling, 2010). However, schooling during the 60’s and 70’s was unlikely to look at the holistic development of the child and the purpose of education was to impart knowledge in order to get a job and therefore, a didactic approach would have been the pedagogical method. Dewey (1928, cited in Cope and Kalantzis, 2015) and Montessori (1912, cited in Cope and Kalantzis, 2015) recognised that within education we were teaching children to conform whereas we should have been developing practices of active social participation. The principle of slavery still pervaded pedagogy since the traditional view of education was that children know nothing and the teachers were the pillars of knowledge and know everything (Freire, 1970, cited in Aliakbari and Faraji, 2011; Cope and Kalantzis, 2015).
Since the standardisation of education in 1988 the political focus was to raise our standards as a whole country and compete internationally and compare education systems (Morris, 2015). This is still a significant factor in education today because it increases pressure on schools and teachers to focus on learner’s outcomes compared to pupil’s holistic development which prioritises academic achievement as being the focus of education. This suggests that other purposes of education, for example, learning digital skills or social and emotional support had too little focus. Donaldson (2015) however does recognise the importance of learning knowledge but with contribution of discipline-based learning, skills and dispositions that will help them meet today challenges within society. Using a traditional method of teaching, for example, a didactic teaching method, in order to teach a lot of children knowledge that they may need to be successful in exams will enable the government to reduce costs on teachers, high-stakes scores will rise and procedures may be standardised (Hartley, 2003, cited in Wedell, 2005; Pring, 2001 and Alexander, 2004, cited in Waite, 2011). However, “Pring (2001) and Alexander (2004) criticise using more directive teaching methods, as a method to raise standards, since it resembles a technicist approach to teaching and learning” (Waite, 2011, p.65).

The developments in technology decreases the effectiveness of traditional pedagogy because pupils no longer need to retain a lot of facts since they can ‘google’ them however we now need to teach them the skills to be critical researchers which Holmes, Wiemand and Bonn (2015) deem to be a vital skill within the modern world. However, De Bono (1992, cited in Kivunja, 2015, p.380) who is one of the world’s leading experts on teaching critical thinking skills, states “Experience suggests that thinking skills are most effectively taught if there are taught directly and deliberately” although significant research has been conducted since 1992 and therefore thinking skills are known to also be effectively taught using a pedagogical approach that allows students the opportunity to think critically in an environment that encouraged every day life disscussions conducted within the language and knowledge of the students (Foley, 2007, cited in Aliakbari, and Faraji, 2011).

Although, within the current education system, most exams still require pupils to retain information and they are not encouraged to develop their technological skills. However, in American education, when the impact computers have in the classroom was analysed, not much had changed and teachers were still using a didactic pedagogy and Cope and Kalantzis (2015) suggested that technology-mediated learning can enhance a didactic approach if the teacher uses the machine as a proxy (Cuban, 2001, cited in Cope and Kalantzis, 2015). A didactic approach still has practical benefits whilst the current exam system is in place since it is time efficient and provides children with the exact knowledge needed to retain information. However, it would be more beneficial for the children to learn how to find out the information needed for the exams themselves since they will then learn how to be critical researchers which is a vital skill within current society.  For example, using the ‘Redefinition’ section of the SAMR model to teach children to critically pick out valid and reliable sources of information using different technological devices to create new ideas (Puentedura, 2010).

The rate of change is rapidly reducing the availability of jobs-for-life and the current education system is failing to prepare young people for the future, therefore making the capacity for adaptability and motivation to learn essential (Wedell, 2005). Donaldson (2015) has recognised the need to change the purpose of education in order to provide children with transferable skills within his new ‘Successful Futures’ review which has incorporated digital competency as one of the core areas of learning to meet the changing needs within society. “Pedagogy is more than teaching methods used in the classroom since it represents the considered selection of these methods in correlation to the purposes of the curriculum and the needs and developmental stage of our pupils” (Dondalson, 2015, p.63). Therefore, Donaldson believes that it is important to use a range of teaching methods in order to meet the needs of different types of learners which will encompass a balance of creative, didactic, systematic and authentic teaching methods to provide high quality pedagogy. However, Hargreaves (2001, cited in Wedell, 2005) strongly suggests that pedagogy in schools is about being able to control the pupil’s behaviour which is important, however, significant research shows that by using your own teaching approaches and pedagogical values to tailor lesson projects to children’s interests will provide meaning and motivation for learning since it increases enjoyment (Waite, 2011). The Excellence and Enjoyment project strategy for primary schools empower schools to take control of their own curriculum which will enable lessons to be interesting and spontaneous (Department of Education and Skills, 2004). Waite (2011) stated that child-directed learning will allow pupils to feel they have freedom, fun, ownership and autonomy which will permit a more personalised pedagogical approach. By providing children with the freedom to tailor their own learning will provide them with new experiences and “Jean Piaget argued that learners incorporate new experiences through processes of assimilation, and accommodate these experiences by framing them into mental representations” (Piaget, 1923, cited in Cope and Kalantzis, 2015, p.11).

Therefore, I think that using a constructivist and personalised pedagogical approach will be most effective because you can teach children transferable skills tailoring it towards their interests in order to allow the pupils to make coherent sense of their experiences (Windschitl, 2002, cited in Cope and Kalantzis, 2015). This is an active way of learning that will allow children to use their prior knowledge, which is likely to be increased if interested in the subject, and link new information to gain understanding through research. I feel the most significant and consistent purpose of education is to meet the needs of society and currently we need children to develop skills for life that allow them to be adaptable, independent and creative learners since it is expected that the average child born today are expected to have around 40 jobs (Garner, 2015).

References

Aliakbari, M. & Faraji, e. (2011) ‘Basic Principles of Critical Pedagogy’ (Singapore) 2nd International Conference on Humanities, Historical and Social Sciences, 17(1), PP.77-85.

Anonymous (2015) Purpose of education, Developmental Education, 38(2), pp.36.

Ball, S. (2013) The Education Debate. (2^nd Edition). Introduction to Key concepts: Education policy, economic necessity and public service reform. Great Britain: Policy press.

Cope, B. & Kalantazis, M. (2015) A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Learning by design. Hampshire: Palagrave Macmillian.

Department of Education and Skills (2004) Excellence and Enjoyment: A strategy for primary schools. The National Archives. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20040722022638/http://www.dfes.gov.uk/primarydocument/ (Accessed: 31 December 2017).

Donaldson, G. (2015) ‘Successful Futures’. Available at: https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/asset/A788604C-3046-4005-A1EA0EAFF023E0DD/. (Accessed: 26th September 2017).

Garner, R. (2015) ‘Children starting school now could work to 100 and have 40 jobs’, The Independent, 6^th October, p.1.

Holmes, N. & Wieman, C. & Bonn, D. (2015) Teaching critical thinking, Psychological and cognitive sciences, 112(36), pp.11199-11204.

Kivunja, C. (2015) De Using De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats Model to Teach Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills Essential for Success in the 21st Century Economy, Creative education, 6(1), pp.380-391.  

Morris, p. (2015) Comparative education, PISA, politics and educational reform: a cautionary note, Compare: Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(3), pp. 470-474.

Puentedura, R. (2010) SAMR and TPCK: Intro to Advanced Practice. Available at: http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf (Accessed: 31st December 2017).

Rawling, E. (2010) Geography in England 1988-98: Costs and Benefits of National Curriculum Change, Geographical and Environmental Education, 8(3), pp. 273-278.

Waite, S. (2011) Teaching and Learning outside the classroom: personal values, alternative pedagogies and standards, Education 3-13, 39(1), pp.65-82.

Wedell, K. (2005) Dilemmas in the quest for Inclusion, British Journal of special education, 32(1), pp.3-11.

Collaborative learning

Hello Education Bloggers, I hope you are all keeping well! Unfortunately, this will be our last discussion until after Christmas, but there will be plenty more in the New Year. Let’s get to it!

I want you to think about the word ‘collaboration’ and what this means to you?

In our lecture, we came up with the idea of a group of people working together efficiently and effectively with your peers. Similarily, Donaldson (2015, no pg.) agrees that is the “ability to function effectively as a member of a team is one of the key skills” and links in with being able to work as team with new people. Teamwork could be seen as an essential feature in education as well as a modern work place, so we can engage and understand the views and thoughts of other people.

Additionally, it is supported by Dillenbourg et al. (1996); Kirschner et al. (2009a) as they state that collaboration is all about “active engagement and interaction among group members to achieve a common goal”. These definitions summarise collaboration as being about co-operation and communication with other peers, which potentially helps those children that struggle with some parts of the work. Also, teachers could point out the areas of weakness for some children because “the transfer of existing knowledge can generate context-specific knowledge” Ainscow (2016, pg.136). This gives children a chance to help each other and peer assess, and may allow children to understand their strengths and weaknesses better.

Myself and my University peers had the pleasure of teaching some children from St Nicholas Church in Wales Primary School to use GarageBand to create some songs. This was a good example of collaboration because the children were asked to get into pairs to work together on a song for a project they were doing in class. This required children to use a range of skills to produce a song efficiently and effectively. I had the opportunity to work with two girls that communicated and worked well together, therefore engaging them into an activity that involves different areas of learning and experience e.g. digital competency as they used a computer to create their song; numeracy because they encouraged to work out how long each part needed to be and where they could include new instruments and literacy to come up with a story for their song. This is showing cross-curricular in one session, and is a fun way of learning. The use of collaboration between the two girls worked well and they did seem as if they enjoyed themselves…so much that they even came up with a dance to go with the song!

Picture of the two girls using GarageBand

So, how do you think collaboration can enhance our learning? Garvey (1984, pg. 216) believes the process of how children learn is “what others first did for the child and the child next learned to do for himself, speaking aloud as did others, he has now learned to do himself”. To me, it is implied that children will gradually start to understand things the more a teacher or peer shows them, so they can eventually do it for themselves. The method of working with others to show collaboration evidentially works per Garvey, because “information discussed and delivered by friends and colleagues will be more salient” The Guardian (2006, no pg.).

However, The Guardian (2006, no pg.) have also questioned whether “group work is less efficient and productive than an individual performing a task alone” in the same article. This question is based on how teachers decide to split the groups up because some children will work differently with others. Harper & O’Brien (2015, pg. 68) show that “there are different ways of students working together for collaborative learning…ability groups, personality types, personal choice and student interest”, which is based on a teacher’s preference.

Putting children into groups based on their ability has been debated for years as to whether it works, or whether it is a complete waste of time. According to BBC (2015, no pg.), “many teachers feel they teach more effectively when pupils are grouped academically…they can offer a more tailored approach”, and this is a good way for teachers to assess based on what the children know as a group. Furthermore, children could understand more if they are around people that work at the same ability e.g. child A may be put into a group as child B, who work at the same ability. Child B may not understand fraction so; child A could explain it in terms that are suited to child B’s needs whereas if child C, who works at a higher ability explains it, child B may get confused. This encourages the children to peer assess each other’s work, so they can communicate to complete the work together.

Conversely Beatriz Pont, an education analyst states that “streaming by ability “exacerbates inequities” because immigrants and pupils from low-income families are likely to be placed in low-ability groups” The Guardian (2012, no pg.), which could be unfair because children may not be able to fulfil their full potential. Additionally, it is stereotyping those children that could have a high academic ability but because they come from a deprived area, they are seen to be ‘incapable’.

I agree with Beatriz’s point, because it is unfair to categorise those that try to complete the work to the best of their ability, and are placed in a low ability group based on who and where they are raised.

Here is a question for you all to think about, could it possibly encourage children if they are with a mixture of abilities, so those at a higher ability supports those at a lower?

So, that is all for this year Education Bloggers! It feels good to be back and I cannot wait for our discussions in the New Year. Up to now, we have had discussions about the purpose of education and pedagogy, creativity in a classroom, cross-curricular and how collaboration enhances learning. Thank you all for reading and Merry Christmas!

References:

-       Ainscow. M (2016) ‘Struggles for Equity in Education’, Oxon, pg.136

-       BBC (2015) ‘Ability grouping at secondary school’, no date. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/parents/ability_grouping_at_secondary/ (Accessed: 25/11/17)

-       Dillenbourg, P. (1999) ‘Collaborative learning: Cognitive and Computational approaches: Advances in Learning and Instruction’ Pergamon: London
     Donaldson, G. (2015). Successful futures: independent review of curriculum and assessment arrangements in Wales: February 2015

-       Garvey. C (1984) ‘Children’s Talk’, London, pg. 216

-       Harper.J & O’Brien. K (2015) ‘Classroom Routines for Real Learning’, Canada, pg. 68

-       The Guardian (2012) ‘Dividing younger pupils by ability can entrench disadvantage, study finds’, 9 February. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/feb/09/dividing-pupils-ability-entrench-disadvantage (Accessed: 25/11/17)

-       The Guardian (2016) ‘Does working as a group actually help us learn?’, 9 April. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/09/does-working-as-a-group-actually-help-us-learn (Accessed: 17/11/17)