Innovation Centered... or just ticking boxes?
“A successful student may be a competent learner, but a competent learner is not always a successful student. “ Johnston, C. P.7
According to the Australian education system, a successful student fulfils prescribed criteria, whilst competent learners tend not to limit themselves, seeking far more than the fulfilment of predetermined criteria, and possibly falling short of the expectation levelled at them by the education system. The notion of success or competence creates a binary, the two components of which are either quantitative or qualitative. The desire by the state to maintain academic success is upheld at the expense of creativity, yet, as will be argued, creativity is precisely what is required for meaningful competency. Socio economic and socio cultural factors also play a major part in deciding the ‘success’ of the student, so that despite the possibility that a student may be competent in an assortment of spheres, determined success is only possible when the student aligns with the ‘official’ requirements for success. Assessment methods employed by the education system may also determine the attainment of success, and at the same time dismiss competencies that fall outside of the rubric. The notion, therefore, that a successful student is necessarily competent is misleading, and veils the reality that competent learning is not always able to be acknowledged within the constraints of the system.
In discussing notions of success and competence it is important to make distinctions between the binary descriptors of 'successful student' and 'competent learner'. A ‘successful’ student is academically motivated, proficient in recalling data for purpose, and is motivated by an individual desire for quantitative achievement. Conversely, a competent learner often exists outside the interests of academia, may not deal well with tests nor hold the desire to please the teacher, but maintains a quest for internal knowledge. As Christine Johnson (1998:35), in referring to her theory of learning which she calls ‘Let Me Learn’ states: ‘the ‘me’ in Let Me Learn is a unique set of learning patterns that makes each learner clever in his or her own way’. The ‘successful’ student may only find his or her success within the confines of the educational system. He or she may often be direction-oriented, acquiring specific skills for an external purpose. The competent learner, however, may be interested in acquiring qualitative practical knowledge outside the predetermined academic curriculum, in areas such as visual art, music, dance, or manual/ industrial arts. Knowledge leading to wisdom for the competent learner is not limited to a textbook, or written in a manual, or on the new interactive smart board. Wisdom is being on the road toward self fulfilment. They may view themselves as undertaking a journey that often requires internal searching for meaning. A competent student undertakes learning because 'he [or she] 'has to'; curiosity drives him on much more strongly than the carrot of promised rewards' (Evans,1999:9). There is a greater reward for the competent learner than success in school assessment; it is the courage from the internal quest; a desire for becoming. The competent learner may often function in the community outside the system of education, applying relevant knowledge to tasks. Where the competent learner’s outcomes coincide with the criteria, he or she may then be determined by the education system as ‘successful’. The successful student may, like the competent learner, seek tools of the trade, but the successful student may not always have the skills of flexibility and adaptation; the result of risking the possibility of being wrong and challenging the system of the predictable.
State controlled education is the heritage of a system fashioned by pre-colonial power, which relied on growing and maintaining standing armies to protect defend and serve for the purpose of empire-building. The discourse of ‘success in education’ arises from government policies streamlined into a curriculum and imposed on its populists, to create a workforce for capital. The ‘successful’ student in Australian Educational Institutions is designed by the state as a square-box conformist who does not question, but is able to take their place in the standing army. This discourse or 'hidden curriculum' (Bowles & Gintis cited Van Krieken et al, 2006:135) is non-inclusive, inflexible, and toxic to those who function in non conformist learning styles and disciplines, such as those generally found in the arts and humanities. The prescribed goal is of servant, rather than inventor or innovator. A controlled outcome does not allow the student to risk and explore. Sir Ken Robinson (2006) states: 'if you are not prepared to be wrong then you will never come up with anything original'. The successful student is not so interested in finding something new, but in achieving a standard. Alternatively, a competent learner is more likely to seek, not necessarily the right answer, but rather the more expansive, lateral answer; one that exhibits a world-connectedness:
The complex questions of the future will not be solved 'by the book', but by creative, forward-looking individuals and groups who are not afraid to question established ideas and are able to cope with the insecurity and uncertainty that this entails' (European University Association cited McWilliams & Dawson, 2008:634).
Ken Robinson (2006) adds that 'creativity is as important in education as literacy', but that we 'squander creativity in children quite ruthlessly'. In a bid to master literacy and numeracy the student is coerced into growing up, and out, of creativity, and therefore away from the attributes of true competency. Competence arises out of the courage to make mistakes, recognise, evaluate and initiate change. The competent learner is more likely to embrace creativity, which may put them outside the tick-box of success. Additionally, risk and courage are important and formative factors in competent learning. If not recognised at the institutional level these elements can be quashed, thereby inhibiting the competent learner’s chances of attaining the prescribed level of success.
Cultural origins and socio economic standing each have an impact on the success and/or competency of a student. Cultural differences 'can exist not only of people of different ethnic backgrounds, but also between those of different social classes and different genders' (Krause, 2007:317). Aboriginal students undertaking westernised IQ tests in 1931 were graded so low that the tester, Stanley Porteus, had to overlook their ‘substandard’ results. These tests were carried out against the clock. Porteus describes his subjects as having 'caused considerable delays as, again and again, the subject would pause for approval or assistance in the task' (Porteus,1931:308). Whilst at first glance the Aboriginal students could be seen to be incompetent, further investigation by Porteus revealed that the cultural norm under which the students were operating held that decisions and problem solving was, in their tribal setting, a collective enterprise, and further, that hurrying was not important. The students were waiting for Porteus to help them collaboratively arrive at the answers. Where they were merely behaving in a fashion in keeping with their cultural background, which says nothing of their intellects, they could easily be determined as unsuccessful learners. 'The beliefs and practices of some cultural groups fit well without schooling system, while those of other groups do not' (Krause, 2007:320). An Anglo centric education system that is not inclusive of cultural difference may make success for an otherwise competent student impossible to grasp. IQ tests themselves have been described as 'profoundly culturally biased' (Van Krieken et al, 2006:142), because they are created by, and based on a middle class, westernised norm. At the same time students from low socio economic areas are less likely to achieve success in academia. Studies have shown that 'working class students with the same measured IQ as their middle class counterparts... are less successful in the education system' (Van Krieken et al, 2006:143). Students from low socio economic spheres may be competent outside of the education system – for instance, they may be adept at motorbike mechanics, or deeply knowledgeable about farming practices – yet are deemed as not successful within the system, therefore, as a competent learner they are not always successful.
The assessment criteria used by the education system is highly dismissive of the creative curriculum, in favour of the academic. Assessment criteria generally dissuades students from diverging from the question in any way. Through a process of what Heidegger would term ‘radical reductionism’ the curriculum is narrowed, in a bid to standardise expected responses. The net result of such rationalist treatment is the stifling of creativity and innovation. Set criteria are carefully and rigidly applied to assessment, whilst students are discouraged from looking beyond the question, or of utilising creativity in venturing out toward a deeper understanding. This dangerous reductionist theory threatens inquisitive learning and dismisses our individual celebration by setting only one prescribed goal or method of assessment. Grading of students also plays a part in the potential for success:
When we think about grades as an [academic] economy it is another way of understanding that in a culture of testing only a small percentage of students will have the right to celebrate success or be celebrated as successful (Kleinsasser, 1995:206).
We as educators should passionately desire learners to become holistically successful students. By willingly extending the definition through embracing creativity, allowing diversity, and assessing for individual improvement, we enable competency as well. It would be foolish to limit students’ skills by excluding innovation. The successful student of tomorrow needs tools for the future. If we are going to teach for success or competence, those tools should include creativity, and assessment should reflect its place in the curriculum. However, the current curriculum rates creativity toward the bottom of the scale in terms of necessity. The curriculum is entrenched, like the Empire of Great Britain in the First World War, the generals unsure of what to do next, waiting for change, only to realise they have trained themselves to be galvanised in non-committal acts; slowly dying of stubbornness, afraid to challenge the system. For why the need for risk when we have soldiers to lie down and die for the crown until the last dying hour? Under these conditions, a competent student may find success frustratingly elusive, at the same time the student that can stick rigidly to criteria finds themselves successful.
Furthermore successful students become so through meeting standards and expectations, the competent learner will not necessarily meet that requirement, and will instead choose a path that accords with his or her inner knowing. Success is often defined by cultural and economic standing, and is shaped by the assessment methods applied by the education system itself. By limiting success to the fulfilment of criteria that excludes the craft of innovation, the education system creates a student who is capable of success, but not necessarily capable of learning in a competently and creative manner. In this way a successful student may be a competent learner, but a competent learner is not always a successful student.
REFERENCES:
Johnston C, 1998, Let me learn, Corwin Publications, Thousand Oaks, California
Evans G, 1999, Calling Academia to Account, The Society for Reseach into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
Kleinsasser A, 1995, ‘Assessment culture and national testing’, The Clearing House, Vol.68, No 4 Mar-Apr, pp.205-210. www.jstpr.org.ezyproxy.usc.edu.au:2048/stabsle/30195639?
Krause K, Bocher S & Duchesne S, 2007, Educational Psychology, Thomson, Melbourne, Australia.
McWilliams E & Dawson S, 2008, 'Teaching for creativity: towards sustainable and replicable pedagogical practice', Higher Education, Vol 56 pp.633-643. DOI10.1007/s10734-008-9115-7.
Porteus S, 1931, The Psychology of a Primitive People, Edward Arnold, London.
Robinson K, 2006, 'Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity', Ted Talks, http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Van Krieken R, Habibis D, Smith P, Hutchins B, Haralambos M & Holborn M, 2006, Sociology themes and perspectives, Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest, Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment