So the first thing that we're going to begin with is looking at how we learn, and our main question guiding all the activities this week is the question, how do we learn? So I'm here with my colleague, Eleanore Hargreaves, and we're gonna be talking about exactly that theme. Hi Eleanore. >> Hello. >> Start us off with, do we all learn in the same way? >> Okay, well the answer to that is yes and no. So the old theories about people having superior brains to others, this has been disproved. We all have similar brains that make similar links between ideas, which is one important aspect of learning. However, our learning is dramatically affected by our culture. So by culture, I don't mean our nation's state, I mean an educational culture probably within a state. So, each culture will believe that the purpose for learning is different, and that will dramatically affect how parents and teachers guide learning indeed, how they even conceive of learning. So, to make it very simple, one could say that there are three different purposes that people put forward for learning. So, the one that we're most familiar with is digesting information and absorbing knowledge. The second one would be learning skills, learning to do something, practices. And the third would be learning to be sociable, flourishing people. And I quite like the way that UNESCO has phrased it, which is someone called Delors in 1989, he said the four main purposes to learning, learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be. And I think very often the last two, learning to live together and learning to be, are not emphasized. Our more common emphases are on learning to know and to do. >> So with those different purposes of learning, how do we actually go about learning something? >> Well the reason for our learning and what we actually learn will greatly determine how we actually go about learning it. So there, again, there isn't one way that we do that. So if we're learning to know and we want to gain some information, then we would do very well to have a good memory, to develop memory skills, to listen hard, to watch if we're being shown, to repeat continuously, maybe to write things out, write things out in different ways, read around the topic. Those are all really good ways of gaining and retaining information. However, if we want to learn how to do something, we'd be better off probably, working along someone who already is very good at doing that, and little by little to practice. So that's kind of the apprentice model. We might also want to memorize some information, retain information about that skill as well. That might also be useful in learning it. Now, if we want to learn to live together and to be flourishing people, critical, compassionate people, then we need to be a bit like the apprentice model, exposed to other critical compassionate thinkers. This might be through word, it might be through meeting them, might be through reading their history. It might be through talking to people who are around us now. And then acting on what we're discovering and then reflecting on our actions. And this is where research might be a very important part of learning. So when we do things this way, what happens, and what do we think about that in terms of our purposes? >> So, with those different purposes and those different ways of learning, are there particular conditions that are necessary in order for learning to take place? >> Well, again, it depends on what you're trying to learn. So, in the first model, if you're trying to memorize information and retain it, then you would want a nice quiet situation where you can really concentrate and not be disturbed by other people. And this is a very common model for classrooms, because many governments hold this as the purpose for learning. But if your purpose is learning to be or learning to live together, and you come into that kind of classroom, you're going to find it very difficult to learn those things. And the reverse is true, so when we have people from other cultures who come and do an AMA here at the IOE. For example, I had one student from Pakistan recently and she was very puzzled at first, and found it very challenging when she was asked to think for herself over and over again. She was sat in a group to talk about ideas, because in her culture, she hadn't been asked to do that. Her opinion was not part of the picture in terms of learning, where she came from. However, whatever kind of learning you want to do, and I think it's very interesting that this actually applies to all the purposes for learning, people learn better. Oh, having said that there may be times when that isn't true, but generally, we learn better when we're comfortable. So I did some research in a Palestinian classroom. I also did the same research in an English classroom, and in both cases, when the children felt fearful, which was surprisingly a lot of the time, their minds shut down. So even if they're just trying to remember something, being afraid was not useful. And of course, if you are trying to learn to live with people and you are too scared to approach that person, that's also not going to be helpful. And it's perhaps ironic, but perhaps makes sense, given the kind of world we live in, but many, many classrooms actually make it more difficult to learn to live together and learn to be flourishing. Mainly because a lot of classrooms value silence, so a lot of learners are actually silenced. And sometimes conforming, being obedient, Is valued more highly than thinking in critical and diverse ways. And, theory is that if you get used to being obedient and conformist and being silent, then your ability to think autonomously, diversely, creatively and to learn how to relate to other people, will be very limited. >> Doesn't that go against kind of, sort of, a lot accepted knowledge? I should say, classrooms are meant to be quiet places, they're meant to be places where there's a lot of calmness. But if that's working against young people learning, doesn't that require a huge shift in our understanding? >> Yes, I think it does, and the more I think about it, the more bizarre it is, really. And I don't work in authoritarian states, where I think everyone would agree, there are authoritarian states. And there you might expect a classroom to be run on authoritarian lines. But if you look at classrooms in so-called democratic countries, there isn't a great deal of difference from those in authoritarian countries. And there are lots of theories about why this is the case. The people who run governments tend to be the elites in a society, so they'll be the more wealthy people. The people who've had privileged educations, and it's often the privileged educations that support people to think critically. And for example, our public school system in Britain. The aim was to produce leaders who could think for themselves and lead other people. But the public school system, as in the state-run system, where you don't pay lots of money as you do in those public schools, there was a belief, in fact, that poor people were inherently evil. And so what they needed was to obey and conform, and then the elitist people would have an easier job in controlling. And I think, although that all sounds very dramatic and sociological, there's still truth in that the way we have schools, we have 30 children at least, and in many countries, it's twice or three times that number, with one teacher. So, of course, you're going to have to resort to coercive means. But, as you say, I totally agree, we need to really rethink the whole model. If we don't want to reinforce authoritarian tendencies, which seems to be what our schools are doing at the moment, I think everyone would agree that in order to learn from a teacher, students would need to respect the authority of the teacher. But the crucial question is, what do we mean by authority? So in so many cases, authority is swung over into authoritarianism where, I mean, ultimately kids don't have the choice whether to come to school or not. So immediately, there's coercion. But then on top of that, in schools there's no input by students about how they will learn, what they will learn, who will teach them. The rules, if you like, are fairly random, and teachers are at liberty to change them if they wish. And in such a situation, it becomes authoritarianism rather than authority. While authority might mean this teacher is very experienced in whatever subject it is, physics, and very highly skilled in teaching and helping people to learn. Now that might be what could be considered a legitimate authority. So I think this whole area when we talk about how authority is being dismantled and we've got an authority problem in schools, I think the problem really is that we need to value the authority that individual teachers have and they have as a profession. But also the authority that individual students have and to develop that authority. And I quite like the fact that authority and authorship are similar words that have a similar. If we develop the authorship of students so they have their own authority, this is one way to slightly tilt the balance back.
