Learning to Learn

If in this day and age, more than ever, we should question ‘received wisdom’ (see previous post –  Zizek in New Left Review) what is there to say about the current hegemony of socio-constructivism in current educational discourse?

The work of the Brazilian theorist and critical pedagogue, Newton Duarte, is illuminating here. In two books Vygotsky and ‘learning to learn’: a critique of neoliberal misappropriations of Vygotsky and Knowledge Society or Society of Illusions? (see references below for original titles in Portuguese) published in 2000 and 2003 respectively, Duarte focuses his attention on the pervasiveness of the slogan ‘learning to learn’ in current educational discourses and in particular on the discourses of reflection / reflective learning / reflective teaching (see Moon 1999). Duarte takes as his object of study the Jacques Delors Commission Report on Education for the Twenty-First Century (May 1998) and also the theoretical parameters that form the basis of the reworking of the Brazilian National Curriculum (1997).

Duarte identifies four theoretical positions – with implicit value statements – underlying the discourses of learning to learn and reflection in these two documents (Duarte, 2003):

1. Knowledge that is constructed by the individual by/for him or herself is more desirable than that which is transmitted by other people (teacher or students).

Duarte quotes the Spanish theorist of education, César Coll:

From a constructivist perspective, the ultimate goal of pedagogical intervention is to contribute to the student’s development of autonomy and his/her ability to learn by him/herself in a whole range of different situations and circumstances; that is, to “learn to learn”(Coll, 1994 quoted in Duarte, 2003).

Duarte’s position here is that, of course knowledge that is constructed by the student is important, as is the ability and the initiative to acquire knowledge for him/herself. However, the learning to learn discourse establishes a hierarchy in which learning for yourself is deemed more important than the learning process involving the transmission of information from one person to another. Duarte’s point is that it is equally valid to assume that an education that encourages intellectual and moral autonomy through a transmission model of education is possible, where the transmission is of socially and culturally sedimented knowledge.

2. It’s more important for the student to develop a method of acquisition, elaboration, discovery and construction of knowledge, than it is for him/her to learn knowledge that has been developed by other people. That is, it’s more important to develop a scientific method than existing scientific knowledge.

This position is clearly inseparable from the argument in position 1 and it is possible to trace this position back to the work of Piaget, especially to one of his conferences from 1947 in which Piaget affirms that the challenge facing educators is to find ways of directing adolescents, not to ready solutions, but to a method that will permit him/her to construct these solutions him/herself. (Piaget, 1947 quoted in Duarte, 2003).

3. For an activity to be truly ‘educational’ it should be aligned with the student’s own interests and necessities.

So, as well as having to construct his/her own knowledge and develop a method for this construction, this construction should be driven by the students’ interest.  This is the position that relates to the nebulous discourse of personalisation in education.

4. Education should prepare individuals to be able to accompany a society in an accelerated process of change.

Traditional education works for static societies where the transmission of knowledge from one generation to another is sufficient, however, the dynamic nature of today’s society means that knowledge is increasingly provisional and has to be constantly recycled. Individuals who are not willing or able to constantly adapt have no place in modern society.

Learning to learn is necessary, therefore, if we are to avoid becoming antiquated and consigned to the scrap heap. A dynamic economy requires flexible and dynamic individuals.

Duarte believes it is here that the true character of the discourses of learning to learn and reflection is uncovered and appears in its crudest form. Learning to learn is conceived as a vision of education concerned with producing in individuals the skills and willingness to constantly adapt to a society reigned by the free market. Within this view of education, educators are prompted to understand the world, not in order to criticise it and to develop an education committed to social equality and transformation, but instead to understand better the competencies that will be required of our students in the modern world. This is the view of education that places a premium on creativity, without ever defining it, and that calls for new models of learning for new times.

To summarise, then, I believe that whilst Newton Duarte would agree that there is much to commend an approach to education based on encouraging the individual to construct his/her own knowledge, through activities that are broadly aligned with his/her interests, and that fosters autonomy, this should not be at the expense of the transmission of socially-culturally-historically sedimented knowledge. We also need to ask ourselves whose interests are served when we accept position 4 as the goal of all education.

I believe that the value of Duarte’s work lies in the fact that through a close analysis of the discourses of learning to learn and reflection, he is able to locate and uncover the ideological constellation within which current educational discourses operate and to which they contribute. As with Zizek, Duarte teaches us to question received wisdom and to question why it is that socio-constructivism is uncritically accepted as the right educational model for today’s society.

It will not have escaped the attention of any astute reader that the positions set out above are those that permeate much of the discourse that surrounds the transformative potential of ICT in Education.

References:

Duarte, N. (2003). Sociedade do Conhecimento ou Sociedade das Ilusões? (Knowledge Society or Society of Illusions?)Campinas: Autores Associados.

Duarte, N. (2000). Vigotski e o aprender a aprender: crítica às apropriações neoliberais e pós-modernas da teoria vigotskiana. (Vygotsky and ‘learning to learn’: a critique of neoliberal misappropriations of Vygotsky) São Paulo: Editora Autores Associados.

Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. London: Routledge Falmer.

Advertisement