Interesting research project in India..

Sugata Mitra shows how kids teach themselves | Video on TED.com

Hi John,
Thanks for that link, it was lovely to see the kids so eager to learn from this new tool they had been provided with!

The best way to learn is through natural curiosity!

Really inspiring!

Violeta

Have you read Rogers work - Freedom to Learn. This book outlines a programme where children took responsibility for their own learning. It is a fascinating read and it certainly made me think. I read it while I was doing my teacher training, some years ago, and have had a passion for active learning ever since.

Wendy

Hey, Wendy,


I think I have some information which might be of interest to you. I was home schooled and then became an autodidact (self leaner). I also have several friends who have done, or are in the process of having a similar learning experience.

We have found that many people find it difficult to envisage how this might work for a child's entire upbringing and how risks might be mitigated.

If your interested and would like to ask me or any of my friends questions send me a message here and if you like we can arrange to chat in maybe an AIM client, I could tell you lots of stuff now but people generally have very personal questions so it's best to have a live conversation.

Alfie

Very interesting clip.

John, you posed the question as to whether children need teachers and the clip shows some really remarkable aspects of learning. You could argue that Sugata Mitra actually was their 'teacher'. Although the term 'teacher' is maybe a little stereotypical of a formal 'chalk and talk' style of practitioner, many 'teachers' do look at themselves as a 'learning facilitator' which certainly is a role in which the researcher Sugata Mitra playes in the clip.

I mentioned in a thread with Phil about grouping kids by their language styles rather than academic ability (or lack of) and putting the kids in an environment that faciliated 'guided discovery'. Many schools are getting better at offering less formal lessons to students but it is so very difficult to assess (I will refrain from mentioning SATS or league tables!) student progress and ability using the same approach. It is not impossible but assessment strategies are well behind learning strategies.

I have never seen this kind of thing done with fundamental IT skills. By the way, I really like his term ET, (Educational Technology) which really strips away alot of the hang-ups teachers have about using IT in facilitating learning.

Great clip,

Thanks john,

Matt

Depends on what you mean by the term "teacher".

For me, everything everywhere is a teacher. The plastic "wood" table in front of me taught me something about life a short while ago...

So in my case, I would say that for children (of any age) to learn, there must be some outside entity for them to learn from.

But the teacher doesn't have to actively be trying to teach anything in particular. And oftentimes, education works better if the teacher is just doing what they do best, and doing what they love, rather than trying to do something else (like what they're not so great at, and what they don't love :-)

When I describe my teaching style, in job interviews and otherwise, I tend to use the term "guide". I'm there to offer a variety of options for students to learn from and explore, while the students themselves are in charge of what interests them and what direction they want to go next.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turil

Isn't googling a part of the future of education, as Sugata hinself said he googled. Let your mind run free on the internet and let the learning commence, as well as some fresh air and activities, life's good!

I don't think the internet is the answer to everyhting, children, and adults learn by doing not just surfing. The internet is one of many tools which help children learn, but total reliance on this is as unhealthy as being a couch potato. In learning, as in life variety is the key.

A good teacher, facilitator or guide, whatever term is used will encourage variety by providing the children. or adults, with a wide range of activities and resources from whcih they make the choice.

Wendy

I'm not sure how exactly a person would come to have a specific terms of reference filter,but in terms of metaprograms,some people are more autodiactic,so some flexibility in this regard would be useful.

I go along with the question "what do you mean by 'teacher'?"

Children don't start out with anything except the physical requisites for learning, nevertheless we learn to walk and talk with little or no overt "teaching".

Or do we?

In fact kids learn to speak like the people around them. The same accent, the same pronunciation, and very often the same errors (defining words incorrectly, etc.) and mispronunciation.

So, a heavy-handed teacher may be a pain in the butt, and actually put children off learning. But children who were left with NO human teacher at all might end up just as badly off, albeit in a different way.

Be well

Andy B.

I would say that children need something to learn from i.e. they need a rich environment, but that they don't need school or formal learning at all. My older boy is in school after much soul searching over whether or not to home educate and let him learn from the environment. We are lucky to be near a school where the outdoor environment is used the whole time and the teachers are very open in their approach to learning.

Kids learn all the time from everything around them; they don't need a formal teacher, but most people around them will be teachers in some way. My kids are encouraged to explore their environment all the time and talk to everyone around them, they have a fantastic sense of the "goodness" or otherwise of people - for example they are very wary of one uncle and they are right to be so since he is extremely nervous around children. Only by allowing them relatively free rein will they learn to make decent judgements in adult life. Unfortunately many of our children are not allowed the freedom to make these judgements, our fears (paranoia) bred by the media mean that for many children their only environment is school/home/tv.

Hi Fiona

fibaygirl wrote:

My older boy is in school after much soul searching over whether or not to home educate and let him learn from the environment.

So you don't think children should be, or need to be, taught - but you've sent your son to school anyway.

Hmmm. I wonder if that needs a bit of thinking about.

One of the interesting things about the hole in the wall learning was that it was not goal or results oriented. The children simply learnt, it was not really directed except by the parameters of the environment and equipment.
One of the major difficulties with state education is that it is very conscious driven and results in the limits created by having an identified goal or outcome(lesson objective etc etc). A greater emphasis on unconscious learning would have so many benefits such as freedom from pressure and more ownership of the learning by the children.
I dont think that the effect of IT in the education has fully reached its flowering .As yet a generation of adults have not fully emerged from it. However the impact of interactive white boards in the classroom has to have an enourmous impact on the world. Just look at many of the educational games and demonstrations in every subject particularly maths and literacy that can be found on the internet. Many of these teaching aids are well thought out and easily explain such things as; place value, minus numbers and ratios. The teaching is very visual and moves children in to faster visual learning styles than the old traditional auditory transmission teaching that is linear and slow.
anekant

Andy B. wrote:

Hi Fiona



So you don't think children should be, or need to be, taught - but you've sent your son to school anyway.

Hmmm. I wonder if that needs a bit of thinking about.

There is nothing in my post to suggest that I think that children shouldn't be taught. Obviously if I thought such a thing it would be irreconcilable with sending him to school. I do think that in general our schools are very narrow in their concepts of teaching. We have been very lucky to have a nearby school where the belief is that children learn by the example of everything around them i.e. they model what they see - be it in the teachers or the environment. Schools vary vastly and as I stated we thought long and hard about whether to do school or not.

NLP Mum

" you have sent him to school any way" " Mmm I wonder if that needs to be thought about a bit"
There happens to be very little choice in the matter, as if a child is not in attendance at school, in this country, whether they are learning what is supposed to be learned or not, a parent will be pressured threatened and possibly imprisoned if a child does not attend. Those who have the capability to provide an education at home have to prove the child is getting an education to a similar standard as they supposedly would in a school. Education Officers have in the past involved social services and had children taken into care because they said the children were not getting the social interaction they needed to become rounded adults. This happened in Sheffield While in care the staff tried to treat the children for headlice, which the children did not have, and but for the resistance of the eldest in her teens the family would have been branded lousy and therefore neglected. That might have resulted in the children being permenantly removed from their parents. I strongly recommend that parents wishing to home educate get together with other parents to find their way around the difficulties and get the support they will need to resist the power of the state and educate their children.

To follow up on the above: There is a charity called Education Otherwise that may be very usefull to anyone thinking of home education for their children.

I am all for students teaching themselves. I am all for students teaching others. My concern about children learning without a teacher is that I believe good teachers can (at this point in history) teach students so much about emotional and personal interaction with others within the classroom context. Its not just about facts and Blooms taxonomy but how ideas are conveyed face to face and understanding others in the room for example. I like the way lessons in the classroom can take a new direction suddenly according to the dynamic of the class.

I believe the "classroom" can still provide the most fertile environment to inpsire and help students learn providing the teacher is a good one. And has a sense of humour.

Some of the best dishes have many different ingredients. I think the best teaching incoporates what I have mentioned above but also learns from innovative ideas and new approaches and incorporates these too.

So my vote is keep the teachers. The teachers I work with really care about their students and challenge them to be their best. Most of the students I know really value the relationship they have with their teacher. So "Do children need a teacher at all?" - in my view the majority but not all. I love the fact that there are differences of opinion on this question as I believe it ultimately leads to the progression of the effectiveness of student learning...

best wishes,
Simon

Margaretelisabeth wrote:

There happens to be very little choice in the matter, as if a child is not in attendance at school, in this country, whether they are learning what is supposed to be learned or not, a parent will be pressured threatened and possibly imprisoned if a child does not attend.

Hi Margaret

This varies massively across the country with some LAs being very supportive (Kirklees (Huddersfield) is pretty good) and others - perhaps Sheffield - being dire. If you never register your children for school the authorities have a pretty tough job finding you and more to the point, your children, at all. It is laid in law that parents have a responsibility to see their children educated in school or otherwise, hence the name of the org EO. More and more parents are choosing the Otherwise route. Either route has imo pluses and minuses to it. We weighed things up and were happy with one of our local schools. I would have no qualms about taking a child out if they were unhappy and letting them be taught by myself and everyone around them... and we'll cross that bridge if we ever come to it. In the meantime, all the people I know around here who home educate haven't had any problems from the authorities. Education Otherwise has very mixed reports currently and is a very political animal.

Teaching is a two way process between human beings and just about everyone we encounter in a meaningful way has something to teach us. The term "teacher" applied only to someone employed to do it in a school is in my opinion a false construct of a modern society. We all learn from each other and particularly from those we respect, be they of our peer group or elders or sometimes younger than ourselves (I'm constantly learning from my kids, they are amongst my prime teachers ;-). I think this is what modeling is all about..... weren't erickson et al teachers who informed the whole of NLP?

I am happy to hear that other authorities are supportive of home education.

Of course Education Otherwise is a very political animal, anything to do with education is political. There would never have been schools teaching English and Arithmatic for the ordinary population if it were not a political thing.
Even the private is political so I don't see your point.

I don't have children in education. My post was there merely to point out that taking a child out of school is not as simple as one might be lead to believe and it is wise to get all the engine power (support) that one can when going against the tide.

I would think that an organisation that has supported home education for thirty years or more would have some very useful models to make use of.

I don't need a car mechanic, well not this week anyway.

Google'ing is frowned upon my many teachers who are relcutant to move with the technology that the lives of most kids today socialise and play through. For me it is like having the largest encyclopedias that have been written by the most diverse range of people just a couple of seconds away. There are obviously 'good practices' that need to be encourgaged but that is the same as book orientated research also.

I am not sure how being home taught is a difference to having a teacher? Surely the role of teacher is just being filled by someone else? Even Mogli had teachers, how do you think he knew to look under the rock for the experience that taught him about the bear necessities of life.

Teaching math and grammer is the easy part of being a teacher, the real challenge is teaching appropriate social interaction, logical thinking, team work and more importantly letting kids be kids. It is these elements of development that many kids who are home taught miss out on. Of course not all of them, but sadly too many.

Can I ask, specifically, what is it the 'teacher' (school based typical teacher) cannot offer what a home taught student offers?

If I predict your answers correctly then it is not the decent hard working teacher who is the problem but more likely the under funded, under resourced, poorly managed system that is the root of the problem here along with the environment, beauracacy and hypocracy they are forced to work in.

The miracle of teaching is that with impossible goals, impossible resources and a majority of the time impossible kids who have been trained by parents to make the teachers job as hard as possible before they even set foot in school. The miracle of teaching is that sometimes we succeed.

I had a night mare a few nights ago where I heard about a proposal for a 'Troops to Teachers' campaign. It was just a bad dream, wasn't it?