Let me open this post with a quote.
“Tell me and I’ll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I’ll understand.” Chinese Proverb.
We have known this for generations, in fact, we have practised this for generations. It is only recently since the renaissance for the wealthy and since the industrial revolution for the rest of us that this has changed significantly into a prescriptive academic model. Why? What made us leave the educational roots of taking your children into a trade and showing them, teaching them on the job? Some would argue we still have this in the form of apprenticeships, which is true to some extent, but not for everyone and not in the same capacity.
The reasons we left this model are twofold; firstly, there is the culture, we started to view academia as a goal in itself and an expression of something all should aspire to, and secondly it allowed diversification of the workforce.
Let’s unpick these two points a little. The first factor is culture, now what is culture? It could be adequately described as the perpetuation of a societal myth that has previously been useful to communities in the achievement of socio-economic aims. Is this a good ground for the perpetuation of academia as the one aspirational outcome for education? Sure, academia and pure research have a valid place in society, it provides art, esoteric beauty for our consumption, it moves science and technology forward and builds opportunities for the future. But is it the only option? Why are the trades considered a lesser option? Let me ask you this; if your washing machine breaks and floods your house, are you likely to be happy to see a university professor turn up to fix it? All education and all skills are a matter of context. If your washing machine breaks, why would you value an academic above a plumber, you wouldn’t; therefore, the plumber has more value than the academic in this situation. So why is the knowledge of how to fix washing machines seen as inferior to a degree education? two reasons; monetary value of the individual, and social status. Roughly put, people who make more money have more social status and perpetuate this thought process by valuing their academic skills above trade skills. This is crazy. Let me ask you another question, who has more impact on society, a building firm or a bank? Surely this is a hard choice, in fact I would argue they are equal in social value, so why not plumbers and professors? Another point is this; there are many trade skills that are considered somehow elevated in social status while others are not, for instance, a surgeon is surely demonstrating practical trade skills, he is not an office worker, and yet his status is greater than a master thatcher or carpenter who has spent an equal length of time training to an equally high standard. Our cultural perception is skewed, and our education system reinforces this bias.
The second point is about the diversification of the workforce. Now, there are some obvious diversifications created by universal curriculum aspects, for instance having a workforce that is universally literate or able to use maths at a set level, however, there are many aspects of education that are simply outdated in the model we use. If we want a diverse workforce that are able to engage with a variety of disciplines, then our current teaching model is largely redundant. Take this example; in what workplace do we value the ability to recall large amounts of data learned by rote? Very few jobs require this, and yet every time we teach a student to pass a qualification under exam conditions this is the single skill that they are being tested on. The information they can recall is largely redundant and certainly not represented by the test. Surely it is better to be able to demonstrate a range of skills regardless of subject; for example, analytical thinking, data interpretation, research methods, logical argument and application of processes in a suitable manner, communication, problem solving and creative thinking. So, given these skills that an employer would value, what is the best method of teaching these? Giving the students the experiences that allow them to build, develop, fail, reflect, and apply a variety of skills within a topic. So my suggestion is that you remove the subject criteria and develop projects that run throughout disciplines; here is an example, you take a topic such as rivers, and apply this throughout the disciplines, the geology and geography of rivers, the science of rivers (biology, physics and chemical components), the history and archaeology of rivers, the ecology and sustainability of rivers, the art and literature inspired by rivers and so on, thereby allowing students to use a wide range of skills to look at a single topic. This would allow students to apply a variety of skills to one subject and grasp the interconnected nature of the skills used across the disciplines without viewing them in isolation. This would mean students are far more work ready as they can apply a range of skills and disciplines to a specific topic, the very same skills they will use in the workplace in fact.
Using this model, it is clear to see that experiential education is the key to employability; it allows students to apply practically a range of skills that makes them more employable. Far more employable than they would be through learning a collective body of facts on a distinct discipline. After all, would you rather employ someone who could memorise everything you told them but not necessarily apply it, or would you rather employ someone with no subject knowledge of your industry who demonstrated the ability to research analyse and assimilate the information pertinent to the job? If you still chose the former option as preferrable then I have to assume you are in one of a limited range of jobs that are directly linked to the major subject areas taught at school and college and therefore not interested in the wider diversity of the workforce at large.
Ultimately, having students who are able to effectively learn skills and processes rather than subject areas will vastly increase the diversification potential of the workforce, which can only ever be a good thing for the wider society and economy of the country.
Shevek Pring 