Linear progress?
One of the most problematic concepts in formal education is the notion of linear progress. All but the most progressive schools organise young people’s instruction by the accident of when they were born rather than by their mental, emotional and physical development. We all — even educators — tend to internalise this model as ‘the way things should be’ rather than just the way they currently are. We assume that because schools present us with a linear pathway that this is the best way of learning.
Many models of educational development pre-suppose that we learn in a strictly linear way. They posit learning as akin to a staircase: there is only one set of stairs, they assume, and you have to climb them in order. I find this approach, especially when it comes to digital skills, to be highly disingenuous. When you question people applying this model about whether they learned digital skills in this way, they tend to flounder.
More enlightened educators think differently. Take Stephen Heppell, Professor of Education at Bournemouth University and an educational consultant. As well as advising educational institutions around the world, he’s helped set up the Isle of Portland Aldridge Community Academy closer to home. This is a 3-19, ‘stage not age’ school where students are grouped according to interest and ability rather than when they emerged from their mother’s womb. 1
I am lucky to see new learning emerging all round the world. Regions and communities throughout the world are embracing and developing new "ingredients" of learning: superclasses of 90 to 120 students; vertical learning groups; stage not age; schools within schools or ‘Home Bases’; project-based work; exhibitionbased assessments; collaborative learning teams; mixed-age mentoring; children as teachers; teachers as learners; and so much more. Obviously, in a world where every culture, context and community is unique there will be no one-size-fits-all solution, however enlightened that solution might be. (Stephen Heppell)
We know from research — and in fact it is obvious — that we learn best when we’re interested and engaged in something. The psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi famously defined the concept of Flow as being: when we’re completely absorbed in what we’re doing; when we’re energised and involved; and when we’re enjoying what we’re doing. Perhaps the most obvious arena for flow states is when we’re playing games.
To some degree, all games have a logic, a narrative and a structure. That, however, is not necessarily the experience of gamers. Games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, the epic multi-award winning Journey, and The Sims all give us wide-ranging freedoms to create, destroy and collaborate. They are a wonderful example of informal, stage-not-age, interest-based learning. Whether it’s through fast-paced console-based action games like Halo, Massive MultiPlayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMPORGs) such as World of Warcraft, or casual games like Farmville, game environments give us a glimpse at ways in which learning can be different.
We’ll explore games and interest-based pathways later in the book. However, right now, I want to dig a little deeper into what’s wrong with the way we currently approach the teaching of digital skills.
1. See: https://www.fastcodesign.com/1662358/the-end-of-education-is-the-dawn-of-learning ↩