Efficiency in Education
When you buy a car, you want it to be fuel efficient. When you submit a claim you want it dealt with efficiently. Nevertheless, although efficiency is a virtue, it is not always a good thing. The efficient version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet would be two lines long - boy and girl from rival families fall in love; girl fakes suicide to get away; boy thinks she really has committed suicide and kills himself; girl wakes up to find dead boy and kills herself.
It would save time and money at the theatre, but would not be the same experience. Sometimes it is better to take your time.
This week I observed a Grade 9 social studies lesson on renewable energy that demonstrated that truth. The efficient thing to do would be for the teacher to explain the pros and cons, the students to read a page of a textbook with some supporting facts and figures, then to fill in a worksheet and compose a piece of extended writing at home. Each student would receive a grade, and most of the material would have been forgotten about as soon as it was no longer needed for a formal assessment.
What I witnessed was not efficient. It was a lot better. The teacher had outlined the issues and what the learning should achieve. The students formed into groups around issues currently in the news: the Cumbria coal mine, the Shetland oil field and banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2030. They then took a position, researched it, and collaborated with others to form an argument. It would have taken several lessons.
The debate itself was carefully structured. The pros spoke first, then the cons. After which time was given to consider the other’s position, teams conferring among themselves, checking facts. Then each side had a chance to formally rebut the other, before moving into a free exchange, ending with questions and comments from peers in the audience.
The quality of some of the exchanges highlighted why this extended process was time well spent. Jakob, in setting out the case against a new coal mine in Cumbria, quoted the death rate for miners. Julia, in her rebuttal, countered that the statistics referred to the US and quoted a different source for reduced figures in the UK, and linked this to support the claims of the mining company. During the free exchange, Marla, in support of Jakob, suggested that those figures were for death by injury, and neglected the long term health effects of ‘black lung'. And so it went on, to and fro.
But the students didn’t just debate the supporting evidence and its provenance. Olivia considered first principles and Amalie, the impact of actions. Sadie referenced COP26 and WHO guidelines. Amal argued about the current economy and Adham the need to protect livelihoods. They all scrutinised claims and exposed posturing.
Great storytellers, like Shakespeare, show rather than tell: to stimulate the imagination, not simply present information. Something similar is true in education. The more active students are in their learning, the more worthwhile the long term result. These Grade 9s weren’t passively receiving knowledge - but challenging it, considering how it fitted into a wider framework, and considering its application. They weren’t just learning about the environment but how to research, to analyse, collaborate and evaluate; to listen carefully and express themselves powerfully.
Lessons can be ‘efficient’ in the same way my two line Shakespeare is. But taking time with content, students can learn far more.
Comments
Post a Comment