Thank you for this timely, passionate and engaging read. Just what I needed this morning after yet more conversations yesterday about what people think they mean when they talk about the 'science of learning'. Here in Australia, we are being similarly gripped by a strange and very myopic frenzy of panic - especially about reading. There is so much I could say ... but one thing I know. After almost 40 years of work in classrooms all around the world, if we do not give kids the time and space to reveal and explore the things they are curious about and if we do not lean into that curiosity and allow them opportunities to engage in learning about the world around (and within) we lose the most important ingredient in learning (and this is scientifically backed!) - the desire and will to learn.
You are spot on Kath. It amazes me that willingness is so readily dismissed (ignored) by those frenzied ‘saviours’. So much learning happens when we lean into it. Often, that learning is well beyond what we expected or was on the script.
Thanks for your comment - I’m very pleased it hit the spot for you!
Thanks for this, Bevan. A teacher in our Studio for Playful Inquiry recently named this distinction as The Science of Market Prioritized Discrepant Skills vs The Science of Human Flourishing. Seemed dead on.
Personally, I love reading and I treasure knowing how to read. I can also imagine - given the speed of technological shifts - that the children we work with today might live in a world where the written word is almost nonexistent - where you look at a document or an object and its meaning is communicated through something other than text. I'm not banking on it, but just as a thought experiment: If that is the world they inhabit, what is gained - and what is lost - by dedicating all our resources to decoding text?
My daughter loves graphic novels. A few years ago she brought one to me and we sat reading it together. At one point she asked, What does that frame mean? I answered. No, she said, Look at the colour of the eyes. I realised my meaning was based on an inference made from the text. Her’s was made on images. I remember being struck by the sophistication of her reading.
There’s a great book by Cope & Kalantzis called Multiliteracies about your question. It argues the importance of embracing an approach to reading that includes the multiple ways meaning can be expressed.
I like the phrasing that teacher used to name that distinction!
Hi Bevan.
Thank you for this timely, passionate and engaging read. Just what I needed this morning after yet more conversations yesterday about what people think they mean when they talk about the 'science of learning'. Here in Australia, we are being similarly gripped by a strange and very myopic frenzy of panic - especially about reading. There is so much I could say ... but one thing I know. After almost 40 years of work in classrooms all around the world, if we do not give kids the time and space to reveal and explore the things they are curious about and if we do not lean into that curiosity and allow them opportunities to engage in learning about the world around (and within) we lose the most important ingredient in learning (and this is scientifically backed!) - the desire and will to learn.
You are spot on Kath. It amazes me that willingness is so readily dismissed (ignored) by those frenzied ‘saviours’. So much learning happens when we lean into it. Often, that learning is well beyond what we expected or was on the script.
Thanks for your comment - I’m very pleased it hit the spot for you!
Thanks for this, Bevan. A teacher in our Studio for Playful Inquiry recently named this distinction as The Science of Market Prioritized Discrepant Skills vs The Science of Human Flourishing. Seemed dead on.
Personally, I love reading and I treasure knowing how to read. I can also imagine - given the speed of technological shifts - that the children we work with today might live in a world where the written word is almost nonexistent - where you look at a document or an object and its meaning is communicated through something other than text. I'm not banking on it, but just as a thought experiment: If that is the world they inhabit, what is gained - and what is lost - by dedicating all our resources to decoding text?
My daughter loves graphic novels. A few years ago she brought one to me and we sat reading it together. At one point she asked, What does that frame mean? I answered. No, she said, Look at the colour of the eyes. I realised my meaning was based on an inference made from the text. Her’s was made on images. I remember being struck by the sophistication of her reading.
There’s a great book by Cope & Kalantzis called Multiliteracies about your question. It argues the importance of embracing an approach to reading that includes the multiple ways meaning can be expressed.
I like the phrasing that teacher used to name that distinction!