Need for overhaul in how we learn

The way we educate our children in schools and adults in colleges and beyond is largely based on a teacher delivering a lecture, and asking questions intermittently to gauge the level of understanding of the knowledge recipients. There may be a test during this lecture or later on to further assess the learning outcomes. A few teachers use props and simple experiments to elaborate topics further - like the famous demonstration of swinging pendulum and its amplitude by Walter Lewin (click here) - but they are still largely just transferring knowledge from teacher to student and then using some means to confirm it happened to a satisfactory extent. This methodology has always been a topic of debate among educationists, and there has generally been a consensus that such instruction-based teaching and learning methodologies are not the most effective. Yet it's the most commonly used method because of 2 reasons: (1) It's the most convenient form of knowledge delivery for a teacher, and (2) It's the most convenient way of knowledge reception for the student, although highly passive and lacking any real-time processing of the information received. "Convenient" here means that it doesn't require any major effort or challenge for the teacher or student beyond the transaction of information transfer; it involves minimal consumption of energy to validate the information, relate it to something known or taught before, process it to draw insights beyond what is said, even think it over to an extent that the mind starts having questions (rather than the students "coming up" with questions for "class participation").

Now, it's the whole system designed in a certain way. And breaking out of it completely is not possible as parts of it require mandatory adherence. For example, school education has to end compulsorily with the students clearing the "board" exams conducted by authorized agencies of the State, and which becomes an eligibility criteria for college admissions. And colleges need to have their own mandatory affiliations. So we basically have an education system that is forced to adhere to specific syllabus and testing methodologies. The State would always want such a control, not only to ensure a certain standard of education in the country, but also to drive a certain form of content and thought process that is in its best interests. The latter has been a tool of the ruling class for ages, and the access to the kind of information like we have today hasn't lessened its impact. We've only ended up with people becoming agents for propagating their kind of information further. Being part of this world and yet breaking out of this carefully crafted model is impossible. Even if you start from scratch in an unknown colony in Mars, you would ultimately end up with the same power games and someone wanting to control how the others learn.

I started writing this article hoping to stress the need of taking educational institutions out of the frameworks of boards/affiliations and authorized syllabus. This, I thought, would open doors to creativity in how education is imparted and learning is approached. But I've realized there will always be someone who'll decide what's in the interest of the student to learn. Given that we can't totally break out of this human element, we could still aim at designing a system that ensures better learning and that builds smarter and wiser individuals who can not only think right, but also learn about everything from different angles, are able to build the right correlations, reach in thought where nobody has, imagine what nobody has and together be more creative and empowered than what the current approach allows. And also pass the exams and get the degrees they need to, but really understanding their true worth.

Techniques like peer instruction seem quite effective, especially - and this is my view - among more disciplined and mature students. It also requires that the teachers be trained to execute it effectively. And to draw most from peers, a student needs to be an extrovert to a considerable degree; and so do teachers; and that's a problem. Introverts have a tough time everywhere! Is it that majority of professional teachers are introverts and are more comfortable at delivering a lecture rather than creating a more communicative, participative and indulgent form of learning?

Would love to know what others think.

Here's Eric Mazur talking about peer instruction and how he thought about it: