A new approach to education - some random thoughts.

Here is the podcast

Hiroshi has raised an interesting point. LingQ, an expanded or "universal LingQ", can be the model for a new approach to education, one that is free of the classroom, free of the text-book, free of the master-disciple relationship as Hiroshi aptly calls it, free of the learning timetable dictated by the curriculum. In other words why does learning have to take place in a classroom? Why is it so important that little Johnny or Mary not miss a day of school? In fact, day to day, there is very little learning taking place in the classroom because the students are not stimulated,and mostly not interested, and not taking any initiative. Is there any doubt that a motivated and curious learner could cover a year's work in a month on his or her own, just by reading and  listening, and then asking and getting good personal feedback and guidance from someone who knows more than him or her?

If a student is interested in a subject and wants to discover it, why should we limit him or her to what the teacher wants to teach in a given day or week or month or year? Why should we force the student to learn something that he or she is not interested in, at that time? Should we not look better ways to motivate learners other than putting them in classrooms where the main activity is distracting each other?

I recognize that the fundamental skills of reading, writing and math need to be addressed early and in an ongoing way. I think that a more flexible and personalized approach would work, especially if the learners could pursue subjects of interest.

I recognize the importance of socializing at school. This could be covered by having decentralized "academies" or clinics devoted to music, sports, art, nature study, mathematics, science or whatever, where groups of learners could meet and learn and participate in activities on some schedule that followed their interests. So there would be a need for some physical establishments of learning, but they could be flexible and probably much less expensive. They should certainly not come under the monopolistic control of the education establishment and the teachers' unions.

Students should be able to come to a learning centre or study at home, as they wished. Let us imagine that there were an expanded "universal LingQ" available for many subjects in many languages. Let us imagine that there were texts and audio clips and video clips available in a library, divided by subject. Learners could choose content at their level. They could download audio, or watch video. They could read, and save words and phrases which contain the main concepts of what they are trying to learn. They could schedule discussions with their favourite tutors, or with other learners, wherever they are located. These discussions could be one-on-one or in groups.They could be voice over internet, or video over internet or face-to-face at different locations.Tutors could monitor progress, provide feedback, and offer advice and explanation.

Small learning groups would be formed consisting of learners of different ages, in different locations. Tutors would be available to help in these discussions, and individually. Maybe some individuals would want to move from group to group, from time to time. Learners could draw on the resources of the larger community, as they wanted.

All the while each learner would accumulate a record of his or her activity and achievement. Saved and known LingQs would be recorded. Hours of listening, words of reading, writing submissions, oral presentation submissions, group discussions, individual sessions with tutors, could all be recorded and accumulated in the learners portfolio. There could be different sections of each learner's portfolio for different subjects and even for different languages. The learner could even refine the portfolio to feature his or her favourite examples of their own learning record.

LingQ will be introducing testing of a variety of kinds. These will be voluntary. In an expanded "universal LingQ" system, learners could test themselves when they want and include the test results in their portfolio.

Anyway these are just some quick thoughts. I would really be interested in some feedback.

Comments

[GeoffB]

Steve,
The original purpose of American public education, as I understand it, was one part preparation, one part indoctrination. An educated electorate is necessary to the functioning of a democracy, and the education system would ideally have an adversarial role vis-à-vis the worst of the politicians, since crooked pols would be facing voters who could read their proposals, see if they added up and evaluate if they were compatible with their understanding of the founding documents and evolved government practices.

Public school serves a second function: It teaches you to show up in designated places at specified times and follow the instructions of those in positions of authority, even if you are a better or smarter person. While such things may be stifling of creativity and squash more fragile egos, knowing how to obey timetables and stay on the good side of jerks who outrank you are life skills not without value.

I offer the above by way of explanation, not as a paean to our current form of education, which is, obviously, in shambles. I think an obvious answer would recognize the reality of the modern era, where workers do follow orders but are also much more self-managing. In this vein, it would make sense for schools to do a half-day the way we do it now, and turn the kids loose for the other half of the day with something like what you have laid out. This would simultaneously allow the kids to accelerate their learning and focus on specific skills sets appropriate to who they are and what they're doing and prepare them for the realities of a world where not everyone is his or her own boss yet.

I would note, by the way, that the mandatory classes ought to include your intros to skills like reading and math, along with the necessary civics education to know how the system worked (your independent study options could help you decide whether you agreed with it).

[Art]

Your ‘voluntary’ education system would result in the collapse of the state in the long run. Forced education is mandatory. When people have choice to choose to learn what they like, they choose what they like most – to do nothing. The nothing has many forms, even in education. When people are educated in nothing, the state is prone to collapse.

Forced education have drawbacks, it stifles creativity in some individuals, it forces to think in the box, etc. But the state is not about the wishes of an individual. It is about the wishes of groups and about leaders of the groups who have vision for the state and have no personal wishes. So, some 'casualties' in forced education are the necessary evil to prosper the state. Voluntary education based on the inner drive of an individual is utopia.

[Mairo C. Vergara]

I dont think education needs to be completly voluntary, but we dont need to (at least in university) attent classes everyday. I am a 3th year student and I have to attend classes everydays, listen teacher talking 90 minutes, sometimes about very boring subjects. Most part of the students just stay outside of the class room, others just sleep inside the classroom. I know that if Ijust read and study by myself, and attend some conferences, meetings, lectures, etc., I can learn more than what I learn attending classes everyday.

It does not needs to be voluntary, but at least the students should be in charge of their studies. I am studying semantics now, it is an interesting subject, but the classes are so boring, we have to do kinds of exercices, drills, etc., so in the end of the semester everybody may dislike semantics...

I think, instead of boring classes, we could just study by ourselfs, study with our classmates, attend monthly lectures with good teachers, meetings, etc. We can do essays, writte articles, etc. There are many ways to test the students knowledge, it does not need to be a test in a boring classroom.

[hiroshi]

I would oppose some of the comments made above.
These comments seem like talking about helpless children aged only 5-6.
Obviously, kids belonging to this age group ( before adolescence) need some guidances from parents or teachers.
But, for adult students, say, those aged over 18, do they really need the cage?

Art, I strongly oppose your idea that voluntary education is an utopia.
It seems that in your writing, individuals, ordinary people like us,are totally powerless, manipulated by a handful of the powerful and that some poor victims need to be sacrificed to keep the sate going.
Perhaps, you want to maintain the status quo, no matter how much it is in a terrible shape.
Or are you possibly one of the realists who are quite bitter about the world?

I will tell you what: what was once considered to be the impossible has always been made possible by the people with visions and dreams such as the space travel , the internet we are using etc.
And it is these people who have helped humans make progress.
I am quite convinced that there will be no future for those who merely obey the orders. what we need is those who are not content with things as they are and who try to make them better with dreams and visions.

so, I believe that the education as Steve proposed will be sure to be realized some day, in which each student is willling to take initiative without being told by anybody, they learn to learn and learn from each other.

The other day, on my way to a central bus station in Buenos aires, I looked up and happened to catch a glimpse of a sign:" el futumo es como lo imagine"
( Im sorry that since my spanish is still non existent, I may have misspelled. does it mean "the future is how you imagine it" ?)
I believe that what you have pictured will one day become a reality:)

[Steve Kaufmann]

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Lord Acton.

Seldom were wiser words spoken. art, the idea that some all powerful leader of an all powerful state will decide what is best for everyone was tried quite a few times in the 20th century. It does not work.

Whatever is done in the name of the state is merely the sum total of what individuals want the state to do. If individuals are persuaded to put everyone in schools, that is what happens. In Canada something over 1% of children are "home-schooled" so there is choice. They still have to meet certain standards because the society feels that compulsory schooling is a good thing. this could be achieved in a more flexible manner than the present school system.

I think we will evolve towards these more flexible formulas, but society will probably want to continue paying for everyone's education up to grade 12, at least. Society will probably want a better return on their investment than they are getting now. It is a matter of finding more efficient ways of providing learning opportunities to the broadest number of people in society. What we have now is out of date and inefficient.

[Art]

Steve, I can’t get you. You are asking for opinion and feedback but when an opinion and a feedback are not consistent with your idea or opposite it, you criticize it trying to state that your way is the only way. What the points of asking opinion in the first place if you already know what ‘works’ and what ‘doesn’t works’? And if you know what ‘works’ why do you have so hard time convincing people to pay for your language services?

[Mairo C. Vergara]

I think what "works" and what "does not works" are things you can see very clearly. You do not know what works and what does not works, you just see it Art. I have been attending english classes for 3 years in university and I can see clearly that this classroom model does not work. They are supposed to form english teachers, but they cannot even teach english. The student who does not know english will not learn english in the university, and the students who already know english before enter in the university will not become teachers because the actual teachers can not find a way to teach at the same time high level students and student that cannot say anything in english. I dont study english at all. I am doing the university because I wanted to be a teacher, but I cannot study in such boring way as it is in the classroom. And even I do not study english, I can do better than lots of people that studied for years in classrooms, learning rules, etc.

I dont know people who likes classrooms, but I know lots of people who even they dont like the classroom, they will go to classrooms, sit down and listen the teacher, just because they think that is the only way to learn. If they dont change their mentality, nothing will change.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Art,

A discussion consists of people expressing different views, and in turn having those views countered or questioned or challenged. None of this has anything to do with how many people sign up for LingQ.

Mairo,
What you describe is typical of university language courses.The question to me is, how many of these relatively unmotivated students can be converted into motivated students?

[Art]

I'm sorry for you, Mairo C. Vergara that it took you 3 years to realse that those classes didn't work for you. Usually, for an ordinary man it took no more than a couple of monthes to release where he is vasting his time. I'm sorry for you that you are bragging that you don't study and and like that process of not studing.

I'm amazed that Steve's ideas start breed ingorance. A couple years ago Steve's ideas was really good ones. I don't know what went wrong.

p.s. the number of subscriptions are telling that ideas have support; people are voting with money.

[Mary]

As a teenager who has chosen to be "homeschooled" through junior high and high school, I am a living example of the idea that a motivated person can educate herself.

GeoffB, most people do not tend to want to "do nothing". I admit there may be some that do, especially teenagers, but even if we lived in a society where education was completely voluntary, such people would eventually discover that they have to do something in order to get by in the world. The idea that, if left to their own devices, nobody would do anything and the state would collapse is just ridiculous. The state is run by individuals. Every civilization was started by people who were left to their own devices.

I also think that part of the reason that people aren't motivated to learn is that in classrooms, curiosity and motivation to learn tend to be stifled, as the children must constantly learn in pace with the rest of the group.

The internet is a part of the dream that you spoke of in your post, Steve. It enables me to interact with the world every day, to read and contribute to discussions, to see what the individuals of the world think and know, and also to contribute my thoughts to that huge pool of opinions. The internet gives people access to more knowledge than ever before.

The voluntary learning movement is expanding in the United States. There are millions of homeschooled children in the country. There are also various types of alternative schools. One type of alternative school is the democratic school, where the children learn what they want to learn, when they want to learn it. Adults at the school are available as resources when the kids need them.

[Edwin]

I think the voluntary model works well only at the adult-level. This could mean well after university.

People probably won't "do nothing" if left to their own devices, but they would do something they think are constructive. This is extremely dangerous for non-adults, for many of them don't really know what activities are constructive or not.

A lot of people have been forced to learn something they were not interested when they were young, but find the skills useful later on in their lives.

One might argue that it is the teachers' responsibility to make the subject interesting to the kids. But they are just kids. There are a lot of things they don't understand.

[Edwin]

My impression is that home-schooling does not equal to voluntary learning. The kids still go to regular classes, only at their homes.

Most parents are sick of their countries' educational systems and safety, so they decide to home-school their kids.

Can someone clarify if I am wrong?

[Mairo C. Vergara]

Art, particularly I cannot say if something works os does not work in just few months. I can say that university language courses dont work bacause I have been atteindg these classes for 3 years, I know many students, I know their difficulties learning english and most important, I can see if they are improving or not. You cannot say if a language system works in just few months, at least I cannot. But after three years, I think I have a bit of experience, a bit o empirical experience to say if university language courses work os dont work.

And when I say I dont study, I dont mean I dont study anything... I study a lot, but I study by myself. If I have a literature test, I read the books, the criticism, etc., and I do the test and get a very good grade. The same in english, linguitics, semantics, portuguese, etc. The english course is interesting because I really dont study in the tradicional way. In the 3th year the level is so easy, that just using internet, reading and listeing podcasts, withou any reviwing, withouy any kind os "study" I can do the test and get good grades. I do it because I prefer spending my time studying japanese and reading things that I like, which is my way of studyand it is enough to get my grades at university.

Well, I like to study, but not in a classroom...

And about Steve's question, I think the problem is how to change peoples mentality. The students are so passive, they think just the teacher are right and follows the teachers teachings without thinking... Some students are different, some students are motivated, but the university model just kills any kind of motivation. I used to like literature a lot, especially when I was in the 1st year of university. I used to go to the university library and search for literatures books from diferent countries. I found out that I really like writers from Russia, as Dostoievsky and Gogol. Unfortunately, as the course goes on, you start to read books that teacher want you to read, books sometimes very boring, you have to tests about the books and about books's criticism. You have so many things to do that you cannot just go to the library and serach a book that you like. Literature is one of the greates things in the world, but most part of the students just hate the subject. You know why? Because literature is not something to teach, is not something to study. Literature is something to be enjoyed!
And the same for languages. If you think a little, the simple idea of going to a classrooms to learn a language is kind of non-sense...

In order to change students mentality, I think we need maybe teachers with different mentalities. When teachers start to think in the students and forget about their jobs and their classrooms, maybe the students start to change.

[Ilya L.]

To GeoffB and Edwin:
I have reread this thread and found myself in agreement with nearly all your comments.

To Steve:
I have a feeling you aimed to be provocative, rather than objective, when you have initiated this thread. Weren't you?

[hiroshi]

Mairo, dont get me wrong. Im not despising you.
Do you really think that teachers are necessary in changing students mentalities?
Is it not possible for each student to start to change themselves without being told by teachers or anybody?.
and is it not a waste of time to expect others to change us?.

Just doing it without waiting for someone else to teach you,
This is what I mean by taking initiatives.

Buddha ,before he passed away,once said to his disciples." be your own lamp"
Id like to add one more phrase at the end of this sentence." be your own lamp without any external stimulus"
after all, who but yourself could help yourself?

[Mairo C. Vergara]

I agree with you Hiroshi.
When I that teacher could change students, I mean nowadays the same students are so passive that they will listen only teachers advices. Even I do better at english than many students in university, even I tell them to stop focusing on grammar, rules, exercices, etc., and start to focus on reading and listening, they usually will don't pay attention and keep doing grammar drills. If the a teacher with a diferent mentality start to talk about reading and listening instead of grammar rules, the students maybe will start to change. But, it is just an hypothesis, maybe some people need teachers, I don't, it is difficult to say...