As a civilisation we have only yet learned a tiny fraction of the universe of knowledge; the rest is in the dark. There is no helping hand but we have made progress, starting from our initial understanding and branching outwards. By definition, any progress we have ever made, either as individuals or as a species, has always been within our capabilities at that time. At one point in history, quantum physics was beyond the capability of everyone on earth. How did we come to the point where it is not? The answer is that as we learn within our capabilities, those capabilities grow. This is even true for children and amateurs, as well as for experts, who make progress without anyone else to guide them.
We can actually be a bit more specific about how those capabilities grow. In essence, every instance of learning happens via the following cycle:
Initial model: The brain begins with some imperfect model of the world.
Interpretation: That model is used to interpret incoming information; first by chunking many small details into larger concepts, and then by attaching relative values to those concepts. Both the conceptualisation and valuations will be somewhat different in each brain, as they both depend on the initial model used.
Attention: Attention is directed towards concepts of high value, and the rest is ignored.
Learning: Any relevant and accessible information within the spotlight of attention will be absorbed and used to enrich the initial model. By âaccessibleâ, I mean both: i) physically accessible, and ii) able to connect with the initial model in the brain (i.e. within the learnerâs capabilities).
Final model: Once that information is incorporated, the model is slightly better than it started, and the learner is therefore slightly more capable than when they started.
Through this loop, starting with only the most simple inborn models, a naive and ignorant child can eventually build a rich and coherent model of all the details of its environment.
I agree with with you, @Zon . We make progress through incremental approximations and evolutionary changes. However, what you seem to overlook is the fact that there is a huge variation within species and some of us are equipped with weaker regulatory abilities that can be temporarily compensated by greater hierarchy in organization. This principle operates also at the level of an organism.
What seems relevant here is that A.Y. Aulin extended the aforementioned Law of Requisite Variety with her Law of Requisite Hierarchy. She stated that:
The weaker the average regulatory ability and the larger the average uncertainty of available regulators, the more requisite hierarchy is needed in the organization of regulation and control for the same result of regulation.
However, the need for hierarchy decreases if this regulatory ability itself improves.
There is also a tradeoff between adaptability and efficiency. As Yaneer Bar-Yam puts it [1]:
Adaptability arises when there are many possible actions happening in parallel that are mostly independent from one another, i.e. when the system has high complexity. Efficiency, on the other hand, arises when many parts of a system are all working in concert, so that the system can perform the task for which it was designed at the largest possible scale. Thus, due to its low complexity, a very efficient system will necessarily not be adaptable to unforeseen variations within itself or its environment. A very adaptable system, designed to handle all sorts of shocks, will necessarily have to sacrifice some larger-scale behaviors.
His remarks on hierarchies are important and worth quoting:
No type of hierarchy is inherently better than any other. For a particular environment, the best hierarchy is one whose complexity profile matches the tasks that it is trying to perform. A tightly controlled, or top-heavy, hierarchy is not well suited to environments in which there is a lot of variation in the systems with which the lower levels of the hierarchy must interact; neither is a very loosely controlled hierarchy well suited to environments that require large-scale coordinated action.
I disagree and blame schools for the illusion! Given a healthy brain, we are all born perfectly adaptable. The variation mostly comes from the fact that we get hit by environments that abuse the adaptability to produce âa poorly regulated systemâ.
For a particular environment, the best hierarchy is one whose complexity profile matches the tasks that it is trying to perform
There is no need for an external control hierarchy! In terms of learning and adaptability, all the necessary hierarchy is there in the brain!
There is also a tradeoff between adaptability and efficiency
I never used that terminology, but it seems awfully useful to describe the conceptualization in the brain in the course of development and learning. We are born perfectly adaptable and then conceptualize the network in the direction of efficiency. With a bit of good luck, we die pretty efficient having lost most of the adaptability.
Incidentally. Suckers do not exist! Most of kids are born ready for greatness. Of those, many will not be exposed to richness of the environment that prevents suckertude (e.g. due to poverty). However, the richest injury comes from trauma, abuse, and coercion in the shape of authoritarian parenting or schooling. The latter two have a huge contribution by conditioning out all mechanisms that that prevent suckertude (e.g. skepticism)(see: 50 bad habits learned at school). Using your terminology, school takes away adaptability without adding much efficiency.
p.s. This paper on complex system you quote sounds pretty interesting. I suffer knowing I got some 1-10 thousand must-read pieces on my list
In the summary, I would modify one sentence though:
individual human understanding of most complex systems will inevitably fall short, with unpredictability being the best prediction. To confront this reality, we must design systems that, like evolution, are strengthened rather than weakened by unpredictability
To âwe must design systemsâ I would add âor, if such systems exists, like the human brain, we should stay way with our uneducated interventionsâ !!!
There is a seeming paradox of being a perfect controller not being able to control itself against social disturbances. One can argue that one of the chief causes is the fact that society is now more complex than ever and will become more so in the future [1]. When dealing with serious threats in such complex environments (e.g. the spread of coronavirus), the primacy of efficiency should be considered.
As for our disagreement, I believe that Aristotleâs distinction between potentiality and actuality may be of value here [2]:
As Aristotle explains, it is not any matter that is potentially a man, not earth and water, but also not even the seed. The seed needs to be deposited in something and undergo a change. What is most properly termed âpotentialityâ is something that would become actual of its own accord if it were not interfered with. So a seed, properly disposed, is a potentiality when it is actualizing itself, that is, when it is in the process of acquiring the form. (Edward Halper in 'Aristotleâs Metaphysics: A Readerâs Guide).
EDIT: Iâm not attempting to promote hierarchical structures. I pretend to play a role of advocatus diaboli in order to understand the possible necessity and limitations of using hierarchies. It is important to note that the regulatory ability of hierarchies is limited by by the average regulatory ability of the people at the top.
I am grateful for those words. I have already started writing a new article about how school undermines intelligence. A the core of the text is a new metaphor, which compares a child to an intelligent guided missile. If there are two control systems: (1) the learn drive and (2) the school, we have a control conflict. I compare school to sending a missile into a dark tunnel for 10-20 years. The missile will adapt to the tunnel and lose its ability to navigate the obstacles of the terrain. This is how a child adapts to being controllable, and lose adaptability in the process.
One can argue that one of the chief causes is the fact that society is now more complex than ever and will become more so in the future
I believe this is a very dangerous thinking in the context of school. This can lead to a temptation: if kids are lost in the world after 20 years of schooling, perhaps letâs load some more knowledge to the curriculum (about the complex world), and extend schooling, and start earlier. The opposite should happen. We adapt best by following the guidance of the best control system available. It is the learn drive that will produce the optimum fabric of abstract knowledge. The more complex the world, the more we need to let kids adapt to the world as they see it.
When dealing with serious threats in such complex environments (e.g. the spread of coronavirus), the primacy of efficiency should be considered
true. The efficiency comes from adaptability, which cannot be constrained by flying a kid into a tunnel.
Iâm not attempting to promote hierarchical structures. I pretend to play a role of advocatus diaboli in order to understand the possible necessity and limitations of using hierarchies
I know. You recommended Yaneer Bar-Yam, and I had a peek. The main take-away for me is that we should rely on distributed system. When the control is devolved and when the education is down to individual brains, we live faithfully to Bar-Yam prescription. I agree.
It is important to note that the regulatory ability of hierarchies is limited by by the average regulatory ability of the people at the top
Yes! Education Minister Zalewska comes to mind for those who know Polish reality For the rest of the world, Donald Trump is also a good example.
[EDITED]
A thermostatic head doesnât need a PhD in Physics to control heating in a room in the presence of uncertainty and change. It constantly maintains a desired value of temperature by opening or closing a valve. However, it is not a self-adaptive (predictive, feedforward) controller. Quite the contrary, it is feedback-based.
The difference is crucial. The first is inputs-driven, i.e. it is focused on external conditions. It reacts to them by applying rules of the form âif X, then do Yâ etc. The rules may occur occur implicitly or explicitly either by design or emegence. It operates best under conditions of low complexity and high regularity. The latter is outputs-driven, i.e. it is not occupied with external events. Quite the contrary, is exclusively focused on maintaining its output - a target value. It operates equally well under conditions of low or high complexity and low or high regularity.
Both controllers have different knowledge requirements and purposes. A feedforward controller is directed more towards efficiency and a feedback controller towards (properly interpreted) adaptability. But they both need to have a requisite variety, e.g. they will lose their ability to control if they donât detect an open window. A reasonable intervention aims at restoring lost control by, for example, absorbing the excess variety.
The controllers are complementary and can be combined into a higher-order controller to achieve a better overall control. And here comes the notion of requisite hierarchy. Neither of them is inherently better than the other (see also the Seer-Sucker Theory). An autonomous system consists of myriad of those simple or hierarchical controllers. However, its feedforward rules and feedback reference values may be hacked by other autonomous systems (incl. artificial ones) to serve their purposes⌠Beware of your masters!
The educational implications are self-evident; or maybe they are not.
I now see the relevance of these quotes more clearly: These laws describe complex systems, and the brain is a complex system More specifically, they describe situations in which one system (e.g. the brain) is trying to effectively control another (e.g. a machine, a company, the world). In that context, simply ignoring excess complexity is often a poor strategy. Trying to drive a car without understanding the purpose of the brake pedal, seat belt or headlights will result in big trouble!
However, despite the obvious links between complexity and the brain, itâs not straightforward to apply them to the learning process. These laws describe a static world, with controllers/brains of fixed complexity. They correctly predict that a novice will need more support than an expert in order to achieve the same results at work. However, what we care about here is how the amateur can become an expert. That distinction is crucial, because these laws say nothing about improvement.
I see two ways to get some more fruitful insights from complexity theory:
Instead of looking at how the brainâs models control the environment, we can look at how the sub-systems of the brain control the development of its models. One example is the incremental improvement cycle I presented earlier.
Alternatively, since you seem well-read in this area, perhaps you could locate a law that relates to how a controller can increase in complexity to match the environment that it wants to control.
By delving into a theory of complex systems, you help me see things simple! In addition to the concept of the learn drive, we should be able to talk about the concept network! It addresses all your doubts (I believe). We can give up schools, learn naturally, build complex societies, optimize the control hierarchy, and maximize global intelligence (with participation of humans and the algorithms).
âignoring complexityâ is exactly what a toddler would do. There is no fear of the âcomplex worldâ, which we seem to learn at school (âif you do not know X, you will surly fail at Zâ). It is just probing the environment and making the most of current knowledge to get some more knowledge.
Trying to drive a car without understanding the purpose of the brake pedal, seat belt or headlights will result in big trouble!
A fearless brain in the process of adaptation will make dozens of rounds around the car before attempting the first touch. Dogs are curious, but they never drive. Kids are even more curious and they will seek all clues to figure out how the car works. A rat will jump into a hot boiling oil and die when using its best navigation knowledge in escape (source: YouTube).
The learn drive will make optimal learning decisions. Exploration carries a risk and good learning decisions may still lead to death (as discussed before).
Brains and evolution have a simple strategy of adapting the speed of exploration and conceptualization to the hazards of the world. Let the brave and the fearful die and find the optimum of the exploratory drive. I support limiting behavioral spaces to incrementally expose kids to cars and pedals (in essence, slowing down the conceptualization). This way we can maximize the efficiency of the process without having kids die.
Georgeâs suggestion is correct: expose a concept network to the world and let it build adaptations incrementally.
how a controller can increase in complexity to match the environment that it wants to control
Evolution has found a super-simple and effective mechanism. I describe it in: Concept network : Optimization of connectivity
Your words make me recall that each concept in a concept network is in a sense a controller, and the network is a form of control hierarchy. The hierarchy emerges in response to the properties of the environment as perceived by the senses. It seems so perfect that I see it unimprovable
The whole of humanity forms a next level of the concept network. All individual brain can be seen as concepts in the network. This idea would need to ignore our complex states (e.g. thought) or the actuators (e.g. ability to take on a physical fight). However, future society seems to be driving in the direction of integrating all brains, all knowledge, and all artificial intelligences into a big concept network. In this evolution, I do not see the problem of ârenounced autonomyâ. All my rants against schooling are the exact effect of the âwar of the networksâ at the societal level (the same bad thing that happens at school, except I hope for a better outcome). My inputs are contradictory and I fight to retain the consistency of the model (of the world) by combating incongruent control signals. What we (in this forum) decide to say to the world will make other concepts/humans âwake upâ and we may have a global âbrainwaveâ of change
If you read âoptimization of connectivityâ (above), you might wonder how would the brain solve the problem of propagating an important message (to succeed in the fight for a better education system). The brain would simply grow a good axon and seek receptive dendrites. We can grow an easy to interpret message (literally reducible to an ON/OFF signal) and hope sufficiently many neurons/humans will find the resulting output rewarding (in the sense of the âlearn driveâ reward).
Rudolf Starkermann, a now deceased professor of Mechanical Engineering, claims in his book that neurological control organisation is similar to the structure of technical, automatic control systems. He speculates on how a network of neuronal elements may form a one-loop automatic control system, the organisational unit. A similar structure applies to social behaviour: http://starkermann.com/Books/Brain.pdf
Control is the process by which an organism acts on the environment to make some aspect of it conform to an inner image, standard, or reference condition that the behaving system selects. In this series of interactive demonstrations you will experience the phenomenon of control. The phenomena you will see here canât be explained by any conventional cause-effect theory of behavior.
EDIT:
On the importance of goals in the light of Perceptual Control Theory:
Through the prism of Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) all behaviour can be seen as the control of perceptual goals. In particular, goals are achieved by way of simple , and parsimonious , negative feedback control systems where a specific perceptual variable is continually monitored and any deviation from the desired value is counteracted by varying the output.
The benefits of this parsimonious way of implementing robotic systems is that the agent only needs to attend to those elements of the environment which are relevant to it attaining its goals, it does not need to perform complex processing or modelling of its environment, is able to control high-level, complex and abstract perceptions and it is able to operate in dynamic, chaotic and unpredictable environments.
More here: (Perceptual Robots Philosophy â Perceptual Robots)
@Wozniak you misunderstand my message, so Iâll try again from scratch!
When talking about âcontrolâ, we must differentiate between two key stages:
Stage 1: The learn drive controls (development of) the brainâs models.
This stage is dynamic, and considers how models change over time (i.e. how we learn). From this perspective, a novice driver will indeed ignore excess complexity with good reason. They can simply avoid driving on a highway until they are ready.
Stage 2: The brainâs models control the environment.
This stage is static, looking only at a snapshot of the brainâs current models; not at how they might improve. From this perspective, an inexperienced driver who simply ignores complexity while trying to drive a car down a highway will create a disaster.
In summary, the chain of control is: learn drive â models â environment. Whereas @646câs posts have primarily focused on stage 2, yours have focused on stage 1, which has caused ongoing miscommunication. I propose we all refocus on stage 1, because that is where learning occurs (i.e. the focus of this discussion!).
If your models are correct, then they should be compatible with other validated models. I believe my analysis here shows that is the case (so far)
I think we drift too far into technicalities away from the original goal of the thread. Esp. that we seem to be in agreement. Fig 4 in the book is almost a concept network diagram. You get then the same verdict from the points of view of control theory and neuroscience. A concept network is an evolving control system. To retain relevance I should add that the evolution of the network proceeds optimally if it conforms with a learn drive (control subsystem).
Control is the process by which an organism acts on the environment to make some aspect of it conform to an inner image, standard, or reference condition that the behaving system selects
Yes. Learn drive is the process by which an organism acts on the environment to make received learntropy conform to the reference condition (learning reward prediction) that the brain selects.
the agent only needs to attend to those elements of the environment which are relevant to it attaining its goals, it does not need to perform complex processing or modelling of its environment
Exactly! A child only needs to attend to those elements of the environment which are relevant to it attaining its goals, it does not need to perform complex processing or modelling of its environment
I see it differently: the learn drive controls the choice of knowledge, which serves to develop models, which affects the behavior, and the learn drive itself. It is a nice and healthy loop. That loops is aimed exactly at avoiding complexity. All models are as simple as possible and represent a reality that is as complex as necessary.
The healthy loop is disrupted by school that attempts to control the inflow of knowledge to build models that tend to crumble via interference, incoherence, inconsistency and low applicability. This is where the complexity gets injected against the rules of efficient learning. The whole learning loop is disrupted. When it comes to controlling behavior, we get all the aberrations of incompetency (incl. driving incompetency).
an inexperienced driver who simply ignores complexity while trying to drive a car down a highway will create a disaster
This is exactly the artificial school-inspired setting in which we learn to drive a car. Instead of natural exploration, or natural practice, we have a driving school: a fixed curriculum, a fixed set of facts to cram, a set exam date, deadlines, material overload, stress, exam, set period of training, practical test, and Go! Get your first A to B trip. All steps âperfectlyâ controlled by a âperfectlyâ rational mind on the way to a crystal clear goal. Instead of resolving complexity with modeling, we have an attempt to wrap the brain around the complex reality with all necessary details to remember (unreliably). This is a formula for a driving disaster.
In contrast, let me give you my instant averse reaction from a brain subject to 30 years of unschooling and in supposedly healthy recovery. There is no way I would even try my first trip without hundreds or thousands hour of practice. Perhaps even 10,000 hour would be a nice milestone for reassurance. I feel like a canary of unschooling in a coalmine of rationally controlled and well-schooled world!
I know my irrationality detection is a bit unfair. To me, investing half a century in a brain and then putting it in a metal box on a road facing sleep deprived incompetent drivers is unacceptable.
Back to the original question: For efficient operations of an individual, all complexity should best be reduced to simple models. I see your âignoring complexityâ, not as âdelving into complex problems without a worryâ (incompetent driver straight from the course), but as âignoring all complex details when they can be replaced with a good modelâ (fluent driver who can drive with closed eyes). In that, I love to ignore complexity and it works great!
Summary: the learn drive optimally tackles the complexity of the world. Schools interfere in the process, and make the brain see the world as more complex than necessary.
The COVID-19 pandemic is causing a lot of school closures. Although they are classed as temporary closures, if they last many months they may lead to big cultural transitions.
When I was in school, I spent a couple of years abroad and completed school during that time through mail correspondence. The situation gave me a strong taste of unschooling because I found it easy to avoid doing any schoolwork for weeks. In my case I got lots and lots of freedom, without any adverse consequences to my learning. When I eventually returned to regular schooling after a few years I found it dead easy and graduated with very high marks.
Over the next few months, very many children will have similar experiences, and so it may be fruitful to discuss any observations we have of children going through this transition. No doubt there will be many confounding factors, but they could enrich the discussion too.
The key part of your claim is âI found it easy to avoid doing any schoolwork for weeksâ. Polish government is doing its best to burden teachers with a responsibility of making sure it does not happen. As a result, we have the opposite of your hoped-for prediction: more oppression!
Sadly, not in Poland.
Remember that were are dealing with an âinjured generationâ. The ability of students to transition from being led to being autonomous would take months or years. It is not just about an overnight government decree. Children need a detox and rehab before they start growing on their own after years of submission.
The general trend is to move away from (a) coercion softened by assistance and sweetened by socialization, to (b) coercion compounded by parental supervision in stress. The load of homework can paradoxically decrease the availability of free time.
The old formula was:
Pain = Coercion - TeacherHelp - Friends
The new formula:
Pain = Coercion
Kids do not have the option to avoid schoolwork. Just the opposite, the ministry of education is doing its best to make sure there is tangible âprogressâ, which means making teachers responsible for supervision. Teachers in turn, push parents to do their work. Parents say they are subject to âinvigilationâ by electronic means. Kids say they get 3-5 times as much homework as they can physically manage. Two of my 15-year-old friends did their homework till 3 am yesterday (Apr 23).
Children are obliged to do their e-assignments. They may be obliged to report to e-class in time. A teacher can ban âlearning in pajamasâ. Obligatory 8:30 am attendance may be imposed, etc. The level of stress is increasing among children, parents and teachers who are not too fluent with technology. When in trouble, the teacher will send a list of jobs over e-mail and demand returns by the next day. Kids may have no broadband, or no computer, or share it with siblings, or compete with a telecommuting parent. Governmental websites crash in overload. Students panic when tools do not work and there is nobody who might help while deadlines hang over their heads. Conflicts arise when parents need constant supervision to be sure e-assignments do not turn into gaming with friends. Some kids panic as tests are poorly prepared and incomprehensible. Important exams that determine the future hang in the air. It is not sure when they will take place. Today, children cannot even leave home unsupervised (corona laws). They are bound to their room and their homework. They no longer hate school. Now they hate e-learning and dream of coming back to school to meet their friends. They are conditioned in the opposite direction to the one we desire (i.e. love of free learning).
Cultural change will happen. A teacher of history made news on Polish TV because he innovated: he uploaded his lecture to YouTube. He noticed that he needed to double his time to avoid errors and to improve organization to minimize time-wasting. Soon he innovated further, started adding props, fun stories, and started building a backlog: âIt takes me a whole day to prepare a single lectureâ. He was happy that his audience started expanding beyond his students. Instead of reaching 20, he could now reach 30-40 students. So he decided to pull in with other teachers to improve props and share materials. He added that there is a tremendous value added to his on-line lecture: kids do not need to wake up early and watch the lectures in a sleepy state. They can watch the lecture any time they want and even pause it (e.g. to drink some tea to refresh the mind). If the trend continues, kids from others schools may also watch his lectures, so he plans to work harder to improve value. It takes a social micro-group cultural paradigm shift to re-invent Khan Academy over and over again in each country, each school, and each family.
When kindergartens move to YouTube to show kids their âfavorite supervisorâ in action, I see a very clear message. It is not about education. It is all about freeing the parent from the need to play with kids. How can âpassive play on-lineâ replace interactive play? What happens in later years is just a shift from play to declarative learning that provides a better excuse for institutionalization. The parent can say âI am not qualifiedâ with a tacit assumption: âthe kid is not qualified eitherâ
One of the fathers commented, I forgot what I learned at school. I do not plan to refresh that useless knowledge. Why is this government forcing me to do the job of a teacher? I protest! Conclusion: school is useless, school is a violation of my rights, and "please take care of my kids while I am busy with my life".
Prof. Tomasz Grzyb commented âNo wonder kids hate e-learning. They dream of green grass, only to discover that reality is less rosyâ. He did not mention the problem of coercion and the hate of learning. His first recommendation for e-learning is a clear separation of learning from pleasure! Which is the opposite of the reliance on the learn drive. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8UcJEgbHzw). His motivations are noble though: e-learning invades the peace of homes! This is less freedom, not more!
One of my colleagues, a teacher of English reports good success in e-learning. His classes and positive testimonials even made it to TV. However, nobody mentioned that the teacher had to invest his own money to buy pro Zoom subscription, buy a good webcam, and invest nights to learn all the tricks of the trade. He admits his first class based on older tools was a failure. He could not control the students. So he promptly transitioned to a better technology. He is a bright exception.
The pranks made by students on the Discord channel in one of high schools went viral on YouTube. While a teacher tried to lecture, students would blow farts and burps into their microphones. The whole lecture became a farce. Now teachers fear being recorded and exposed. When Polish TV employed teachers to present their class on TV for countrywide consumption, disgraceful errors and incompetence were exposed to the whole country. Lectures confused diameters with circumferences, or chemical elements with compounds. The contrast between the paralyzing boredom of school and the materials popularly available on YouTube was stunning. It was a demonstration of a mindset in which there is an utter contempt for, and a lack of understanding of the demands of young brains. Some official thought that just recording an average lecture in an average school will do the job. In return, we received a precious insight into the dismal quality of education that happens thousands and millions of times in individual classrooms away from any watchful eye ready to raise a protest. A teacher friend mentioned that e-learning exposed the entire Polish education system as an expensive joke. It is a system in the state of decomposition. The system that is almost universally hated by teen students (see: Big Fat Lie: Children like school).
The educational benefits of the coronavirus epidemic will be monumental. This is the greatest acceleration of learning on the planet I have witnessed in my life. It will amount to multiple paradigm shifts in our understanding of democracy, freedom, education, risk, value, goals, compromise, optimization, health, etc. It will not be the exact idyllic mechanism you suggest, but the change will be biblical. In the end, the benefits will outweigh costs by a large margin. For this unintuitive outcome the credit goes to the power of concept networks (brains, and brain networks) that can always turn the worst disaster into a great lesson.
The greatest benefit of the epidemic for the school system will not be an epiphany about the freedom of learning, the pleasure of exploration, or the power of the learn drive. The greatest benefit will come from the debunking of the pathological school system. Schools are being revealed as a monumental waste of mental health, and human resources.
Here are some statistics that speak of parental experience:
A new national study on April 21 shows that amid the coronavirus pandemic, which has left many parents with no other option but to homeschool their children, 28 percent now have a âmuch more favorableâ view of homeschooling while another 24 percent have a âsomewhat more favorableâ of homeschooling. Just 8 percent said they have a âmuch less favorableâ view of homeschooling while 18 percent said they have a âsomewhat less favorableâ view of homeschooling. Twenty-two percent did not know or did not give their opinion.
I only have anecdotal snippets, but so far I have seen children choosing to read novels, exercise and build things in the new free time available to them. These are things that they werenât doing before, and there was no coercion involved; only boredom that spurred them to do something more interesting.
Like the US, we have many small ed-tech companies in Australia, which produce such videos. The school picks a provider and the work is done. Like Khan Academy, kids prefer it too.
This depends on the policies and funding in each area. In our state, and most of the country, there is enough funding for all schools to have full subscription to Microsoft Teams and Cisco Webex, both of which allow video.
Ultimately, Poland does not represent the world, nor does Australia. However, our stories do show that what you are observing is just the fact that adaptation will happen in different ways and rates when there is a seismic shift in the environment.
I have had no such issues in my classes, and neither have my colleagues. Iâm not saying it canât happen or that that teacher was incompetent - it could happen to anybody. Rather, viral videos are almost never representative of the general population. They tend to show extremes, or else some other class video would be even more viral by now. Calm, happy students - whether because of free time or something else - would not make a viral video.
Pam Jarvis (@Dr_Pam_Jarvis) Tweeted:
Iâm somewhat concerned that my grandsons seem so much happier now theyâre not at school. Theyâre enjoying their home learning (esp nature walks) &chatting to me on FaceTime about it. The older 2 (7& 9) actually have âlighterâ expressions. Thoughts, anyone?https://twitter.com/Dr_Pam_Jarvis/status/1250580086115483648?s=20
I have also found out from relatives in Greece that schools have effectively been paused for a month or two, and they plan not to restart until after summer (i.e. September). The teachers have only set âhomeworkâ for the rest of the year, which is naturally being ignored by the vast majority of kids. From the same relatives I have heard that the children are enjoying a great amount of play and using their creativity in what is essentially an extended summer break. Again, the effects are localised, and it may take a good amount of time to find out the broader patterns.
I think this break in our discussion and refocus on the learning available to us about the realities of school through the disruption of the pandemic has been productive. Iâve had a long silence due to two diversions of attention: first, the pandemic; and, second, a developing obsession with the question of whether elevation of resting heart rate above a typical range can provide early warning of infection that will be useful during the pandemicâs chronic phase. So, only now do I return and catch up on all the discussion. It is truly exciting to think together about all we can learn from this disruption. I will report the news from our own household:
Our daughter, age 12, has been frequently surveyed about the questions weâre discussing. She is realistic about school, recognizes that it can be annoying and there is variation in the competence of teachers, but is vehement about wanting to continue. She is extremely disappointed that the normal school year has been canceled and is hoping for a return in the fall.
Her distance learning falls into two phases. The first phase, during which the school hadnât yet settled on an approach, involved almost complete self-management of her time, with a packet of work given at the beginning of the week. She was glad to get this packet, and have a chance to interact with her teachers occasionally on Zoom. She kept a journal in which she planned her day, got plenty of sleep, did her homework while chatting online with her close friends, and worked hard and mostly with pleasure on her assignments. This was a good period!
In the next phase, the school set out a firm schedule for participation, starting at 8:30 am and ending at 3 pm. Most of the day is spent in front of the computer. The teachers are attentive and well organized, but the process is wearying. For our daughter, sitting in front of a computer most of the day is not satisfying.
So in the last months we have experienced three kinds of school: conventional classroom, self-governed assignments, daily remote classroom. Of this, daily remote classroom is, for us, clearly the worst, and the first time Iâve seen real unhappiness about school. I have talked to many other parents and kids about this. Some of the kids say they enjoy the daily remote classroom, but most do not.
I have a tentative explanation for this. Daily remote classroom offers little in the way of personal satisfaction from close contact with peers and teachers. You canât really socialize or learn from others. Therefore, the daily remote classroom lacks the personal guidance of the school situation, while at the same time interfering with alternative forms of social contact. We are now in a âworst of both worldsâ situation.
In evaluating our own experience, I continue to doubt that the concepts of Coercion and TeacherHelp are adequate for modeling school, because Help only connotes explicit assistance, while Coercion only connotes harmful authority. I think the pain/pleasure of school cannot be expressed without reference to the social and emotional aspects of authority. The concept that replaces TeacherHelp should include social and emotional connotations such as âinspiration, challenge, good example.â And the concept that replaces Coercion should have connotations like ignorance, punishment, carelessness and neglect. In other words, I continue to see school as a place of authority, and want to judge schools on whether they help children in developing their own authority (including helping through examples) or whether they interfere and damage this process.
