I have no problem, in itself, with lifelong or love of learning for that
matter. I guess my problem is with the "fostering of the skills" which has
as an assumption that it currently does not exist. I am very much a
lifelong learner, but what we are talking about is skills for a particular
type of lifelong leaning. One in which if the economy fails, I, the worker
am at fault because I did not learn a,b,c although I did very much enjoy
learning x,y, and z, it was personally fulfilling. So, when we speak of
being student centered what are we talking about. To go back to preschool
we can watch a child "construct" and label that as student centered or
"natural", but that environment excludes certain types of learning in the
process (power rangers for example). I guess I question if the outcome of
student centered and teacher centered classrooms are really that different
other than in the end the student centered one is more efficient. I guess
from personal experience there is some knowledge that is better left
un-appropriated, so I get a little uneasy with certain assumptions about
student centered learning. What a child constructs, owns, etc can be
manipulated and constrained, so there is always a continuum we need to
focus on. A medical student approriates a certain level of assumptions and
beliefs that are held prior to participating in a PBL community, which is
not always the case in other communities. So, upon entering a community of
practice I may approriate, identify, or own the activity, but I may also
chose to ignore, resist or leave in an ideal situation. Where I tend to
have struggles with the assumptions of student centered arrangements is the
appropriation, identity etc. is often a built in prerequisite to the
community itself.
Tools, in reference to lifelong learning, have a double nature I believe.
Again for me its the difference between taking something as a pre-given
that children construct or identify with an activity or community to
various degrees, which is a wonderful thing, where it becomes dangerous,
like internalization, is when it becomes the prerequisite.
Teacher Centered: Internalization is the goal or prerequisite of the
community or activity rather than the byproduct.
Student Centered: Appropriation, identity formation, construction,
ownership is the goal or prerequsite of the community or activity rather
than the byproduct.
Learning/development are beautiful things that occur in most if not all
activities, but what changes in the educational setting (child
centered/teacher centered) is they become processes that are manipulated to
various degrees. I think for obvious historical reasons implicit or
explicit education can turn social processes into something that are
manipulated and controlled. If we go back to scientific/everyday concepts
of Vygotsky/Shif we see it was an important pedogogical issue of not so
much offering something as an alternative to internalization, but
perfecting it. We see the same logic in some constructivism in relation to
motivation in that learning rather than candy should be the motivation.
Even Piaget as the quote below Molly offered awhile back demonstrates very
clearly that what was at task was creating a more efficient model, one
which the teacher directed model was not very efficient at. Schemes of
course are very deceptive, because they naturalize internalization to a
certain extent, but in the end it is about creating a more efficient system
not an alternative to it.
"Piaget was skeptical of schooling's development-enhancing properties. He
argued that the asymmetrical power
relations of teacher and student created an imbalance because the pressure
to accommodate to teachers' views
far outweighed the pressure for assimilation of instruction to the child's
already existing schemas. The result
was learning of a superficial kind that was unlikely to create fundamental
cognitive change. He believed that
fundamental change was more likely to occur in informal actions where the
asymmetry of power relations was
reduced, allowing for a more equal balance between assimilation and
accommodation." p. 87, Michael Cole. 1996.
Nate