Sunday, March 22, 2020

Food For Thought: Humans need not Apply

Thought that it was time to take our minds off Coronavirus, Covid 19 or SARS-2 CoV or whatever else it is eventually called.

Here are two good provocations that link together in my mind. Firstly is this YouTube video, 15 mins, explaining the likely future of the workplace and that it won't be long before humans need not apply for the advertised position because they will be going to AI. It's not an extreme point of view but rather examines the why's and the what's happening in the labour market.



The key question that arose from this video in my mind was how can we avoid this situation? What can we do as educators to prepare our students to be able to compete for those jobs? I believe now, as I have always believed, and that is that if we make students think, and give them the freedom to have opinions, then they can create original ideas, solutions, and conclusions that will go beyond those offered by AI. This beautifully argued 3,000-word essay from AEON, byJohn Taylor, The Examined Life, encourages us to re-examine the purpose of school and return to a more Socratic methodology. Having read it twice this morning, I believe that a Socratic methodology is equally applicable to teaching in our present situation of learning at home. Without moving to live content streaming we could encouraging face to face and group discussion through some of the tools that we are already using. 

"Daydream with me for a moment while I imagine my ideal classroom. The first thing that strikes you when you walk in is the arrangement of the room. Not serried ranks of desks lined up before a blackboard but comfortable seats placed in a large circle. This arrangement sends a message: here is a space for open discussion and the free exchange of ideas. On the wall is a poster of Bertrand Russell with the quotation: ‘Most people would sooner die than think, and most of them do.’ There is a display cabinet with row upon row of student dissertations, covering topics as diverse as business ethics, engineering, architecture, political history, linguistics and the philosophy of science.
The students enter, taking their places in the circle, ready for the seminar to begin. The teacher sits with them in the circle and gets straight down to business. ‘Am I the same person today as I was yesterday?’ she asks. Debate breaks out immediately. The teacher says little, interjecting occasionally to ask for clarification of a point, or to suggest that the class gives further consideration to an argument that one of the students has made.
After a lively initial exchange of ideas, things calm down a little and the teacher makes some remarks about the distinction between essential and non-essential properties. She then suggests the students read an extract from the writings of the philosopher John Locke. This stimulates further discussion and debate.
In their contributions, students draw on ideas they have encountered in different subjects. One says she is the person she is because of her DNA. The teacher asks for an explanation of the biology behind this idea. Someone questions how the theory applies to identical twins. Another student suggests that we all play roles in life and it is these roles that define our identity.
The atmosphere in the class is relaxed, collaborative, enquiring; learning is driven by curiosity and personal interest. The teacher offers no answers but instead records comments on a flip-chart as the class discusses. Nor does the lesson end with an answer. In fact, it doesn’t end when the bell goes: the students are still arguing on the way out.
This is my ideal classroom. In point of fact, it is more than just a dream. My real classroom sometimes looks like this, at least occasionally. I learned when I began teaching that lessons in which students are actively involved in discussion, debate and enquiry tend to be more enjoyable and memorable both for the student and the teacher, therefore I try wherever possible to run things this way.
But the sad fact is that the vast majority of lessons are determined by a different goal. For most teachers and students, the classroom experience is shaped, down to the last detail, by the requirement to prepare for examinations. When students enter such classrooms, the focus is not on open-ended discussion or enquiry, but on learning ‘what we need to know’ to succeed in whichever examination is next on the horizon. Most likely, there will be a ‘learning outcome’ for the lesson, drawn straight from the exam syllabus. There will be textbooks with comments from the examiners, banks of possible exam questions and bullet-pointed notes with ‘model answers’. Far from being open spaces for free enquiry, the classroom of today resembles a military training ground, where students are drilled to produce perfect answers to potential examination questions."

No comments:

Post a Comment