industry & research
campusreview.com.au
much study to do to maximise learning
within a given amount of time – is not
really taken on board by teachers. They
simply present their material and leave it
to the students to work out the best way
to learn.
So the students just use their intuitive
ways of learning – what they’ve learned
through their primary and high school
study – which is procrastination and
binging. It’s not true of all students, but it’s
very common.
You mention that universities don’t seem to
adhere to the precepts of the ways in which
we learn. Is there a reason they don’t?
The best reason I can come up with is
the fact that it’s a focus on assessment
and credentials, and academics focusing
on content.
Content is essentially what academics
have the monopoly over. So the specialists
in any given research area, by teaching
that material, are the authorities on
that. Whereas, if the main approach in
universities shifted more towards, “Here’s
how we’re going to help people become
really good learners,” and they can go out
and apply those skills in all sorts of ways,
then academic specialists, whether in
philosophy or physics, wouldn’t have such
a claim to expertise.
Another element of learning is the
difference between a fixed and a growth
mindset. Can you start by describing fixed
and growth mindsets?
It ’s basically set on beliefs about whether
people are naturally intelligent or whether
performance depends on how much effort
you put in to learning something. So people
who believe someone is bright because
they’re born that way have a different
attitude to studying to someone who
believes that if you do well it means you’ve
worked really hard and you keep working.
Unfortunately, in Australia, lots of people
believe in the natural intelligence sort of
thing. It’s very common among academics,
scientists and various others that a
particular person may just be really smart.
The assumption then is, “Well, that person
doesn’t need to study. They're just smart.”
So that sort of approach is not very
good for getting people to put in the
effort. From the research I’ve seen, having
a high IQ might be good for things in the
short term, but in terms of developing
great expertise, you have to put in
massive amounts of work, no matter how
you’re born.
What’s interesting is that in cultures
which don’t have this idea of innate
genius – for example, in China – they’re
more likely to work hard, and therefore
they’re going to do better.
But the expert reformists’ research is the
most impressive, and it also counters the
idea that there’s innate intelligence.
Erickson’s argument would be
there’s no good evidence that anyone
who becomes really, really good at
something started off with a brain that’s
systematically different from anyone
else's. Setting aside influences on the
brain before birth, we all start out with the
same sort of capacity to become either
a Mozart or a drug addict or both. I’m
sitting there with students in my class,
and I know that brain plasticity means
that if they spent an hour or two every
day on something they really thought was
important, then within a matter of a few
years, they’d be really, really good at it,
and of course after a couple of decades,
they’d be world class.
You know, it’s just not on the agenda.
It’s really sad, except for in sports and
the performing arts. They’ve got to do it,
otherwise they can’t possibly compete.
Can you explain how you think universities
in Australia are set up to have that false
assumption about how intelligence works or
how good grades can be achieved?
When the teachers just sit back and they
get the assignments from the various
students, and they see some people are
doing really well, and they assume, “Oh,
they’re doing well because they’re smart.”
Those sort of students are then groomed
to do further study, to do honours, a PhD
or whatever.
There’s no exploration into, “Well, let’s
see ... maybe they’re working hard, more
efficiently, they’ve got better study skills,
as well as maybe a better background.”
And so other students, if they were
taught the same sort of skills, in terms
of how to do better, to have a growth
mindset rather than giving up because
they think they’re not smart, then they
might actually do a lot better than they
would otherwise.
Your final point about learning is on the
healthy body/healthy mind connection,
which I think most people know about.
But you make an interesting point about
how universities can promote this. Can you
explain this further?
There’s lots of research showing that if you
exercise, it’s good for your mind, good
for your brain. But they are also the things
that improve emotional stability, and they
may also improve capacity to learn. So all
that’s known, but it’s never applied in any
systematic way in classes. Students are left
to their own devices to decide how they’re
going to spend their time. So if they’re into
the traditional procrastination and binging
approach to studying, they’re also not
taking care of their body and mind.
There’s no systematic encouragement
to say, “Hmm, you should be training in
all sorts of ways to be a better thinker.”
Training means changing the body as well.
And of course, it’s not just universities. The
whole society is set up to make it easier
for people to not use their muscles, to not
get exercise. That’s why everyone has cars,
and we’ve got all sorts of labour-saving
devices. Given the importance of health
in all sorts of ways to learning, you might
think paying more attention to this would
be worthwhile.
You touch on the work of Ivan Illich, who
wrote a book called Deschooling Society in
1971. Can you explain his idea, which you
note is still considered radical?
Illich more generally was writing about
what he called “disabling professions”.
He was looking at law, at medicine, at
the transport system, all of these, and
saying that professionals, while they may
be skilled in their own way, are disabling
other people by essentially forcing them
into certain ways of operating so that
ordinary people lose their own capacities.
So in terms of schooling, Illich says the
whole education system – and he wasn’t
just looking at universities – is inhibiting
people’s learning, and it’d be better to let
them learn in the community.
This of course goes against a lot of laws
we have now. We’ve got laws against child
labour and the like. But if we know that
people learn the most on the job, then
why not have children learning things on
the job? Well, things are just not set up
that way at the moment. Nonetheless,
I don’t think we can expect universities
to lead the way. This change would
undermine their rationale in many ways.
I’m just really putting it out there as an
idea that’s worth revisiting. ■
19