The Great Learning Debate: Content or Method?

The Great Learning Debate: Content or Method? I have the privilege of observing the daily evolution of educational and pedagogical theories in the classroom. To summarise, there are two visions of knowledge acquisition in schools.

I have the privilege of observing the daily evolution of educational and pedagogical theories in the classroom. To summarise, there are two visions of knowledge acquisition in schools.

On the one hand, in the tradition of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, those who believe that human beings are intrinsically good and curious, and only the bad order of society can corrupt them. People exercise their freedom spontaneously to learn and do good. Pushed to its paroxysm, this vision lets the student choose what he/she wants to learn and acquire the knowledge by himself/herself, the teacher becoming a guide, a coach. The method is more important than the content.

The other vision, largely dominant in the classical educational world, establishes a framework and a teacher-student relationship where knowledge is transmitted by an expert. There is more emphasis on memorisation.

As you may have guessed, my experience shows me that neither view captures the full complexity of students' lives and learning. We must stop thinking of the human personality as univocal. We have many "layers" of personality, the result of our genetic code, parental love at an early age, and our social experiences later. The best and the worst can be found in the same person. One or the other can be "activated" depending on the conditions.

The pedagogical approach must therefore be adapted to this human complexity. In my opinion, a framework is necessary for the student, who needs one, even if he/she sometimes challenges it. Every child strives to maximise his/her freedom, but he/she must be taught that freedom, in the school sense, is not an absolute right, but is earned through the development of oneself and one's abilities. Yes, through effort, that inseparable notion of human progress that seems strangely unfashionable in our society addicted to narcissistic pleasures.

Teaching content provides a mental map for the student. It would be too hard otherwise to want to acquire all the assets of the world by oneself. Learning without a teacher wastes time. I have seen students who are exhausted when asked to propose their research topics, to plan their work, to look for content and then to structure it. The transmission is much more efficient.

Our greatest artists and our best scientists all started by re-learning the work of their predecessors before creating and innovating. Copying and revisiting the great thinkers of the past allows us to work through complex thoughts to better achieve one's own accomplishment.

That said, there can be no motivation to learn without a link to the real world or to one's own aspirations. Teaching becomes personalised. Students are encouraged to know themselves, to explore their natural affinities to encourage them to take ownership of their education. Sometimes all it takes is self-confidence and the joy of learning a subject to create a positive circle that then spreads to other subjects. The student gradually becomes more independent. This is the "starter" approach. However, the student is expected to reach the same standards of proficiency as previous generations.

Unlike normal thinking, I believe that today’s students are more capable than their predecessors: not everything is disappearing, on the contrary. Cognitive sciences, pedagogical approaches and sources of knowledge have evolved so much that our children are better able to learn than we are.