#4 The Pedagogical Spectrum
Does It Matter Which Model I Choose?
Low Structure / High Freedom
Let’s say you choose to innovate with a model that is low structure and high freedom, similar to A.S. Neill’s Summerhill school. What’s going to happen?
Without structure, children don’t know how to handle their freedom. They don’t know how to behave or what to learn. Some children might do ok with very little structure–these would be the most responsible, most self-directed students. But, the majority will squander their freedom in distraction, conflict, and play.
This model is highly dependent on the quality of the student. Success would depend largely on having narrow admissions criteria.
And there is an immediate, obvious problem: little learning, lots of social conflict.
High Structure / Low Freedom
Now let’s say you choose to innovate with a model that is high structure and low freedom. What’s going to happen?
You will have a lot of “learning”. The children will memorize an abundance of information and procedures. They will learn how to read, write, and do math.
Better teachers will motivate the students more; worse teachers won’t care about motivation as much.
This model is highly dependent on the quality of the teacher. Success would depend largely on hiring amazing teachers who are masters in motivation.
The problem with innovating in this model is that your students' success is limited to the quality of the teacher. The better the teacher, the more motivated and knowledgeable the students will be. Also, student learning will be limited, more or less, to the information presented by the teacher.
And don’t forget, this is how education has been for a long time. This is the standard for education.
To truly innovate, we are seeking to go beyond this standard; to find an educational model that blows this standard away as children soar to new heights.
High Structure / High Freedom
Now let’s turn to the third option. The combination of the other two. High structure and high freedom. What will happen if you choose to innovate within this model?
That depends, because there are 3 versions of this model:
Freedom THEN Structure: With this model, the students alternate between highly motivated “play” activities and more boring ”learning” activities. This is the typical model in early childhood daycares and preschools, where children alternate between free play and structured learning.
Freedom AND Structure: With this model, freedom and structure are both present within the same activities; however, they are split into different aspects of the activity. For instance, I was just at a science museum, and there was a game where children throw different colored balls into their mouths. It turns out that the different colors represent the different macronutrients. Throwing the balls is the highly motivated aspect which attracts free children into the activity; learning about macronutrients is the structured element which children seem to not even notice. Both freedom and structure are present within the same activity, but split into different aspects of the activity.
Freedom THROUGH Structure: This is Montessori’s model. Here the motivational aspect and the direct aim or learning outcome are one-in-the-same. It is the learning itself that motivates the children. For instance, a child constructing the same geometric shapes over and over again because he’s trying to ‘get it right’. With this model, there is a unity between learning and motivation. The structure allows the children to be successful with their freedom.
Freedom THROUGH Structure
This approach is ripe for innovation. There is endles opportunity for finding ways to motivate students to take an interest in a subject and want to learn more about it.
Is this model limited by the quality of the student? Somewhat, yes, of course, but a wide range of students can be successfully in this model. This is because the teacher is able to vary the amount of structure based on the needs of the student. If a student is highly self-directed, the teacher can take a more hands-off approach, more like the Summerhill model. However, for those students who are not highly self-directed, the teacher is able to supply whatever structure the child requires to take interest in a subject and learn.
Is this model limited by the quality of the teacher? Well, obviously better teachers are much better for students than worse ones, regardless of the model. But the point here is that students are able to go far beyond what is taught by the teacher. They can reach a level of mastery over a topic that goes beyond the limits of lessons and materials. This is the ‘disproportionate output’ that I aim for–learning that far exceeds teaching.
Children are free to pursue any height they choose AND they are supported in their ascent.
The potential for higher educational heights makes ‘Freedom THROUGH Structure’ the most attractive model for educational innovation.