The geometry of learning

One thing that education seems so big on is the notion of "planning". What tends to happen is that it is done in a decontextualised, prescription fashion with little consideration for the fact that there are real students in the class. This is not helped by teachers college templates which reduce a lesson into small chunks organised literally down to the minute. There is little room for the real life contingencies of a classroom of students. The alternative to this situation today seems to be an increase in explicitly identifying learning intentions (which teachers do according to curricula mandates) and then co-constructing the success criteria for these intentions with the students. This is a solution to the problem that in our factory model of schooling students seem to have little idea about why they are there. The idea is that if it is made explicit to students why they are there, and if they are involved in the development of identifying what will count as success of the original learning intention, better learning will occur. I have used and continue to use this method with some classes but I am far from convinced that it can harness the collective intelligence of a classroom body. It seems to be based on the individualist notion that learning is an activity that predominantly occurs within the individual brains (minds) of students. There is little sense of what Sylvia Ashton Warner referred to as the organic, conversational aspects of education. So, my concerns are as follows:

• The explicit statement of learning intentions might mean that teachers focus on achieving them rather than participating in the life of the classroom and "expanding the space of the possible" (Engaging Minds, 2nd edition)
• They feel like a glossed up return to 'behavioural outcomes' and behaviourism couched in constructivist speak.
• You can have technically brilliant learning intentions and success criteria and no real engagement in learning

The problem is that everyone knows that a good teacher has "outcomes" in mind. In that sense what I have described is a very good method to ensure that the teacher has given some thought to what they are actually trying to achieve. But the teacher giving thought to what they want to teach within the framework of learning intentions and success criteria might mean that ONLY what they intend is learnt and at the expense of far more sophisticated learning possibilities that emerge during the course of the lesson. Put more simply, I wonder if the lesson becomes goal-driven rather than possibility-for-new-ways-of-looking-at-the-world-driven. Brent Davis reminds us of the difference between prescriptive curriculum and proscriptive curriculum. A prescriptive curriculum is when what is to be learnt has already been determined. It is a representationist theory of knowledge that assumes learning is about the individual conforming to an already pregiven reality. A proscriptive theory of curriculum is one which sees education as "a participation in the ever unfolding project of becoming capable of new, perhaps as-yet unimaginable possibilities" (Engaging Minds 2nd editon). This is when education actually becomes interesting and the image of a fractal (top right) can, I think, help to serve as a metaphor for "planning".

Here are a few features of a fractal:

• You get incredible complexity from incredible simplicity in a very short time. By simply iterating lines of increasingly smaller sizes you get the image above
• Change is non-linear in that it is growth oriented rather than goal oriented. In this respect it is heavily supported by neo-darwinian theories of evolution, ecological theories of learning and recent research into how the brain works
  
• There is self-similarity across scale. This means that some smaller parts retain the same pattern as the whole

So how are these ideas useful when teachers think about planning?

Firstly, with an attitude towards what might happen in the classroom and the presentation of resources that allow for new interpretive possibilities we teachers don't need to spend hours making plans for the students to follow. Complexity will arise if we create the conditions for it. There is more to this but I'll leave it at that for now.

Secondly, if change is non-linear we simply cannot determine goals of learning. This is not to say we can't expect an inquiry or assignment to be finished at a certain time, but we can't legislate what learning will occur. Perhaps we can guess what might occur, but unless we are to treat the brain as something other than a biological organism subject to the tendencies of evolution, we cannot predetermine what is to be learnt without killing the possibility for new something new and novel being "constructed".

Third, obviously there needs to be a goal in the broad sense of something that orients and constrains. With out a really clear idea of what could happen chaos will quickly ensue. By critiquing a common method of planning I am not saying that teachers can't afford not to be prepared. They need to be highly prepared for the contingencies of what could happen and have learning activities that anticipate the needs of the classroom culture.