Would learning be better if our starting point was to find young people’s interests and talents, then support and nurture them as far as possible? This could generate individual purpose and autonomy within the student, which can then provide greater motivation to explore and learn things of value, and ultimately improve mastery. Other key skills – including vital skills of literacy, numeracy for example – will then grow as they are used and needed to support the particular area of interest, perhaps even reaching ‘success’ in those key skills through the medium of a subject that sparks an interest. The situation of achieving higher levels of literacy and numeracy is one sought by many western governments, perhaps mistakenly being seen as the cause of rising prison population. However, it stubbornly remains largely elusive.
When we think back to our own schooling, there are inevitably times when we remember learning specific things, usually when we were interested directly, or when an enthusiastic teacher excited a latent interest. An internal ignition of interest is a key condition that suits learning best (Coyle, D. (2009). The Talent Code. London; Arrow Books), because we are motivated. Teaching literacy and numeracy without purpose will turn off some people in education, leading to disengagement, disaffection and rising crime – the exact opposite result to that many politicians believe should happen.
Is it possible that current thinking is back to front? Does poor literacy and numeracy cause disaffection with societies norms, or does not engaging pupils at school hinder any learning – including literacy and numeracy? Which comes first? Do we actually know, either way?