These two examples contrast expansive and defensive learning climates.
In the first example, having completed the scaffolded exercises, Laura’s group is confident and secure enough to take the risk of continuing to experiment with salt. There seems to be a culture of mutually supportive and cooperative learning, curiosity, and intrinsic motivation, which supports productive risk-taking. In continuing their experiment, they are demonstrating expansive learning modes (hopefully safely and in dialogue with their teacher). In a classroom with a defensive learning atmosphere, the group’s initiative may have been considered poor behaviour, and the learning culture fostered by the teacher would have been restrictive and punitive. They may not have dared to take the risk and would have probably done the minimum work required or copied answers from their neighbouring group.
Senta and Floria seem to feel the fear and sense of being overwhelmed that can be associated with defensive learning situations and Senta has started cheating as a coping mechanism. Even if she had studied for the exam, it is likely that the information would have been stored in a superficial manner and would not contribute to the personal transformation and enriched interaction with the world that would result from deeper, expansive learning experiences.
The initiative shown by Laura’s group could indicate the development of subjective agency, one of the three functions of schools outlined by Biesta. It might exemplify the development of selfhood (or the I) within a community of learners. The function of socialisation is seen in the intersubjectivity required when successfully negotiating an experiment within a group and communally devising an additional experiment… And I imagine that because of this solid experiential and sensory basis for learning, the students in Laura’s group would have no problem transferring this knowledge to contexts required to fulfil the ‘qualification’ function of schools.
Conversely, Senta and Floria are not being encouraged to develop self-efficacy, subjective agency and confidence in learning processes. They are simply avoiding negative consequences of a situation which does not provide for meaningful learning or learning that provides for strong self-formation. The only sense of community possible is through the mutual formation of methods of resistance to processes of change or risk, and which entrenches fear of making mistakes, thus hampering the meaningful community development. The implications of transferring this learning behaviour to other life experiences are grave.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.AcceptPrivacy Policy
1 Comment
These two examples contrast expansive and defensive learning climates.
In the first example, having completed the scaffolded exercises, Laura’s group is confident and secure enough to take the risk of continuing to experiment with salt. There seems to be a culture of mutually supportive and cooperative learning, curiosity, and intrinsic motivation, which supports productive risk-taking. In continuing their experiment, they are demonstrating expansive learning modes (hopefully safely and in dialogue with their teacher). In a classroom with a defensive learning atmosphere, the group’s initiative may have been considered poor behaviour, and the learning culture fostered by the teacher would have been restrictive and punitive. They may not have dared to take the risk and would have probably done the minimum work required or copied answers from their neighbouring group.
Senta and Floria seem to feel the fear and sense of being overwhelmed that can be associated with defensive learning situations and Senta has started cheating as a coping mechanism. Even if she had studied for the exam, it is likely that the information would have been stored in a superficial manner and would not contribute to the personal transformation and enriched interaction with the world that would result from deeper, expansive learning experiences.
The initiative shown by Laura’s group could indicate the development of subjective agency, one of the three functions of schools outlined by Biesta. It might exemplify the development of selfhood (or the I) within a community of learners. The function of socialisation is seen in the intersubjectivity required when successfully negotiating an experiment within a group and communally devising an additional experiment… And I imagine that because of this solid experiential and sensory basis for learning, the students in Laura’s group would have no problem transferring this knowledge to contexts required to fulfil the ‘qualification’ function of schools.
Conversely, Senta and Floria are not being encouraged to develop self-efficacy, subjective agency and confidence in learning processes. They are simply avoiding negative consequences of a situation which does not provide for meaningful learning or learning that provides for strong self-formation. The only sense of community possible is through the mutual formation of methods of resistance to processes of change or risk, and which entrenches fear of making mistakes, thus hampering the meaningful community development. The implications of transferring this learning behaviour to other life experiences are grave.