A reply to Charles Clarke by Ference Marton

Citation

Marton, F. (2012), "A reply to Charles Clarke by Ference Marton", International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 1 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlls.2012.57901caa.003

A reply to Charles Clarke by Ference Marton

A reply to Charles Clarke by Ference Marton

Article Type: Discussion From: International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Volume 1, Issue 3.

Of ends and means

Naturally, I welcome the opportunity to take part in and comment on a distinguished politician's views on educational research. The politics of education is, in my understanding, about ends and means, i.e. about ideals and about the allocation of resources for realizing those ideals. Such an ideal is pointed out by Charles Clarke: greater social mobility. It follows from such a stance that you allocate more resources to them who are in the need of more.

A common idea of educational research (shared by Charles Clarke and by many educational researchers as well) is that it should deliver answers to questions about how the resources allocated can be used as wisely as possible; such as, for instance, “Does class size matter?” “Is individual tutoring a good idea?” “Should we spend more money on technology?” “Should the students work in groups, on their own or in whole classes?”, etc.

The problem with such questions is that they cannot be answered. Not because of lack of interest, lack of funding or lack of intellectual brilliance. They cannot be answered because they are not the kind of questions that can be answered. In the same way as we cannot tell if pills are better than surgery, if a screwdriver is better than a hammer, if big houses are better than small houses, if water is more important than food.

Such questions are questions about means, and there are no universal answers to questions about means. Means are to be had in relation to aims. Some means are powerful for some aims, other means are powerful for other aims. Before we ask the question, “How do we achieve educational success?” we should ask the question, “What is educational success?” Not in general, but for each and every lesson in each and every school.

Learning is always the learning of something; in this sense, learning is always specific. In their daily work, teachers have to deal with questions like, “Why do some students fail to add, subtract, multiply and divide three digit numbers; why can they not explain why things sink or float; why can they not describe a historical event from different perspectives, etc1?” Let us call these different examples of what the students might have to learn “objects of learning”. There are specific keys to every specific object of learning, which are necessary for that object, but not for others. Teachers might occasionally discover such keys (critical aspects of the object of learning) in their practice, and through research they can be systematically searched for. Once those specific keys are identified, and shared by teachers, they can make use of them in novel cases, helping students to make the object of learning their own. If the specific keys are not found, and not used, this will not happen; regardless of whether the students are taught in whole-class, work in group, or on their own; regardless of whether the style of learning is predominantly visual or audile; regardless of whether the teacher is firm, fair and charismatic.

If the students do not find out about part-whole relations between numbers, they will fail to learn to “do sums”; if they do not separate the way of seeing (the perspective) from what is seen, they cannot possibly describe a historical event from different perspectives; if they do not distinguish between weight and volume, they cannot possibly have an idea of density (which is the ratio between the two), and if they do not use density as a conceptual tool, they cannot possibly explain why some things float and others sink, etc. These specific keys are what the students have to learn, they are the ends, which actually may vary between different students. Ways of organizing the work in the class, the technological gadgets, are the means among which the teachers have to choose. Widening the space for teachers to find the ends (the keys of learning) and to choose the means for reaching them, is the best policy makers can do, I believe, in order to contribute to a development towards their vision, such as greater social mobility, for instance.

Specific keys to the learning of specific things is not all there is. But without them, educational success cannot be achieved. I hope that this journal will be a main source of insights into what it takes to learn some of those many things that students are expected to learn.

About the author

Ference Marton Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Ference Marton can be contacted at: Ference.Marton@ped.gu.se