I was trained as a teacher in the 1970s in a program called “Education as a Psychological Process” at the University of Michigan. I was immersed in the educational trends that American schools adopted in the 1970s and 80s that would impact the direction for public school education for decades to come. The overall emphasis was that education should be “child centered” and honor the ways in which each child is unique. A variety of teaching modalities were implemented. My classroom contained learning centers for individualized learning.
Art supplies, test tubes and plants filled the 6th grade classroom to facilitate experiential learning. When teaching objectives were written, both the cognitive and affective domains had to be taken into consideration.
But with a focus on a child’s emotional well being, there was also a focus on cognitive skills. There was much consternation about a student’s ability to not just memorize information but use knowledge to apply, analyze, synthesis and evaluate information. In other words, a student must be able to think critically and ask questions as part of the learning process. We were to teach to the child, not to a test, especially a standardized test which, it was argued, basically tested how well you could take a test. The learning and retention theories I learned as a teacher actually did serve me well in over thirty years as a pastor. But like all trends, “child centered education” endured a backlash and a “back to basics” movement reenergized teaching to a test model. But I believe that good teaching in America employs a hybrid of methods and philosophies.
When I and a group that included many educators made the first trip to rural Kenya, we visited schools. We visited boarding schools, elementary schools, private schools, Presbyterian schools and we were fascinated. We discovered an approach to education that was distinctly British and derivative of the teaching philosophy the first missionaries introduced from Scotland 120 years ago. The students were expected to conform to a set curriculum taught in a lecture format. The rules were abundantly clear and students endured sometimes painful consequences if they did not respond to disciplinary measures.
But we, the visitors from the U.S., felt compelled to resist criticism. In spite of the fact that these schools, at first glance, embodied none of the child centered, learning theory and motivational techniques that were familiar to us, there was something enviable about what we saw. The kids wanted to be in school. They were motivated. They were earnest.
There was a sense of dignity in the learning process that was not prevalent in American schools....at least the ones I had known. I don’t know if the kids were learning to think critically but something important was going on. And as I got to know Kenyan educators their love and devotion to students was obvious. And I remembered something taught to me in teacher training which was basically that good teachers instinctively teach to the child, love the child and find creative ways to facilitate learning. And we met many good teachers in Kenya.