I was at a party some time ago, talking to a physicist. The hosts’ todler happened to be pushing at a gate, and enjoying the moment of it returning. The physicist mused that it would be years before the child could fully understand what was happening in her ‘experiment’ – because the maths was quite difficult – by which time the curiosity engendered by such a ‘simple thing’ would have long-since evaporated.
Since Mr. Gove’s enthronement at the DofE, there’s been much talk of knowledge as a fundamental, as if, as in Bloom’s Taxonomy, knowledge is the bedrock upon which everything else is then built.
It doesn’t work quite like that though.
Nor is it quite right to turn the triangle on its point, and say that entry should always be through creativity and experimentation because, whilst experimentation is a natural habit, and all well and good, you do need some stuff to base things on.
So I’m wondering if a tiered triangle is the right model at all! Is creativity prized because of its rarity? No – it’s not rare at all! Is knowledge undervalued because it’s everywhere? It still has to be mined.
Perhaps education is a spinning £2 coin. Made up of two metals, and with an image on either side: there’s knowledge and comprehending, and there’s using, re-purposing and creating. And as the coin spins, it all sort-of melds together.
Never forgetting of course, that on the edge of the coin is engraved the words Sir Isaac Newton used: “[If I have seen further, it is by] Standing on the shoulders of giants”.