1. 1426793
Social Theory and Education: Key Issues and Debates
Component2: 4000 word essay to critically examine the significance ofa particular
theory/theoristfor understandingeducational practice.
In thiscomponentIintendtocriticallyexamine anddiscusssome of the selectedtheoriesselectedin
componentone of the assignmentandsourcedfromJacques Rancière’s, ‘The Ignorant
Schoolmaster.’
Rancière’sworkisnotwithoutsubstantial criticism. There are manyopponentstohismethodof
universal teachingandthere are objectionsraisedtowardsbothhistheoriesandhisabilitytodetach
fromthe political stance thatinformshisconfidenceintheirsuccess.
Stamp(2013), highlightsthe difficultiesinacceptinghismethodsof universal teaching:
“Such a ‘method’runscountertoall goodpedagogical sense,includingthose progressivemethods
that aimto nurture the intelligence of the studentbyproposingequalityassomething‘tocome’,in
an ‘orderedprogression’guidedbythose withappropriateexpertise.AsCharlesBinghamandGert
Biesta(2010) note intheirRancière-inspiredstudyof emancipatoryeducation,eventhe most
progressive,reformistandapparently‘critical’approachestopedagogyremainmethodsof
explication(orexplanation,the termtheyprefer).”
Havingsuggestedsucha radical reformandmovementfromtraditional methodsof teachingand
explication,itisinsome waydisappointingthat Rancière fallsshortof suggestingapedagogical
overhaul atthe highestlevel.
However,itisnotmy intentiontoapplythe theoryof universal teachingoreventhatof the
emancipatedstudenthere,butrathertolookfar more closelyat how the twounderpinningfaculties
of ‘will’and‘intelligence’mightbe integral tohow andwhystudents learn. Islearning,as Rancière
suggested,aresultof emancipatedlearnershavingthe will toapplythe humanintelligence we all
have? Or couldthere be more to considerwhenexamininghow studentslearn?

2. 1426793
Whilststill anundergraduate,Ivolunteeredinsecondaryschoolsandworkedwithstudentson
mentoringandtutoringprogrammes,thenIbecame anEnglishteacher andin12 years workingin
and alongside secondaryschools,therehasbeenaquestionthatIhave returnedtoyear in,yearout:
whydo some studentslearnbetter thanothers?
Rancière wouldargue thatthisispurelya variable of ‘will,’ashe believesall intelligence tobe equal,
but I intendtoexamine these twoareasmore substantiallythroughbothmyownexperiencesand
viathe analysisof the responsesgivenbyanumberof otherteachingprofessionalsinaseriesof
focusgroup sessionsIrecentlyheldinordertogauge whethermyownviewswere indeed
representative of the consensusamongstteachersandtoillicitalternativeperspectives. Ina sense,I
have consultedmycolleaguesandpeers whoformwhatWengerwoulddescribeasa ‘communityof
practice1
,’sothat we mightlearnmore about how and whyour studentslearn.
As an additional dynamictothisstudy,Ishouldalsobe explicitaboutthe nature of the teachingthat
I nowundertake. Iworkfor an online social educationcompanythatprovidesteachingandlearning
experiencesforstudentsfromKeyStage 2 to KeyStage 5 and in a wide range of subjects. Partof my
curiosityinthisareacomesfrom the reasonI leftmainstreamteachingandlearning;Iwantedto
explore whetherthere mightbe abetterwayin whichstudentscouldlearn. Thatishow I came to
workfor Tute.
However,toframe the questionof thisstudywithinaspecificcontext,Ifirstwanttoexplainhow,as
a youngand inexperiencedteacher,Ibegantounderstandthatthere was indeedavariable tobe
consideredwhenaskinghowandwhystudentslearn. Ibeganformal classroomteachingasa
qualifiedteacherinSeptemberof 2006 in a baptismof fire. I had takena jobin a ‘challenging’
school inan area of socioeconomicdeprivation onthe outskirtsof Manchester,although,atthis
point, havinghadverylittle experienceof ‘challenging’schools,Ihadlittle tonoclue as to what I had
letmyself infor. I wasgivena small groupof year 11 studentswhohadsuggestedtargetgradesof
11 http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/

3. 1426793
E/F/G fortheirGCSEs and I was toldthat theirbehaviourwouldbe ‘challenging.’ Afterteaching
themfor a term,I had foundthatchallengingmeantthattheywere more thana little reluctantto
work,behaviourfluctuatedbetweenwithdrawnandunresponsive toverballyabusiveandphysically
aggressive and,whenItalkedtothe groupabout theirhopesandaspirations,theseappearedtobe
limitedtoeitherlivingonthe dole (asitwasthenknown) orbecominginvolvedinsome formof
illegal activity. Thisisnotan exaggerationforcreative effect,butanaccurate depictionof my
experience.
ArmedwithNQT enthusiasmandaresolute beliefthatall studentscoulddowell if they workedfor
theirsuccess,Ilookedforwardtoparentsevening,justbefore Christmas. Ithoughtthatif I couldget
the parentson side andhave themhelpme motivate these unrulyandreluctantlearners,we could
turn thingsaround. In a newlydrycleanedsuit,Isateagerlyawaitingthe parentssothatwe (or I,if
I’mhonestinmy reflections andacceptthe arrogance of my twenty-twoyearoldself),couldstartto
make a difference…
When,bythe endof the evening,notone single parenthadturnedup,Istrugglednotto cry. Where
were they? Didn’ttheyrealise theirchildrenwere intheirfinal school yearandabouttofail every
subject? Whydidn’ttheycare enoughto be there? I was aghast. The onlyattendee Ihadhad was
one studentwhoturnedupon herown. She toldme that hermum ‘hadbetterthingsto do.’
As I waspackingup,the HeadTeacherstoppedbyto ask me how thinghad gone. Crestfallen,Itold
himwhat hadhappenedandwhyI didn’tunderstand. He noddedsupportivelyandgave me some
soundadvice thathas stayedwithme eversince. “Stoptryingto understandit.”He said. “You will
neverunderstanditbecause youare notthem. You don’tcome from theirbackground. Youdon’t
see life the waytheydoand youneverwill. All youcandois whatyou can do inthe classroom.”
Young andarrogant, I foundthisto be frustrating,like he waslettingsomethinggothatshouldn’tbe
letgo; shouldn’twe be callingtheseparentsandinsistingtheycome tothe school? Shouldn’twe be
tryingto make themsee howimportantthiswas? Andyet,afteryears inthe classroom, seeing

4. 1426793
more and more studentspassthroughthe system, I’ve come torealise that forthose students,in
that context,he wasright. I had five monthsleft,if that,withthose students(some didn’tmake itto
the endof the school year). I had verylittle time orchance tochange external factorssuchastheir
home life,upbringing andbackground and, evenif Iwere tobe able to do so,who’sto saythat I had
the right to? My jobwas to facilitate theirlearningasbestIcouldinthe classroom.
The desperatelysadthingIfoundinall of thisanecdotal evidence wasthatthese studentsshowed
glimmersof potential,momentswhenItrulythoughtthatgivenmore time andmotivation,they
couldhave learnedsomuchmore,but whatI hadn’tyet thendiscoveredwasthatIwas merelyone
tinycog in a vastmachine of secondaryeducationand,asa naïve NQT, I wasunlikelytobe able to
change the worldfor mystudentina single school year.
The pointof thisanecdote,however,isnottolamentthe system, norto criticise the setof
circumstancesandperspectivesIdescribe here. Rather,tobegintoconsider Rancière’sconceptsof
will andintelligence.
The studentsI thentaughtand anysucceedingthem,withlow targetgradeshad,Ithink,been
labelled ashavinglowpotential foracademicachievementinthatspecificsubject,butisthisthe
same as sayingthat these were studentswithlow intelligence? Isitas simple anequationaslow
target = low intelligence? Rancière wouldsurelysuggestnot. These studentshadcertainlybeen
labelledaspossessinginferiorintelligence,theywerenotasknowledgeable astheirpeers,below
governmentexpectationsand,moststringently,perceivedas lessintelligentthantheirteachers.
Yet,is that to saythat theypossessednointelligence atall? Perhapstheirparticularintelligences
justweren’tvaluedinthe academiccontext.
These studentsalsopossessedawoeful lackof self-belief andconfidence. More oftenthannot tasks
setwere metwith,“I can’t doit!” byseveral membersof the groupandindependentlearningtasks
were metwithblankstaresandconfusion. Infact,theywere mostproductive whencopyingup
notesfroma whiteboardortextbook;whentheywere beingtoldthe answers,whenIexplicatedfor

5. 1426793
them.Notonlywere these studentsstultifiedintermsof believingthattheycouldonlyknow and
learnwhatthe teacherhadexplainedtothem, butmore thanthis,theybelievedtheywouldonly
knowit inthe momentinwhichitwas explicated andonce thatmomentorlessonhadpassed,they
wouldforgetitagainanyway. I regularlyfacedcommentssuchas,“what’sthe point?”and“I’m too
thickto learnthisanyway.” These studentswere,inmyopinion,sousedtobeingtoldthatthey
couldn’tdoit, that they believedthistobe fact.
There are a great manyfaultsthatcouldbe dissectedhere,buttoremainfocusedpurelyonwill and
intelligence,itseemedtome thatwhetherthese studentsdidindeedhave the humanintelligence
Rancière establishes ornotwas irrelevant.Theymostcertainlydidnothave the will tolearn. What
keptme awake at night,however,wasquestioningwhythiswasthe case?
CertainlyIfeltthatthemhavingbeenlabelledasincapable wasafundamental issue,but alsothat
the parental input,orlack thereof described alsoplayedanenormouspartinmy interpretationof
theirsituation. Where didthe will tolearncome from,if notfromthe way inwhichour parentsor
guardiansraise usto a) value educationandb) believe inourownabilitytoachieve success?
Andso the questionsof thispiece were bornintomymind. EveryclassandeverystudentIhave
taught since then have causedme toreturn to these questionsandtotry and capture an answer,so
that I mightbe a betterteacher,sothatI mightfinda way to getthe verybestout of eachstudentin
orderthat that theymight achieve theirbest. Iam certainthatthismust be the case for many
passionate teachersandsothisishow I beganeachof the three sessionsheldwithmyfocusgroups
of teachers. Question1: ‘Howand whydo youthinkstudentslearn?’
The methodologyadoptedforthisstudywasasimplisticone. Ichose five initial open questionsthat
I hopedwouldencourage discussioninandaroundthe topicof how and whystudents learn,
focusingparticularlyonthe ideasof will andintelligence. Eachparticipantwasgiventhe questions
inadvance so that theycouldconsidertheirresponsesbeforehand,shouldtheywishto,butthey

6. 1426793
were notaskedto complete anyformal preparationorreadanytheoryto whichthe discussion
pertained. Iwantedtocapture spontaneousandrepresentativeresponsesfromthe participants.
There were 9 participantsintotal,splitacrossthree discussionssothatthere wouldbe greater
opportunityforeachteacherto respond,buttheirresponsesare reviewedandanalysedholistically,
rather thanindividually. Amongstthe groupthere were teacherswithspecialismsinEnglish,Maths,
Science andComputing,8of the teacherstaughtin the secondarysector,one inthe primary. The
minimumlengthof teachingservice foranindividual participantwas3 years,withsome havingmore
than a decade of classroomexperience. Fourof the participantswere male andfive were female. I
include thisinformationpurelytoillustratethatIbelievethe focusgroupsconstructedwere apanel
of experiencedandwell informedteachers,drawingonawealthof practice overa numberof years
ina broadrange of school contexts. The generalisationsmade bythe groupsforminno way a cast
ironrepresentationof factor‘truth,’but can be consideredtohave a certaindegree of validityin
theirconviction. Appendix one isanote summaryof the teacherresponsesandrecordingsof the
sessionsare availableonrequest.
There were a greatnumberof responsestothe overarchingquestionof ‘How andwhydoyou think
studentslearn?’ Manyfocusedonthe extenttowhichstudentswere engaged andinterested inthe
lesson,the role of the teacherandtheirabilitytomake the lessonenjoyableandrelevant,butsome
of the mostinterestingresponses,inmyopinion,didindeedlinkto Rancière’scategoriesof willand
intelligence and,fore mostly,will inresponse tothisparticularquestion.
There wasa cleardichotomybetween studentsthat‘want’tolearnand ‘have’tolearn.
Unanimously, the participantsagreedthatstudentspressuredtolearnwithoutunderstandingwhy
theywere learning,learningtopassa testor just‘because…’theyhadto wouldbe lesswillingand
lesslikelytolearneffectively. All agreedthatstudentswhowantedtolearn,hada will tolearn,do
so more effectively. Rancière stated:“Manis a will servedbyanintelligence.”Soprincipally,the

7. 1426793
focusgroupsagreedwiththispointinso far as that all studentshave awill andif that will isapplied
towardslearning,itwouldindeedbe servedassuch.
However,where Rancièrewascontenttostate that “willsare unequallydemanding,”the teachersof
the focusgroup, andmyself asdemonstratedpreviously,were focusedonwhere this‘will’derived
from. Responsesandinsightsasto the nature of will andhow it ismotivatedtowardslearning
included (althoughwere notlimitedto) social factorssuchas the student’sbackground,parental
involvementandupbringing,motivation,ambitionandaspirationsof the student,the teachingstyle,
the personalityof the teacherandtheirabilitytobuildrapportwiththeirstudents,the qualityof the
lessonstimulusandmaterialsandtheirpotential toengage the student,the learninghabitsof the
studentandtheirabilitytocope withchallenginglessonmaterialsandmanymore.
What isclear here isthat althoughthe teachingpractitionersseemedtobe inagreementwiththe
conceptof studentsneedingawill tolearn,thisisa farmore complex areathanalludedtoin
Rancière’swork.
To elaborate onjustone of the recurrentthemes emerging, MartynLong(2010) in‘The Psychology
of Education,’cataloguesarange of researchpapersthat have exploredhow andwhysome students
have more will ormotivationtolearnthanothers. He citesElliotandHewison(1994),Hart and
Risley(1995) and Ceci (1990) as examplesof studiesthatestablishcleartrendsbetweensocio-
economicclass,parental involvementandstudentprogress. Will iscertainlyconsideredtobe
integral,butsotoo isthe waythat will isfosteredanddevelopedbythe parentsof the studentand
the home inwhichtheyare raised.
More recently,ithasalsobeensuggestedthatparental involvement,whilstmore frequently
associatedwithsuccess,canalsobe a challenge toeffective learning.Froiland(2015) explains,
“Parentinvolvementintheirchildren’seducationpredictschildren’sachievementinnumerous
studies(e.g.,Froilandetal.2013; Froilandetal.inpress;Froilandetal.2013; Powell etal.2012)…

8. 1426793
However,controllingparentinvolvement(alsoknownashelicopterparenting) backfires,negatively
affectingstudents’emotional healthandautonomousmotivationtolearn(Deci andRyan2008;
Froiland2011; Schiffrinetal.2013).”
As he elaboratesfurther,itcanbe seenthata greatmany of the downsidesof sucha domineering
relationshipisafurtherdimensiontolearningnotexploredby Rancière. The subversionof will over
will (asinteacherwill overstudentwill)wasnotwhollydisavowed in‘The IgnorantSchoolmaster,’
but ratherreportedasa necessity“tosethim(the student) ontrackand keephimthere.” His
concernfocusedonthe student’sability“touse hisownintelligence” andhisprincipal of
stultification appliesonlytothe subversionof one intelligenceoveranother,yethere,anadditional
layerof complexityisaddedtothe wayinwhichemancipatedlearningcantake place.
“Accordingto self-determinationtheory,controllingparentingisbaneful,becauseitdoesnot
supportchildren’sneedsforautonomy,competence,orrelatedness,therebyhinderingthe
developmentof autonomousmotivation(DeciandRyan2008). On the otherhand whenneedsfor
autonomy,competence andrelatednessare met,autonomousmotivationisfostered, which
promotesmore joyinlearning,enhancedpersistence inthe face of difficulty,andricherlevelsof
academicengagement(Deci andRyan2008).”
It wouldhere seemthatthe subvertedwill can, inadvertently,dissipate the will tolearn,despite the
focusof parental involvementbeingpositively focusedonintelligenceandachievement. Whatis
beginningtoemerge betweenthe dialogue of the teacherparticipantsandmore recentresearchis
an assertionthatwill andintelligence are,as Rancière assertsintegraltolearning,butthatthese
faculties existwithinacomplex webof inter-relatingfactorsthatwere notfullyexplored.
Anotheremergingthemeinthe teacherfocusgroups,particularlywhengrouptwowere responding
to the question, ‘Whatisyourunderstandingof the terms‘will’and‘intelligence?’’wasthatof the
suitabilityof the educational systemandpolicieswithinwhichmainstreamstudentsare taught. As
previouslystated,the teachersinthe participantgrouphave all workedwithinmainstream

9. 1426793
educationfora great numberof collectiveyearsand,despitethe online teachingcontexttheynow
all workin,all serve clientswhoremainapartof thissystem. Yet,substantial discussionwashad
overwhethertesting,levelling,gradingand assessmentmethodswere helpful indevelopingeither
will orintelligence.
One criticismof Rancière’sworkisthe wayinwhichthe methodof universal teaching,thatwould
facilitate emancipatedlearningandthe use of the student’sownintelligence,is,byhimself,
discountedasa unilateral solutionto the short-comingsof the thencurrenteducationsystem.
Stamp(2013), referencingHallward(2005):
“But at the same time,his(Hallward’s) suspicionandconclusionisthat,atthe level of political
educationandorganization, Rancière’s ‘subversionof mastery’remainspassivelycomplicitwith,
rather thanactivelycritical of the disempoweredindividualismof neoliberal politicaleconomy:
Rancière’s trenchantegalitarianismseemsperfectlycompatible withacertaindegree of social
resignation,evenanalmostpassive acceptance of de factoinequalities.”
Can itthenbe arguedthat, Rancière’suniversalteachingandhisconceptsof will andintelligence do
not go far enoughtoestablishhowstudentswould learnmosteffectively? Whilst Rancièreasserts
that we learnmosteffectivelythatwhichwe are nottaught; our mothertongue,tocrawl,to walk,
he fallsshortof advocatinganalternative tothe traditional educationsystem. Inthe time thathas
elapsedsince the publicationof ‘The IgnorantSchoolmaster,’itcouldbe arguedthatthere has been
an evergrowingemphasisonprogressmeasures,assessmentandaccountabilitycultures. Certainly,
thiswas notthe climate withinwhichJacotot’soriginalexperimentwasconducted. Itmightbe
suggestedthatteachersnowmaynot feel the same freedomtoundertake sucharadical course as
Jacotot;can theyaffordtorelyuponthe will andintelligenceof theirstudent,particularlyif we now
believethere tobe somanyother factorsat work inestablishingwhystudentslearn? Andyet,we
couldalsoargue that perhaps,we cannotaffordtostultifyourstudentseither.

10. 1426793
It continuestobe the prevailingviewthat“bothteachersandschoolsare responsibleaswell as
accountable forstudentprogressinlearning”(Schalock, 1998). So it isnot plausibletoexpectthat
professionalteachersare able tosimplyrespond topoorexamresultsora lackof achievementwith
a blasé explanationof,“he justdidn’thave the will tolearn.” Schalock (1998) explains:
“To be effective asfacilitatorsof learning,teachersmustvarytheirinstructionalplansand
procedurestoaccommodate notonlydifferencesinstudentsbutalsodifferencesinsubjectmatter,
variouslearninggoalswithinasubjectarea,available instructional resources,andavailable timefor
teaching.Thisrequiresthatateacheremployadecisionmakingprocessthatcontinuouslysearches
for the mostappropriate amongthese variousaspectsof aninstructional contextandhisorher
store of knowledgewithrespecttosubjectmatterandinstructional procedures(Doyle,1986; Corno
& Snow,1986)… A teacheror a school shouldnotgive upon a childanymore thana physicianora
clinicshouldgive upona patient. Anylesseffortconstitutesabreakingof publictrustandthe likely
response of the publicviewingthe professionasweakorfailing.”
Nowmore so than ever,itwouldseemthatteachersare requiredtointimatelyunderstandhow to
motivate theirstudents,tocreate a greaterlevel of will andtoinspire intelligence thatseekstogrow
and expandbythe will of the student. Andyet,the questionremains,isthe currenteducational
systemfitforthat purpose?
Anotheremergingdialogueinthe focusgroup discussionswasthatof the studentas‘customer’and
‘learningasa productto be sold.’ There is,undoubtedlyhere,the influence of workingforan
independentbusiness,ratherthanaschool. However,thishasbeenan emergingregisterof
language beingappliedtoteachingandeducationinthe widercontextfora considerableperiodas
theoristssuchas Levin(1997) illustrateswhenquotingfromthe OECD(1993:9):
“Onlya well-trainedandhighlyadaptable labourforce canprovide the capacityto adjust to
structural change and seize newemploymentopportunitiescreatedbytechnological progress.

11. 1426793
Achievingthiswill inmanycasesentail are-examination,perhapsradical,of the economictreatment
of humanresourcesandeducation.”
Notonlymust the studentbe a satisfiedcustomer,butsotoomust the employersof the workforce
that theyshall growto become and,ultimately,the economytheyare apart of. Customer
satisfactionis,atall levels, key.
In the preface to‘Rethinkingthe school curriculum: values,aimsandpurposes,’JohnWhite(2004)
outlinesthe issueswithourcurrentcurriculum insatisfyingitspurpose (andcustomers)andthe
fearsthat surroundthe drasticchange thatmay well be needed:
“The worldover,school curriculaare basedon a setof familiarschool subjects –oftensuchitemsas
mothertongue,mathematics,science,history,geography,aforeignlanguage,art,music,physical
education. Inall countries,those whowanttheireducational systemtoprepare childrenfora
flourishingpersonal andciviclifehave seriousreservationsaboutthe statusquo,inparticular,the
tendencyof the conventionalcurriculumtowardscompartmentalisationandatomisationandalsoits
contributiontopupil disaffectionandrejectionof learning.”
The term intelligence,asutilised by Rancière,describesthe student’sabilitytolearn,butwhatif our
currentsystemlimitsthe capacityforintelligence togrow? What if the compartmentalisationof our
curriculumstultifiesstudentsinsuchaway as that theybelieve thattheycanonlylearnthatwhich
each teacherexplicatestothemineachindividualsubjectarea? What if the resultof such
stultificationis‘pupildisaffectionand rejectionof learning,’asWhite suggests?
BeethamandSharpe (2013) wouldsuggestthata change inthe curriculumhowever,doesnot
necessarilygofarenough. Itis the pedagogyitselfthathasto change to suita new style and
generationof learners:
“– the boundariesare becomingblurredbetweenschoolandcollege, formal andinformal education,
learningforworkand learningatwork,italsomakessense toconsiderthe continuitiesacross

12. 1426793
differentcontextsof learning. Howpeoplelearn,andhow theycanbestbe guidedtolearn,are no
longerconcernsthatbelong behindthe school gates.”
And,inreferencingthe constructivisttheoriesof Bruner,Long(2000), echoes Rancière’sprinciplesof
learningpriortoschool and insocietieswherebyformaleducationisnotdominant,contextualised
learningensuresthat“childrenacquireknowledge whichhasthe contextof beingmeaningful and
useful,”whereas,rigid,curriculumbasedknowledge,whichisdecontextualized isfarlesssuccessful
as the missingcomponentof a “processof discoverywillmaintainchildren’snatural curiosity and
motivation”leavesaconsiderablevoid.
Rancière’sworkconcludedwithadeclarationthat “universalteachingwill nottake,”butinthe short
time that haselapsedsince hiswork,there hasbeenadigital revolution. AccordingtoBeethamand
Sharpe (2013), 77% of UK householdswererecordedashavinginternetaccessin2011 and according
to the Office fornational Statistics FixedbroadbandInternetconnectionswere usedby91% of
householdsin2014, with 22 millionhouseholds(84%) havingInternetaccess.2
Pensky(2001) labels
the modernstudentasa ‘Digital Native’andthe readilyavailableaccesstothe internetanda wealth
of new,digital technologiesis,undeniablyhavinganimpacton the wayin whichstudentslearn.As
describedbyBeethamandSharpe (2013),
… (New) “technologiesrepresentaparadigmshiftwithspecificandmultiple impactsonthe nature
of knowledge insocietyandtherefore onthe nature of learning…Personal webpages,blogs,
podcastsand wikisare democratizingthe creationof information;social softwareisallowing
participationinonlinecommunitiesthatdefineand share the informationtheyneedfor
themselves.”
WhilstI do not intendtouse thisspace to advocate the concept of universal teachingitself,Iwould
considerthatthisshiftinthe nature of knowledgeandlearningsubscribes,inpart,tothe principle.
2 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access---households-and-individuals/2014/stb-ia-2014.html

13. 1426793
Rancière wrote that“Universal teachingproclaims:anindividualcandoanythinghe wants,”and,at
the veryleast,the emergence of online learningpractices,communitiesandstudentswhoare
empoweredbysuchtechnologies, Iwouldamendthatproclamationto“anindividualcanhave
access to anythinghe wants.” It isstill the case,as itwas when Rancière wrote ‘The Ignorant
Schoolmaster’,thatastudentmusthave the will togrow his/herintelligence and,aspreviously
argued,that there are a great manymore variablesatplaythanthese twofacultiesalone when
determininghowstudentslearn,butthere are,atleast,clearelementsof universalteachingthat
have come to fruitionmore sothan Rancière couldhave foreseen.
Towardsthe endof thisstudy,I beganto ask the participantteacherswhethertheybelievedthere to
be a difference betweenthe waysinwhichstudentslearnonline andina more traditional classroom
setting. My primaryfindingsinthisareawere centredroundtwokeypoints:the accessibilityof high
qualityteachingandlearningandthe wayinwhichonline learningmighthelptodevelopa
willingnesstolearnfroman enjoymentandengagementperspective. Whilstthere isnotsufficient
space here to fullyexplore thesesubjects, emergingareasforfuture researchhave beenidentified;
whatare the methodsof teachingandlearningbeingadoptedtofacilitateandmaximise the impact
of newtechnologies? Whatrole mightthese technologieshave oncreatingemancipatedlearners,
as Rancière advocated? Whatmightthe effectonteachingandlearning be?How mighttheyimpact
on progress?Howcan educationandthe economybenefitfromharnessingthe potential of social
and collaborative learning? There mightyetbe aplace for ‘The IgnorantSchoolmaster’ in
developingfuture pedagogyandpractice.
Total wordcount:4621
Word count,lessreferences: 3976

14. 1426793
List of References
Books
Beetham, Helen; Sharpe, Rhona. (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: designing
for 21stcentury learning (2nd ed.). Oxon, United Kingdom. Routledge.
Bruner, J. (1997). The Process of Education. Retrieved from
https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9780674028999
Gardner, Howard. (1993). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. London.
Fontana.
Levin, B. (1997) The lessons of international education reform. In Ball, Stephen J; Goodson,
Ivor; Maguire, Meg. (2007) Education, globalisation and new times. Oxon, United Kingdom.
Routledge.
Locke, John. (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved from
http://chester.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=ePnHCXMw42JgAfZbU5k
hZ9sAG6OgS0QMTDmgcQxsz5qYmFsacDKoO-
YpgG75qFRIBm3QAw8DKIAvplMoRd7Xwc2g4OYa4uyhC71AKh46rhGfZAhsToNOVjUmQgkA
W6osSg
Long, Martyn. (2000). The Psychology of Education. London. Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1936). The origins of intelligence in children. New York. W.W. Norton & Company,
Inc.
Rancière, Jacques. (1991). The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual
Emancipation translated with an Introduction by Kristin Ross. Stanford, California. Stanford
University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S; edited by Cole, Michael et Al. (1978) Mind in Society: the development of
higher psychological processes. London. Harvard University Press.
White, John. (2004). Rethinking the school curriculum: values, aims and purposes. London.
Routledge Falmer.
Journals
Chambers, Samuel A. (2013) Jacques Rancière’s Lesson on the Lesson. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, Volume 45, Issue 6 2013, pages 637-646
Froiland, J.M. (2015). Parents’ Weekly Descriptions of Autonomy Supportive
Communication: Promoting Children’s Motivation to Learn and Positive Emotions.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 117-126.

15. 1426793
Froiland, J.M & Oros, E. (2014) Intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and classroom
engagement as longitudinal predictors of adolescent reading achievement. Educational
Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology. 34:2, 119-132,
DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2013.822964
Pensky, Marc. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 09/2001,
Volume 9, Issue 5.
Schalock, H Del. (1998). Student Progress in Learning: Teacher Responsibility, Accountability,
and Reality. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12:3 237-246.
Stamp, Richard. (2013) Of Slumdogs and Schoolmasters: Jacotot, Rancière and Mitra on self-
organized learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory: Incorporating ACCESS, 45:6, pages
647-662.

16. 1426793
Appendix 1:
Focus Group Notes sheet
Key
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Question Summary of responses
How and why
do you think
students
learn?
Differencesbetweenonline andclassroom
External distractionminimise
“bubble”
Small groups
Focused
Not possible in a school.
Dichotomy ‘want’ vs ‘have to’ learn
Motivation from the teacher-engaging students.
Not all learning is in a classroom
Connections
Their engagement in the stimulus
Engagement rather than ‘how’ they learn.
Learning as a product to be ‘sold’
Building rapport
Student and teacher relationships as educational capital
First name basis- a helper more than teacher-different power
relationship
Teacher style that appeals to the student learning style.
Natural inclination towards preferred learning style.
Students told to vs want to
Desire to learn
Survival of the fittest
Don’t want to learn, don’t learn
Curiosity
Gender differences
Pushing the right buttons
Engaging their interest
Some ‘don’t want to know’
Passive learning
Engagement-different interpretations
Signs and ques
Engaged= learning

17. 1426793
Learning doesn’t have to occur through being engaged
Reasons for not wanting to learn
Applying learning for themselves
Generalise their learning
Making lessons relevant to their lives
Contextualise in real life situation that works for them ‘see the point’
Students under pressure
Parental influence-showing interest, pressure can be negative
Perception of benefits
Reluctant to learn if they don’t see the point/benefit e.g. low income-
less motivation to learn
Don’t see the benefit for the future-long term.
Students who have intelligence, but no ‘care’ figure can mean a lack of
progress. Motivation to learn and ambition
Industrial and socio-economic structures surrounding the area/location
Cultural beliefs and respect for the value of education-way to escape
poverty, transcend circumstances. Social mobility.
Culture of the school system that a student belongs to.
Effects how hard the student is prepared to work.
Social convention
Timetabling skills
Go to school to learn
Peer pressure
Competition when students are aware of being ranked
Older-aware of views, ‘if you want to do well…’
No guarantees now-no such thing as a job for life-flexible and
adaptability.
Some children have enquiring minds
Background
Value place on education by parents.
Early engagement
Ability to read – being able to access education.
Basic literacy is essential to academic success.
Very difficult to overcome barriers later in life.
Need the tools to access education
Why might
some students
appear to
learn more
easily than
others?
How adapted they are to learning in a classroom-formal classroom
learning doesn’t suit all
Mainstream setting doesn’t suit all
Primary socialisation phase
Inaccessible learning tasks-breaking things down into smaller steps.
Encouraging independence.
Stimulus material. There has to be high quality input from the teacher.
Prompts.

18. 1426793
Literacy and numeracy skills.
Ill prepared for advanced learning.
Inconsistency in the provision of teaching and learning-school by school,
teacher by teacher, private vs state.
National tests and assessments as a barrier to learning.
Individual teachers can make the difference.
Challenge motivates-lack of challenge demotivates.
However SATs do ensure a base level is taught/delivered.
Teachers need to ‘know the kids’
Not enough ‘care’
Poor teacher training means too many teachers don’t have a knowledge
of teaching and learning theory-they are ill-equipped.
Not a strong research base to prove what works.
Fear as a barrier to learning.
Conflicting priorities.
Students need to be able to dump their baggage before they can learn
effectively.
Background
Parental attitudes to learning
Environment at home
Nurture environment rather than nature.
Children has to be used to, practiced at learning.
A habit and routine –foundations in place from early years.
Can put children ahead.
Removal of barriers.
What is your
understanding
of the terms
‘will’ and
‘intelligence?’
will-how open you are to learning and learning in the setting.
Without will, they can’t learn.
Where does will come from?
Will linked to motivation and aspirations.
Students that are ‘there’ because they have to be lack the
motivation/will to learn.
Linked to parents jobs and context for motivation
Learning as a means to an end.
Choosing a career path.
Gender gap
A culture of ‘we’re not doing that…’
Intelligence –capability
Will comes from them seeing the value
Hierarchy of needs. You might have the will and intelligence, but block
Intelligent
Metacognition
Planning
Think about their learning
Bright kids/less bright kids

19. 1426793
Will
Wilfulness to want to learn
The want to learn/desire
The circumstances of the child create other pressures and effects the
amount of will a student can apply to their learning. There are other
factors that impinge on whether or not you can learn.
If you learn skills you can become more intelligent. Not innate.
Some people are naturally bright, but want to learn and pursuing
something until they learn.
Some people just ‘get it’
Some people don’t have to work particularly hard to achieve. They have
intelligence rather than will.
Or perhaps they have metacognitive skills at an unconscious level. They
are able to do things easily.
Parental influence to push the student.
How a child’s brain is ‘wired?’
How bright/quick
Will=a desire to want to do something. Resilience. Students who are
good have a drive, goal, persistence, not put off by setbacks, can
respond to feedback and overcome defeats. Personal traits. Need to be
allowed to fail and learn from their mistakes.
Testing, assessment, success criteria not always helpful
Intelligence more of a natural quality could be genetic or your inherent
values instilled by parents. Role of the parent.
To what
extent do you
think learning
is a result of
‘intelligence?’
Two are linked.
Can be intelligent, but with no will, won’t learn.
With no intelligence
Exams
frontal lobe-puberty at a time when they are at a ignorance of cause and
effect.
Evolutionary traits.
The human need for strong stupid boys.
Combining the two to fulfil the potential. Doing the best they can
depends on a student working hard to the best of their ability.
Intelligence can diminish if you don’t apply it and use the learning skills
fostered.
Reinforcing neural pathways, rote learning.
A student can know something but this doesn’t guarantee that they can
work out or apply that knowledge.
To what
extent do you
think learning
is a result of
‘will?’

20. 1426793
Application, independent, creative learning isn’t serviced by rote
learning.
Conflict over will/intelligence prioritises
The more intelligent you are the less will you need/the less intelligent
you are the more will you need.
You can increase intelligence through will.
You need both.
Emotional intelligence?
Maturity?
Circumstance?
Subconscious learning?
Mindset?
Experience?
Repetition? Rote?
Progression of ides-building up knowledge, step by step/ scaffolding?
Conflict between what is perceived as ‘working’ and what is acceptable
by Ofsted.
The successful application of learning creating a positive ethos, self-
esteem and belief.
Experiencing success is liberating.
Time and space to think.
Valuing the escape.
Learning facts and content doesn’t involve an emotional response, but
doesn’t actually stick for long
Learning as experience and application.
Teaching and learning.
Students need to be more than passive.
Answers are easily available “google education”
But there needs to be a deeper understanding that can only be achieved
through practical application and teachers need to facilitate that.