The dangers of speed

I came across a warning about the dangers of mistaking speed for efficiency in an article in a business newsletter (Is speed killing our communication skills?) but in many ways it applies equally well as a warning about education. Perhaps business is just catching up with what education has been doing for ages.

The immediacy with which we can now communicate has placed an increasing focus on speed, for better or worse. Why do we think fast is better? Have we mistaken speed for understanding (and in the case of business for efficiency)? Is it better to have an answer however shallow rather than to think.

The concern about the effect the Internet with its ready answer to any question has on our ability to think is gathering speed, but perhaps the problem is not so much the ready access to answers but the fact that we value ready answers over thought out ones.

Is speed at mental computation an adequate indicator of maths ability? While it is a part of a balanced program and it is important to know basic facts readily, asking students to demonstrate the skill in an arbitrary time limit (I wonder has anyone measured whether 2 minutes is the best time, or whether 5 or 7 be more appropriate) might actually hinder some children’s learning, establishing a belief that they aren’t good at maths, influencing their effort and enthusiasm in future. Some students respond well to competition and timed situations and thrive on the pressure to bring out their best. Others have a different reaction.  The focus on timed tests as a standard measure of how much a child knows also clearly spells out to children that ‘faster is smarter’.  Our ‘smartest’ students by this measure are the best test takers, not necessarily the brightest students.

‘Thinking Time’ is a rare thing in a classroom, despite its proven value in getting beyond superficial thinking or narrow answers.  A teacher posing an open question but insisting that no-one answers for 30 seconds would be an unfamiliar experience for most kids.

Divergence is not highly valued, it is more convenient (and therefore faster or more efficient) for everyone to behave the same way or produce the same product.

Our reflective kids who need to consider things from many angles before feeling ready to contribute often feel they don’t have time to answer or contribute to discussions, teacher often comment that these kids appear to be ‘somewhere else’ or a little bit behind the conversation, with the implied message that they aren’t that clever (or not fast enough to be clever)

Our divergent kids often have off the wall ideas to contribute but many quickly learn that these are less welcomed than the expected answer, which allows the teacher to continue on the planned path of a lesson. They may come into their own if there is a brainstorming opportunity, but often these are also cut short at the point where the initial ideas dry up, rather than waiting for the deeper more considered ideas to have time to come to the fore.

The need for children to develop thinking skills, to be innovative or demonstrate creativity is clear when employers are spending time and money re-igniting these skills in adults. They need not be add-ons to the regular curriculum, if we shift the emphasis away from speed and begin to appreciate depth of understanding as a measure of learning.