Sometimes it seems that we want a magical pill to improve education and learning. This, of course, is not possible, no matter what the advertisements say. We cannot become fluent in a new language in two weeks any more than grow tall trees from saplings in the same amount of time. Learning and growing are both delicate processes where time is one essential component. How we use that time is important. In each unique situation.
I have previously stated that I believe learning happening in interactions. These dialogues are essential for concept development and creating deeper understanding (about anything). Some interactions happen between the student and the learning materials others are facilitated by teachers and/or parents. How interactions develop depends entirely on the situation. Some days and times are better than others, but for effective learning facilitation the basic requirement is for the teacher - or the parent - to remain fully present (physically, emotionally and cognitively) in the situation.
What prompted me to blog about this was a small article in the March/April issue of Scientific American. "The myth of family meal: Eating together might not be as magical as researchers thought." Placing value on something like family meal, without transferring the essential content (here: quality interactions) leads to misunderstandings, and emphasizing wrong things.
Gathering around the table for an enjoyable meal with the whole family and having vivid discussions about important issues certainly improves the quality of life and learning. However, if the family meal is used as a rule, thinking how performing this daily ritual improves the education and the future of children, we are misleading ourselves. In this case the family meal has become an empty doctrine. This was also the finding of researchers who followed nearly 18000 adolescents: Beyond indirect benefits via earlier well-being, however, family dinners associations did not persist into adulthood.
I wonder how different the results were if this research had focused on meaningful interactions? I know it is easier to quantify family meals than interactions, and I appreciate the researchers' efforts, because debunking yet another urban myth about education is good indeed. Maybe it helps us shift the focus away form prescribed and scripted actions into the importance of situationality in education.
In my family the best discussions often occur in the car, mostly because of the closed space and having time to chat. (My wish is that this gives hope and confidence to other parents who also at times may feel like running a family taxi service.) Some days nobody feels like talking, other times there are more items to discuss than we have time. I am not trying to promote quality time over spending bigger quantities of time with children. I am just stating a fact that in my busy life the shared car ride sometimes turns out to be an enjoyable and meaningful conversation. Should it be generalized and stated that spending time in the car with your kids improves their well-being? Absolutely not. Because it depends on the situation.
I am afraid the same mistake of neglecting the true nature of learning is happening with Common Core. The frames of teaching and rules of instruction are emphasized over the content, which should be learning instead of teaching. We cannot box learning into a tight and tidy package, because it is situational and depends on dozens of individual factors during any given moment in the classroom.
Why not equip teachers with understanding of learning facilitation instead of providing them with a ready script for every minute spent in the classroom?
 Arnold, C. (2013, March/April). The myth of family meal. Scientific American Mind 24(1), 8.