"A world order is emerging that is characterized by connectivity, change and convergence." Students must learn to deal with complexity from the earliest grades on. Students need to develop the ability to see interrelationships and gain a better understanding of the complexity of technology and society. - 2030 by Rutger Van Santen et.al. (2010).
The authors of 2030, two eminent scientists from the Netherlands, were discussing what was needed to meet the many great challenges that mankind will face in the next two decades. Education played a critical role in meeting these challenges as the above attests.
Around the time that I read this, I attended the annual conference of the Pennsylvania Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. While there, I attended a keynote presentation by Dr. Mike Schmoker, a respected authority in the area of school improvement. Dr. Schmoker was both entertaining and engaging. He set forth a clear path to school improvement that was concise and easy to understand. All we needed to do, according to Dr. Schmoker, was to follow the tenets of Madeline Hunter's direct teaching. In Dr. Schmoker's opinion, formative assessments could be as easy as asking for a "Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down!" We've known this for years, Dr. Schmoker proclaimed.
Dr. Schmoker went on to tell the audience that technology was a distraction and that we should stop burdening teachers with trying to integrate it into their curriculum. We should allow teachers who were not ready for such complicated stuff to develop the fundamentals of teaching before asking them to learn how to use technology to improve learning.
I found myself being seduced by the simplicity of it all.
As I shook myself from my brief reverie, I realized that Dr. Schmoker was describing the ideal teacher-centered, large-group classroom. A classroom where the teacher transmits knowledge and the pupils signal "message received" with a hardy thumbs up. While this might have been appropriate in the mid 20th Century, a time coined the "Broadcast Era" by Don Tapscott, it is hardly adequate preparation for the "Participatory Era" of the 21st Century!
The idea that a "Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down" provides any reliable or useful information is preposterous. How does it reveal depth of understanding or even how a teacher might adjust his or her strategy to accommodate student needs. It simply provides the teacher with some confidence that it is okay to "push on."
In a student-centered classroom where students engage in learning rather than simply observe teaching, the lesson serves as the formative assessment. In such a participatory setting, teachers are able to directly observe depth of understanding and level of mastery. They can then provide customized instruction because they have far more information about why students are struggling. Teaching in such a classroom is anything but simple!
Can this be done without technology? Probably, but it can be done more effectively and efficiently with technology because, used correctly, technology can empower students.
As I reflected back on Dr. Schmoker's presentation I tried to imagine any other profession that would tolerate a statement that active practitioners should not be required to utilize advanced techniques and technologies until they "learned" the basics of their profession. Can you imagine such a statement at a medical conference? Imagine a nationally renowned speaker suggesting that surgeons should be allowed to use outdated methods and technologies simply because they hadn't kept up! Would you send you son or daughter to such a physician?
At a time when students are expected to be life-long, independent learners who will doubtlessly rely on technology to expand their knowledge and hone their skills;
At a time when technology permeates almost everything we do socially, personally and professionally;
At a time when the solution to almost every major problem that we face personally, as a nation or even as a global community calls for an understanding of advanced technologies;
At such a time, how can we as educators ask parents to send their children to the "successful" classroom that Dr. Schmoker describes?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
When Style Overwhelms Substance
Last June, I had the good fortune to attend the 31st annual conference of the International Society for Technology in Education held in Denver, Colorado. The opening keynote presentation, held in the expansive Wells Fargo Theater, featured the former vice-president of the World Bank, Jean-François Rischard. The topic of Rischard's address was, "Global Problem-Solving and the Critical Role of Educators and Technology for Education." I looked forward to the opportunity to hear a world leader share his insights and perspectives as to how educators could help to solve some of the world's gravest problems.
As I looked around the theater prior to the start of the evening's program, I was struck by the size of the congregation. Thousands of educators from around the world filtered in, took their seats and examined the gifts left for them by the corporate sponsors. The cavernous theater buzzed with excitement and anticipation. Much of this was reflected in the back channel chat that the ISTE organizers encouraged via two huge displays at the front of the theater.
The evening began with welcoming and opening remarks. This process took awhile, but the enthusiasm of the crowd did not diminish noticeably. By the time Jean-François Rischard took the stage, I have to admit, I had begun to think about dinner. Given the 5:45 - 7:00 PM time slot, I am sure that I was not alone.
Soon after Mr. Rischard began, it became apparent that the night's presentation focused on serious stuff. The topics included climate change, extreme poverty, world hunger, the financial crisis and other equally challenging issues facing society. It also became obvious, that Mr. Rischard believed that the facts surrounding these serious issues were compelling enough to energize the crowd before him and incite them to action. Unfortunately, the back channel chat revealed that this was not the case.
Attendees began commenting on Rischard's poor presentation style. Indeed, it was wanting. Mr. Rischard read from horribly busy PowerPoints, spoke in a low monotone and even turned his back to the audience on occasion. Soon, people began streaming out of the theater. This was no doubt encouraged by the back channel discourse that seemed to justify such a response.
As I watched my colleagues leave the theater, I felt a bit embarrassed. I shared their opinion that Mr. Rischard's presentation was far less than it could, or even should, have been. Yet, I valued hearing from one who had a unique understanding of many of the problems that I had only read about. Here was a world leader who actually valued education and educators. A world leader who thought teachers and students played a serious role in addressing these problems. But many in the audience could not tolerate the messy PowerPoints and dry (I may be being kind) presentation style. I thought back to the frustration often expressed by teachers that students today, "always want to be entertained."
Upon my return to the office, I shared my reaction to the mass exodus. I expressed my belief that we, as educators, need to be deeply concerned about the issues discussed and that the behavior that I observed in Denver suggested that many of us are not. In fact, I noted, the behavior suggested that we, too, want to be entertained. I stated my belief that we have a responsibility to respect the message regardless of the media or style of the presentation.
One of my younger colleagues vehemently disagreed. She believed that the responsibility rested with the messenger. She argued that the presenter, knowing the importance of his message, had an obligation to craft the message in such a way that people could appreciate its relevance. This argument did not persuade me.
Later, I read a book called, Don't Be Such a Scientist, by Randy Olsen. Olsen received his doctorate in biology from Harvard and was a tenured professor at the University of New Hampshire. He also earned an MFA in cinematography from USC. Olsen contended that scientists were trained to be poor communicators. As he recounted presentations by scientists he had observed over the years, I immediately thought of Jean-François Rischard.
Olsen explained that scientists typically address only one organ in the body, the brain. This, he stated, greatly reduces the audience since few people respond to information that is simply intellectual in nature. To reach a diverse crowd of any appreciable size, Olsen argued, one must appeal to at least three additional organs. To incite passion in the listener one must address the heart. A message that engages the gut elicits humor and good will. Venturing even lower, adding sex appeal to your presentation, promises to engage just about everyone.
Olsen's insight gave me a much greater appreciation of what occurred that night in Denver. People gathering in a clearly festive mood over the dinner hour were not ready to hear with their brains alone. This was exacerbated by the fact that the keynote was held over the dinner hour and during the opening celebration. Rischard's message failed organically.
While Olsen and my young colleague made valid points, I still feel that we, as educators, have a higher calling. We must understand and value the importance of the message regardless of the media or the style. Why? Because in many cases, we are the ultimate messengers who must instill the passion needed to ensure that vital messages are heard and understood by others. After all, isn't that what education is all about?
As I looked around the theater prior to the start of the evening's program, I was struck by the size of the congregation. Thousands of educators from around the world filtered in, took their seats and examined the gifts left for them by the corporate sponsors. The cavernous theater buzzed with excitement and anticipation. Much of this was reflected in the back channel chat that the ISTE organizers encouraged via two huge displays at the front of the theater.
The evening began with welcoming and opening remarks. This process took awhile, but the enthusiasm of the crowd did not diminish noticeably. By the time Jean-François Rischard took the stage, I have to admit, I had begun to think about dinner. Given the 5:45 - 7:00 PM time slot, I am sure that I was not alone.
Soon after Mr. Rischard began, it became apparent that the night's presentation focused on serious stuff. The topics included climate change, extreme poverty, world hunger, the financial crisis and other equally challenging issues facing society. It also became obvious, that Mr. Rischard believed that the facts surrounding these serious issues were compelling enough to energize the crowd before him and incite them to action. Unfortunately, the back channel chat revealed that this was not the case.
Attendees began commenting on Rischard's poor presentation style. Indeed, it was wanting. Mr. Rischard read from horribly busy PowerPoints, spoke in a low monotone and even turned his back to the audience on occasion. Soon, people began streaming out of the theater. This was no doubt encouraged by the back channel discourse that seemed to justify such a response.
As I watched my colleagues leave the theater, I felt a bit embarrassed. I shared their opinion that Mr. Rischard's presentation was far less than it could, or even should, have been. Yet, I valued hearing from one who had a unique understanding of many of the problems that I had only read about. Here was a world leader who actually valued education and educators. A world leader who thought teachers and students played a serious role in addressing these problems. But many in the audience could not tolerate the messy PowerPoints and dry (I may be being kind) presentation style. I thought back to the frustration often expressed by teachers that students today, "always want to be entertained."
Upon my return to the office, I shared my reaction to the mass exodus. I expressed my belief that we, as educators, need to be deeply concerned about the issues discussed and that the behavior that I observed in Denver suggested that many of us are not. In fact, I noted, the behavior suggested that we, too, want to be entertained. I stated my belief that we have a responsibility to respect the message regardless of the media or style of the presentation.
One of my younger colleagues vehemently disagreed. She believed that the responsibility rested with the messenger. She argued that the presenter, knowing the importance of his message, had an obligation to craft the message in such a way that people could appreciate its relevance. This argument did not persuade me.
Later, I read a book called, Don't Be Such a Scientist, by Randy Olsen. Olsen received his doctorate in biology from Harvard and was a tenured professor at the University of New Hampshire. He also earned an MFA in cinematography from USC. Olsen contended that scientists were trained to be poor communicators. As he recounted presentations by scientists he had observed over the years, I immediately thought of Jean-François Rischard.
Olsen explained that scientists typically address only one organ in the body, the brain. This, he stated, greatly reduces the audience since few people respond to information that is simply intellectual in nature. To reach a diverse crowd of any appreciable size, Olsen argued, one must appeal to at least three additional organs. To incite passion in the listener one must address the heart. A message that engages the gut elicits humor and good will. Venturing even lower, adding sex appeal to your presentation, promises to engage just about everyone.
Olsen's insight gave me a much greater appreciation of what occurred that night in Denver. People gathering in a clearly festive mood over the dinner hour were not ready to hear with their brains alone. This was exacerbated by the fact that the keynote was held over the dinner hour and during the opening celebration. Rischard's message failed organically.
While Olsen and my young colleague made valid points, I still feel that we, as educators, have a higher calling. We must understand and value the importance of the message regardless of the media or the style. Why? Because in many cases, we are the ultimate messengers who must instill the passion needed to ensure that vital messages are heard and understood by others. After all, isn't that what education is all about?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Are We Becoming Shallow?
In his book, "The Shallows," Nicholas Carr contends that the Internet, with its hyperlinks and constant interruptions, is robbing us of our ability to concentrate for extended periods of time. This has an impact on many aspects of our lives, but nowhere more significantly than in our ability to read and reflect.
Carr supports his argument with brain research that demonstrates the impact that external stimuli and cognitive demands have on the neurological functioning of our brains. Carr suggests that it took a great deal of time for humans to develop the deep reading skills that have proven so essential to our progress. Indeed, Carr notes that it was the introduction of the book that made reading economical and convenient enough to allow people to engage in it for long periods of time. This, in turn, trained our brains to concentrate on the written word and to reflect upon complex passages of text.
Today, according to Carr, most of what we read appears on a some type of screen. The text is peppered with hyperlinks that entice us to click and surf. Meanwhile, Twitter messages pop up on our screen, Skype lets us know that one of our friends has just come online and e-mail continues to grow in our ever-expanding in-box. The Internet, Carr tells us, serves as a tool of distraction. It encourages us to skim and to surf, rather than to read and reflect.
It would be easy to dismiss Nicholas Carr as a technophobe or Luddite. To do so, however, would be a mistake. His argument and concerns are valid and sincere.
Those who know me, know that I love to read. I also embrace technology with an excitement that belies my age. Yet, I have resisted purchasing an e-reader and continue to purchase hard cover books in which I highlight passages and make marginal notes. I could, of course, do that and much more with an e-reader. So why don't I?
Recently I read a book describing the work being done at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland. Having very limited formal training in science or mathematics, I found the terms and concepts associated with high-energy particle physics to be a challenge to say the least. So as I read, I often found myself pulling out my Adroid phone to look up a term or a concept in Wikipedia or some other online resource. Without such a tool, the literature would have proven impenetrable. I likened it to having an expert standing by to answer my questions as they arose. In this case, technology enabled me to read to a depth that would have otherwise been impossible.
This is very different, though, from the reading experience described by Carr. Like Carr, I too find hyperlinks embedded in a text to be distracting and generally irrelevant. I rarely follow them at all. If I do find a link intriguing, I fight off the urge to surf and return to the link only after I have finished the article.
Hyperlinks in text are often gratuitous. They are there simply because the Internet makes them possible. We have been conditioned, however, to click on the blue underlined text. Resisting doing so takes considerable restraint. If the research cited by Carr is accurate, those who click often embark on an odyssey from which they never return.
So, what does this mean for us as educators? Do we conclude that digital texts and e-readers are bad? Do we avoid the Internet and return to our familiar paper bound texts?
Of course not! But we do need to teach our students how to read digital text and to avoid being seduced by the hyperlink's siren song. We not only need to evaluate the content of digital texts, but also the quality of the production. Is it full of distractions, or does it provide a well constructed discussion of the topic capable of standing alone? We need to help our students learn to be deep readers even in the cacophonous digital environment in which they live.
Whether reading online or in a book they got from the library, our students are constantly susceptible to digital distraction. Managing these distractions is a critical skill that we must ensure our students learn.
Carr supports his argument with brain research that demonstrates the impact that external stimuli and cognitive demands have on the neurological functioning of our brains. Carr suggests that it took a great deal of time for humans to develop the deep reading skills that have proven so essential to our progress. Indeed, Carr notes that it was the introduction of the book that made reading economical and convenient enough to allow people to engage in it for long periods of time. This, in turn, trained our brains to concentrate on the written word and to reflect upon complex passages of text.
Today, according to Carr, most of what we read appears on a some type of screen. The text is peppered with hyperlinks that entice us to click and surf. Meanwhile, Twitter messages pop up on our screen, Skype lets us know that one of our friends has just come online and e-mail continues to grow in our ever-expanding in-box. The Internet, Carr tells us, serves as a tool of distraction. It encourages us to skim and to surf, rather than to read and reflect.
It would be easy to dismiss Nicholas Carr as a technophobe or Luddite. To do so, however, would be a mistake. His argument and concerns are valid and sincere.
Those who know me, know that I love to read. I also embrace technology with an excitement that belies my age. Yet, I have resisted purchasing an e-reader and continue to purchase hard cover books in which I highlight passages and make marginal notes. I could, of course, do that and much more with an e-reader. So why don't I?
Recently I read a book describing the work being done at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland. Having very limited formal training in science or mathematics, I found the terms and concepts associated with high-energy particle physics to be a challenge to say the least. So as I read, I often found myself pulling out my Adroid phone to look up a term or a concept in Wikipedia or some other online resource. Without such a tool, the literature would have proven impenetrable. I likened it to having an expert standing by to answer my questions as they arose. In this case, technology enabled me to read to a depth that would have otherwise been impossible.
This is very different, though, from the reading experience described by Carr. Like Carr, I too find hyperlinks embedded in a text to be distracting and generally irrelevant. I rarely follow them at all. If I do find a link intriguing, I fight off the urge to surf and return to the link only after I have finished the article.
Hyperlinks in text are often gratuitous. They are there simply because the Internet makes them possible. We have been conditioned, however, to click on the blue underlined text. Resisting doing so takes considerable restraint. If the research cited by Carr is accurate, those who click often embark on an odyssey from which they never return.
So, what does this mean for us as educators? Do we conclude that digital texts and e-readers are bad? Do we avoid the Internet and return to our familiar paper bound texts?
Of course not! But we do need to teach our students how to read digital text and to avoid being seduced by the hyperlink's siren song. We not only need to evaluate the content of digital texts, but also the quality of the production. Is it full of distractions, or does it provide a well constructed discussion of the topic capable of standing alone? We need to help our students learn to be deep readers even in the cacophonous digital environment in which they live.
Whether reading online or in a book they got from the library, our students are constantly susceptible to digital distraction. Managing these distractions is a critical skill that we must ensure our students learn.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Empathy - The Essential Skill
I recently attended a presentation by Alan November at the International Society for Technology in Education Conference in Denver. November described two interviews that he conducted recently. One was with the CEO of the world's largest bank and the other was with Jack Welsh, former CEO of General Electric. November asked each of the business leaders what they believed was the most important skill that an employee could have in the business world today. Although the interviews took place independent of one another, both CEO's gave the same response, "Empathy!"
November's story resonated with me because I had recently finished a book by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, a world leader in innovation and design. Brown also identified empathy as an essential skill in business today.
Empathy? Not a term one normally associates with the hard-nosed world of business. The word evokes images of missionaries, social workers and dedicated health care providers. Yet according to Tim Brown and other business leaders, empathy is vital whether you are designing the next great cell phone or managing a luxury hotel.
So what is empathy? Is it a skill? Can it be taught? According to both Alan November and Tim Brown it can and should be taught.
November defines empathy as the ability to view issues from the perspective of others. In today's global economy, November contends, this is absolutely essential. One way that teachers can help students learn how to shift perspective is to expose them to many points of view on the same issue. November suggests that educators can help students to develop this ability by exposing them to news reports from different countries covering the same topic. He also recommends using social media tools to enable students to discuss world events with other students from around the world.
Brown views empathy as more than an intellectual understanding and appreciation of others' points of view. For Brown, empathy entails the ability to understand and appreciate the experiences of others. For instance, one premium hotel chain pays for staff of all levels to visit their other hotels as guests, so they can understand and relate to the what guests experience when visiting their hotels.
One field that has suffered considerably due to a lack of empathy is science. Back in the 1960's and 70's, according to Chris Mooney, author of Unscientific America, science and scientists were held in high esteem by the American public. This was the hey day of the space program when people were glued to their TV sets watching astronauts travel through space while listening to the reassuring narration of Walter Cronkite and others tell the "story" of what was happening.
In recent decades, however, science and scientists have become further and further estranged from the public. Scientists have developed an arcane language that few outside of their area of specialty can comprehend. In the name of "pure science," scientists have disavowed responsibility for how the knowledge that they bring forth is used, preferring to be "agnostic." The result, according to Mooney, has been a growing distrust of science and scientists.
As scientists have seen their research budgets cut, they have come to realize the need to reconnect with people. That is exactly what astronaut Mike Massimino did during his flight on STS-125. Those who followed Astro_Mike on Twitter, and there were over a million of us, experienced what it felt like to be an astronaut on the Space Shuttle including the disappointment as two launches were cancelled due to weather delays, the elation at viewing the earth from space and the mixed emotions felt upon returning to earth and resuming routine duties and family responsibilities. Mike Massimino not only brought us along on his journey to space, but also let us tag along to his son's little league game when he came home.
Probably one of the scariest and least understood scientific undertakings currently underway involves the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment being conducted by CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. The LHC spans 100m underground crossing the border between Switzerland and France. Scientists hope to recreate the conditions that occurred just after the Big Bang to further their understanding of the creation of the universe. The subterranean experiment has led some to predict that the experiment will precipitate a black hole that will consume the earth.
Using Twitter, the scientists at CERN invited everyone to join them virtually in their underground laboratory. Throughout the experiment, researchers posted minute by minute accounts of what was happening. These included the expression of frustration and disappointment when faulty gaskets led to the need to shutdown the Collider for months and the overwhelming excitement that was felt when the first particles successfully collided at speeds never before achieved.
In both of the above examples, the doors were thrown open and anyone with the slightest interest was invited to participate, albeit vicariously. We, who accepted the invitation, got to know the scientists involved. We learned not only what they were thinking, but also what they were feeling.
We found that the LHC laboratory was not the dark and sinister setting filled with mad scientists as some would have had us believe. It was an atmosphere filled with excitement and anticipation.
That is empathy!
We live in a participatory culture. People do not expect, nor do they tolerate, the role of passive by-stander. Success in today's world requires us not only to do our job, but also to understand and appreciate the impact that our work has on others. It is not sufficient to analyze our client's needs, we must understand the context within which they experience that need.
Can schools teach empathy as a skill? They must. As the above illustrates, social media tools can help. More importantly, though, schools must create an environment that values empathy and encourages students to practice it. Such an environment requires us to design experiences with our students, not lesson for them. It requires us to focus on the context of learning, not just the content!
November's story resonated with me because I had recently finished a book by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, a world leader in innovation and design. Brown also identified empathy as an essential skill in business today.
Empathy? Not a term one normally associates with the hard-nosed world of business. The word evokes images of missionaries, social workers and dedicated health care providers. Yet according to Tim Brown and other business leaders, empathy is vital whether you are designing the next great cell phone or managing a luxury hotel.
So what is empathy? Is it a skill? Can it be taught? According to both Alan November and Tim Brown it can and should be taught.
November defines empathy as the ability to view issues from the perspective of others. In today's global economy, November contends, this is absolutely essential. One way that teachers can help students learn how to shift perspective is to expose them to many points of view on the same issue. November suggests that educators can help students to develop this ability by exposing them to news reports from different countries covering the same topic. He also recommends using social media tools to enable students to discuss world events with other students from around the world.
Brown views empathy as more than an intellectual understanding and appreciation of others' points of view. For Brown, empathy entails the ability to understand and appreciate the experiences of others. For instance, one premium hotel chain pays for staff of all levels to visit their other hotels as guests, so they can understand and relate to the what guests experience when visiting their hotels.
One field that has suffered considerably due to a lack of empathy is science. Back in the 1960's and 70's, according to Chris Mooney, author of Unscientific America, science and scientists were held in high esteem by the American public. This was the hey day of the space program when people were glued to their TV sets watching astronauts travel through space while listening to the reassuring narration of Walter Cronkite and others tell the "story" of what was happening.
In recent decades, however, science and scientists have become further and further estranged from the public. Scientists have developed an arcane language that few outside of their area of specialty can comprehend. In the name of "pure science," scientists have disavowed responsibility for how the knowledge that they bring forth is used, preferring to be "agnostic." The result, according to Mooney, has been a growing distrust of science and scientists.
As scientists have seen their research budgets cut, they have come to realize the need to reconnect with people. That is exactly what astronaut Mike Massimino did during his flight on STS-125. Those who followed Astro_Mike on Twitter, and there were over a million of us, experienced what it felt like to be an astronaut on the Space Shuttle including the disappointment as two launches were cancelled due to weather delays, the elation at viewing the earth from space and the mixed emotions felt upon returning to earth and resuming routine duties and family responsibilities. Mike Massimino not only brought us along on his journey to space, but also let us tag along to his son's little league game when he came home.
Probably one of the scariest and least understood scientific undertakings currently underway involves the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment being conducted by CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. The LHC spans 100m underground crossing the border between Switzerland and France. Scientists hope to recreate the conditions that occurred just after the Big Bang to further their understanding of the creation of the universe. The subterranean experiment has led some to predict that the experiment will precipitate a black hole that will consume the earth.
Using Twitter, the scientists at CERN invited everyone to join them virtually in their underground laboratory. Throughout the experiment, researchers posted minute by minute accounts of what was happening. These included the expression of frustration and disappointment when faulty gaskets led to the need to shutdown the Collider for months and the overwhelming excitement that was felt when the first particles successfully collided at speeds never before achieved.
In both of the above examples, the doors were thrown open and anyone with the slightest interest was invited to participate, albeit vicariously. We, who accepted the invitation, got to know the scientists involved. We learned not only what they were thinking, but also what they were feeling.
We found that the LHC laboratory was not the dark and sinister setting filled with mad scientists as some would have had us believe. It was an atmosphere filled with excitement and anticipation.
That is empathy!
We live in a participatory culture. People do not expect, nor do they tolerate, the role of passive by-stander. Success in today's world requires us not only to do our job, but also to understand and appreciate the impact that our work has on others. It is not sufficient to analyze our client's needs, we must understand the context within which they experience that need.
Can schools teach empathy as a skill? They must. As the above illustrates, social media tools can help. More importantly, though, schools must create an environment that values empathy and encourages students to practice it. Such an environment requires us to design experiences with our students, not lesson for them. It requires us to focus on the context of learning, not just the content!
Monday, May 24, 2010
Understanding Failure as the Road to Success
I just finished reading a book by Henry Petroski entitled, "Success through Failure." Petroski is a professor of Civil Engineering at Duke University. As the title implies, Petroski contends that the key to successful design rests upon the ability of the designer to learn from or to anticipate failures. This holds true regardless of whether the design in question involves a physical structure such as a bridge, or a new process for making widgets. Petroski points out that there is a great deal to learn from failure, but that success generally teaches us very little.
Failure has gained prominence recently as news reports describe failures in the nation's financial systems on a daily basis. Most recently, we have followed, in horror, the catastrophic failure of the off-shore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Both of these failures have evoked anger and outrage on the part of citizens and government officials alike. America has come to value and expect success. We, as a nation, do not tolerate failure well.
Yet, both of the above catastrophes are the result of success, not failure. Each exemplifies the vulnerability that Petroski warned against in 2006, long before either crisis unfolded. The seeds of the financial collapse were sewn while the economy enjoyed tremendous expansion and success. BP and other companies convinced regulators that deep water drilling posed little threat based upon their previous successful attempts. Each of these dramatic failures were the result of hubris and complacency engendered by past success.
Innovation requires exploring the unknown. Dr. Jack Matson, a professor of engineering design at Penn State University, stresses the value of failure to his students. Failure, he explains, is the way we map the unknown.
Of course, Dr. Matson is not recommending failure on the magnitude of the financial collapse or the BP deep water drilling disaster. While these may teach us important lessons, the cost they impose is much too high. Rather, Dr. Matson advocates "intelligent" failure; failure from which we can learn with minimal cost. Failure that can illuminate the path to success.
In public education today, failure is an anathema. Students learn to avoid failure from the earliest grades. In school, failure is synonymous with defeat. And, indeed, it is a defeat if we do not capitalize on it as a learning opportunity.
Instilling within students an aversion to failure can have ominous consequences. An aversion to failure results in an aversion to risk-taking. An aversion to risk-taking results in an over-dependence on past success. An over-dependence on past success often leads to catastrophic failure such as the two examples above illustrate.
Perhaps, as Matson and Petroski suggest, teaching our students to fail "intelligently" is the most important lesson we can offer them.
Failure has gained prominence recently as news reports describe failures in the nation's financial systems on a daily basis. Most recently, we have followed, in horror, the catastrophic failure of the off-shore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Both of these failures have evoked anger and outrage on the part of citizens and government officials alike. America has come to value and expect success. We, as a nation, do not tolerate failure well.
Yet, both of the above catastrophes are the result of success, not failure. Each exemplifies the vulnerability that Petroski warned against in 2006, long before either crisis unfolded. The seeds of the financial collapse were sewn while the economy enjoyed tremendous expansion and success. BP and other companies convinced regulators that deep water drilling posed little threat based upon their previous successful attempts. Each of these dramatic failures were the result of hubris and complacency engendered by past success.
Innovation requires exploring the unknown. Dr. Jack Matson, a professor of engineering design at Penn State University, stresses the value of failure to his students. Failure, he explains, is the way we map the unknown.
Of course, Dr. Matson is not recommending failure on the magnitude of the financial collapse or the BP deep water drilling disaster. While these may teach us important lessons, the cost they impose is much too high. Rather, Dr. Matson advocates "intelligent" failure; failure from which we can learn with minimal cost. Failure that can illuminate the path to success.
In public education today, failure is an anathema. Students learn to avoid failure from the earliest grades. In school, failure is synonymous with defeat. And, indeed, it is a defeat if we do not capitalize on it as a learning opportunity.
Instilling within students an aversion to failure can have ominous consequences. An aversion to failure results in an aversion to risk-taking. An aversion to risk-taking results in an over-dependence on past success. An over-dependence on past success often leads to catastrophic failure such as the two examples above illustrate.
Perhaps, as Matson and Petroski suggest, teaching our students to fail "intelligently" is the most important lesson we can offer them.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
STEM - The Secret Ingredient that Makes It Work
A little over a week ago, I was reading our local Sunday Newspaper when a front page headline caught my eye. It began, "Climate warming leaves 'em cold... ." The article went on to describe how a group of meteorologists from several local television stations and colleges had recently expressed skepticism about predictions that have been made regarding the potential impact of climate change.
As I read the article, I thought it peculiar that a group of high profile meteorologists should feel compelled to weigh in on the Climate Change debate so publicly. None in the group expressed doubt about global warming. They noted that the melting glaciers provided ample evidence to support the fact that the earth is getting hotter. What they disputed were the predictions being made as to the eventual impact that global warming could have on the earth and its inhabitants. After all, they pointed out, they had difficulty predicting the weather a few days in advance.
Over the years, I have followed the research and debate relating to climate change fairly closely. Thus, I was aware that there was some discord between climatologists and meteorologists on the subject of climate change.
At the same time that I saw the Sunday News article, I was just finishing a book entitled, "The Essential Engineer" by Henry Petroski. In "The Essential Engineer," Petroski describes the chasm that exists between engineers and scientists. In fact, Petroski suggests that many scientists look disparagingly at engineering as an inferior profession. This, of course, makes effective communication and collaboration between the two groups difficult at a time when their combined skills are desperately needed to solve critical problems such as scarce energy resources, global security threats and, yes, climate change.
As I reflected on my reading, I became disillusioned. Climatologists, meteorologists, scientists and engineers all play a vital role in meeting serious challenges such as global warming. Yet, they do not appear to have the skills needed to do so in a cohesive manner. Is this the "real" crisis that we face?
My concern grew to a crescendo when I read an article in the Economist. Again it dealt with Climate Change. This time the article summarized the findings of a panel charged with investigating the scientific procedures employed by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The CRU has been one of the lead agencies in climate change research and has recently been rocked by charges of impropriety due to careless comments made by member scientists in e-mails.
Overall, the panel found that the procedures employed by the CRU were appropriate and that their conclusions appeared valid. What I found startling, however, was the observation that when analyzing their data, the scientists had never consulted or collaborated with professional statisticians. While the investigative panel did not feel that this would have changed the results, it did suggest that professional statisticians would have used better statistical methods to analyze the data and could have avoided some statistical errors.
In education today, "STEM" is all the rage. It serves as a gateway to grants and a means to demonstrate our schools' commitment to America's future. Yet, I fear that we do not fully appreciate the significance of the acronym. STEM is more than simply Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. It is the integration of each discipline into something that is greater than the sum of its parts.
If the accounts that I have related above are accurate, today's scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians clearly lack the most essential STEM skill...the ability to collaborate. Interdisciplinary collaboration is the cement that gives STEM its stability and strength. It is the ingredient that makes STEM powerful enough to solve the most complex problems of the 21st Century.
As we design exciting new STEM programs to prepare our students for the challenges ahead, we must take care to emphasize the most essential STEM skill, collaboration! It is what makes STEM more than a simply a clever course listing.
As I read the article, I thought it peculiar that a group of high profile meteorologists should feel compelled to weigh in on the Climate Change debate so publicly. None in the group expressed doubt about global warming. They noted that the melting glaciers provided ample evidence to support the fact that the earth is getting hotter. What they disputed were the predictions being made as to the eventual impact that global warming could have on the earth and its inhabitants. After all, they pointed out, they had difficulty predicting the weather a few days in advance.
Over the years, I have followed the research and debate relating to climate change fairly closely. Thus, I was aware that there was some discord between climatologists and meteorologists on the subject of climate change.
At the same time that I saw the Sunday News article, I was just finishing a book entitled, "The Essential Engineer" by Henry Petroski. In "The Essential Engineer," Petroski describes the chasm that exists between engineers and scientists. In fact, Petroski suggests that many scientists look disparagingly at engineering as an inferior profession. This, of course, makes effective communication and collaboration between the two groups difficult at a time when their combined skills are desperately needed to solve critical problems such as scarce energy resources, global security threats and, yes, climate change.
As I reflected on my reading, I became disillusioned. Climatologists, meteorologists, scientists and engineers all play a vital role in meeting serious challenges such as global warming. Yet, they do not appear to have the skills needed to do so in a cohesive manner. Is this the "real" crisis that we face?
My concern grew to a crescendo when I read an article in the Economist. Again it dealt with Climate Change. This time the article summarized the findings of a panel charged with investigating the scientific procedures employed by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The CRU has been one of the lead agencies in climate change research and has recently been rocked by charges of impropriety due to careless comments made by member scientists in e-mails.
Overall, the panel found that the procedures employed by the CRU were appropriate and that their conclusions appeared valid. What I found startling, however, was the observation that when analyzing their data, the scientists had never consulted or collaborated with professional statisticians. While the investigative panel did not feel that this would have changed the results, it did suggest that professional statisticians would have used better statistical methods to analyze the data and could have avoided some statistical errors.
In education today, "STEM" is all the rage. It serves as a gateway to grants and a means to demonstrate our schools' commitment to America's future. Yet, I fear that we do not fully appreciate the significance of the acronym. STEM is more than simply Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. It is the integration of each discipline into something that is greater than the sum of its parts.
If the accounts that I have related above are accurate, today's scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians clearly lack the most essential STEM skill...the ability to collaborate. Interdisciplinary collaboration is the cement that gives STEM its stability and strength. It is the ingredient that makes STEM powerful enough to solve the most complex problems of the 21st Century.
As we design exciting new STEM programs to prepare our students for the challenges ahead, we must take care to emphasize the most essential STEM skill, collaboration! It is what makes STEM more than a simply a clever course listing.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Educational Ethics in a Complex Age
Throughout my formal training to become an educator, a training that spanned nearly 28 years and included several degrees and a wide variety of instructional and administrative certifications, I never had a course on professional ethics. I often wondered about that, even as an undergraduate. I had several courses in school law that prepared me well to "comply." But of course, compliance is very different than acting ethically. In fact, acting ethically is sometimes at odds with compliance.
Other professions maintain ethical standards that provide guidance for practitioners in their decision-making and professional behavior. Practitioners may choose to ignore this guidance, but that is a personal decision. In fact, all ethical decisions are ultimately personal.
Few would disagree that the field of education, which touches every individual, has a far-reaching impact on society as a whole. Indeed, schools have been credited with preparing and inspiring some of our greatest leaders. Unfortunately, they have also been cited in the past as having served as important tools used by dictators and despots.
As our society becomes ever more complex, educators in the United States face significant ethical challenges. The lack of training in understanding and dealing with these ethical challenges concerns me. My concern grew recently as I read about changes made to the Texas social studies curriculum. According to many accounts, changes made to the curriculum reflected political ideology rather than historical fact. The fact that the changes were adopted by elected officials who voted along straight party lines seems to lend credence to this contention.
Today, educators face serious issues of ethics and conscience. Just a few of these include:
Other professions maintain ethical standards that provide guidance for practitioners in their decision-making and professional behavior. Practitioners may choose to ignore this guidance, but that is a personal decision. In fact, all ethical decisions are ultimately personal.
Few would disagree that the field of education, which touches every individual, has a far-reaching impact on society as a whole. Indeed, schools have been credited with preparing and inspiring some of our greatest leaders. Unfortunately, they have also been cited in the past as having served as important tools used by dictators and despots.
As our society becomes ever more complex, educators in the United States face significant ethical challenges. The lack of training in understanding and dealing with these ethical challenges concerns me. My concern grew recently as I read about changes made to the Texas social studies curriculum. According to many accounts, changes made to the curriculum reflected political ideology rather than historical fact. The fact that the changes were adopted by elected officials who voted along straight party lines seems to lend credence to this contention.
Today, educators face serious issues of ethics and conscience. Just a few of these include:
- The politicization of the curriculum,
- The narrowing of the curriculum allowing only a few students to explore their talents and passions,
- The emphasis on high-stakes tests that steal time from learning and discourage risk-taking,
- The emphasis on conformity rather than creative and divergent thinking.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Preparing Students for the Crowd not the Herd
We hear a great deal about the influence and benefits of the "Crowd" in today's business and technology literature. In The Wisdom of the Crowd (2004), James Surowiecki described how the collective intelligence of a group of people with different levels of expertise and information can often solve complex problems more accurately and efficiently than an individual no matter what the individual's level of expertise. Other subsequent publications have described how businesses are beginning to use social media technology to harness the power of the Crowd to solve problems and spur innovation. Jeff Howe coined the term "Crowdsourcing" to describe this practice in a 2006 article published in Wired Magazine.
The benefits of Crowdsourcing for business and industry are obvious. As Bill Joy, one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems observed, "No matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else." This was what motivated Eli Lilly and Company to launch Innocentive in 2001. Today, according to their website, Innocentive provides an online "Open Innovation Marketplace" that brings businesses and other organizations seeking innovative solutions together with a network of over 160,000 of the world's brightest problem-solvers. Interestingly, anyone can register to be a "Solver." No special credentials are required.
In the world of technology, the benefits of Crowdsourcing abound. The most striking example is the Linux operating system that launched the "Open Source" movement. Linux not only democratized the Internet by making it possible for anyone to host an inexpensive server, it also changed the way we think about the creative process. Today, the concept of "Open Source" has expanded to include creative and collaborative efforts of every sort. So pervasive has the "Open Source" movement become that in 2001 an organization known as "Creative Commons" formed to help protect and manage the open content being produced.
Crowdsourcing offers tremendous opportunities for the aspiring innovator. No longer does one have to hope to get their foot in the door of some large corporation and slowly work their way up the corporate ladder. Crowdsourcing eliminates doors and ladders. It is a meritocracy. The person with the best solution wins.
The downside of Crowdsourcing for the worker/innovator is equally significant. Crowdsourcing shifts the entire cost of failure away from the corporation and on to the innovator. Thus, many who participate in the Crowd do so as an avocation rather than as a vocation. As more and more companies begin to recognize the benefits of Crowdsourcing, however, one might expect that the percentage of the R and D budget devoted to this practice will increase.
Working within the Crowd takes confidence and skill. It often requires sharing ideas with strangers who have nothing in common but the desire to solve a particular problem. Those who choose to participate in the Crowd need unique communication skills that allow them to not only work with others, but also to advocate for themselves and their ideas. As has always been the case in the arts, success in the Crowd is not determined by one's credentials or curriculum vitae, but by one's work. Excellent work can go unnoticed in the Crowd, though.
As educators, we tend to believe that most of our students come to us with highly developed technology skills. We see them texting and chatting insatiably. They participate in groups on Facebook, share photos, music and feelings. But are these the skills needed for success in the Crowd or are they merely preparing them for participation in the digital "Herd?"
Unlike the Crowd, the Herd does not coalesce around a problem, but rather around a belief or a social preference. While the Crowd requires diversity and open mindedness to be effective, the Herd seeks homogeneity and reaffirmation of its beliefs. The Crowd demands productive contributions, while the Herd simply requires membership.
It is imperative that we, as educators, prepare our students to work productively in the Crowd. We must not assume that they are learning the skills necessary to do so elsewhere. If we do not meet this challenge, our students may never emerge from the digital herd.
The benefits of Crowdsourcing for business and industry are obvious. As Bill Joy, one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems observed, "No matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else." This was what motivated Eli Lilly and Company to launch Innocentive in 2001. Today, according to their website, Innocentive provides an online "Open Innovation Marketplace" that brings businesses and other organizations seeking innovative solutions together with a network of over 160,000 of the world's brightest problem-solvers. Interestingly, anyone can register to be a "Solver." No special credentials are required.
In the world of technology, the benefits of Crowdsourcing abound. The most striking example is the Linux operating system that launched the "Open Source" movement. Linux not only democratized the Internet by making it possible for anyone to host an inexpensive server, it also changed the way we think about the creative process. Today, the concept of "Open Source" has expanded to include creative and collaborative efforts of every sort. So pervasive has the "Open Source" movement become that in 2001 an organization known as "Creative Commons" formed to help protect and manage the open content being produced.
Crowdsourcing offers tremendous opportunities for the aspiring innovator. No longer does one have to hope to get their foot in the door of some large corporation and slowly work their way up the corporate ladder. Crowdsourcing eliminates doors and ladders. It is a meritocracy. The person with the best solution wins.
The downside of Crowdsourcing for the worker/innovator is equally significant. Crowdsourcing shifts the entire cost of failure away from the corporation and on to the innovator. Thus, many who participate in the Crowd do so as an avocation rather than as a vocation. As more and more companies begin to recognize the benefits of Crowdsourcing, however, one might expect that the percentage of the R and D budget devoted to this practice will increase.
Working within the Crowd takes confidence and skill. It often requires sharing ideas with strangers who have nothing in common but the desire to solve a particular problem. Those who choose to participate in the Crowd need unique communication skills that allow them to not only work with others, but also to advocate for themselves and their ideas. As has always been the case in the arts, success in the Crowd is not determined by one's credentials or curriculum vitae, but by one's work. Excellent work can go unnoticed in the Crowd, though.
As educators, we tend to believe that most of our students come to us with highly developed technology skills. We see them texting and chatting insatiably. They participate in groups on Facebook, share photos, music and feelings. But are these the skills needed for success in the Crowd or are they merely preparing them for participation in the digital "Herd?"
Unlike the Crowd, the Herd does not coalesce around a problem, but rather around a belief or a social preference. While the Crowd requires diversity and open mindedness to be effective, the Herd seeks homogeneity and reaffirmation of its beliefs. The Crowd demands productive contributions, while the Herd simply requires membership.
It is imperative that we, as educators, prepare our students to work productively in the Crowd. We must not assume that they are learning the skills necessary to do so elsewhere. If we do not meet this challenge, our students may never emerge from the digital herd.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Public Ed: Competing in the Economy of "Free"
In his book Free, Chris Anderson observes that unlike products and services in the traditional economy that inflate in price over time, products and services in the digital economy tend to rapidly decrease in price. This is because demand in the physical world leads to scarcity, while in the digital world, free of the costs associated with duplication and distribution, demand leads to abundance. Abundance, in turn, creates a gravitational pull on prices that "eventually leads to zero." One merely needs to consider the many free products and services that we rely on every day to validate Anderson's argument.
The free economy has played havoc with the traditional physical economy. The music and publishing industries have been devastated by online content sharing and distribution networks. They have attempted to stem the tide through lawsuits and technical hurdles, but history assures us that these are merely artificial barriers that have no real hope of turning back the clock.
Of course, nothing is more abundant in the digital economy than information. In fact, the most vital free service that we rely on today is "Search." Whether we use Google, or Yahoo or Bing, we need sophisticated help just to sift through and manage the abundance of information available at our finger tips.
Now many in the education community have sounded the alarm that in this age of information abundance, public education faces serious challenges. Indeed it does! Clayton Christensen at Harvard predicts that by 2019, half the high school courses taken in the US will be taken online. The 2010 Horizon Report indicates that "open content" such as the MIT curriculum that is freely available on the web will enjoy mainstream use by universities in the next 12 months. Of course, this same valuable content is available to high schools, parents and anyone else who wishes to use it.
Unlike the physical economy where price is perceived to reflect value, in the digital economy that is not the case at all. Consider that Google paid $1.65 billion for YouTube in 2006. Even more amazing, Facebook, still a privately held company, was valued at $14 billion in January 2010. Both of these services are free to consumers.
To understand this, Anderson explains, one must recognize that the monetary economy is only one measure of value. Of increasing importance today are two related economies, the economies of Attention and Reputation. It is from these economies that Google, Facebook and YouTube derive their value. Facebook has over 400 million active users, more than the population of the US. Half of the Facebook users log on every day. That's a lot of attention! Yet, Facebook's value could be easily threatened by a scandal or security breech. Thus, the importance of Reputation.
"Free" is the market sector in which public education competes. We are not particularly accustomed to competing and we are also not very attuned to economics. If nothing else, the current fiscal crisis should provide a clear wake up call to all public educators that we must become competitive and we must understand the market in which we compete.
Schools must increase their valuation in the economies of Attention and Reputation. No longer can we command attention simply by shouting "Eyes Forward" from the front of the room. We must truly engage students. We must cultivate a reputation for excellence and innovation by instilling joy and creativity into teaching and learning.
Competing in the Economy of "Free" is difficult. But as many have found, it can reap tremendous rewards. Approximately 62 million school-aged children are counting on us to compete well.
The free economy has played havoc with the traditional physical economy. The music and publishing industries have been devastated by online content sharing and distribution networks. They have attempted to stem the tide through lawsuits and technical hurdles, but history assures us that these are merely artificial barriers that have no real hope of turning back the clock.
Of course, nothing is more abundant in the digital economy than information. In fact, the most vital free service that we rely on today is "Search." Whether we use Google, or Yahoo or Bing, we need sophisticated help just to sift through and manage the abundance of information available at our finger tips.
Now many in the education community have sounded the alarm that in this age of information abundance, public education faces serious challenges. Indeed it does! Clayton Christensen at Harvard predicts that by 2019, half the high school courses taken in the US will be taken online. The 2010 Horizon Report indicates that "open content" such as the MIT curriculum that is freely available on the web will enjoy mainstream use by universities in the next 12 months. Of course, this same valuable content is available to high schools, parents and anyone else who wishes to use it.
Unlike the physical economy where price is perceived to reflect value, in the digital economy that is not the case at all. Consider that Google paid $1.65 billion for YouTube in 2006. Even more amazing, Facebook, still a privately held company, was valued at $14 billion in January 2010. Both of these services are free to consumers.
To understand this, Anderson explains, one must recognize that the monetary economy is only one measure of value. Of increasing importance today are two related economies, the economies of Attention and Reputation. It is from these economies that Google, Facebook and YouTube derive their value. Facebook has over 400 million active users, more than the population of the US. Half of the Facebook users log on every day. That's a lot of attention! Yet, Facebook's value could be easily threatened by a scandal or security breech. Thus, the importance of Reputation.
"Free" is the market sector in which public education competes. We are not particularly accustomed to competing and we are also not very attuned to economics. If nothing else, the current fiscal crisis should provide a clear wake up call to all public educators that we must become competitive and we must understand the market in which we compete.
Schools must increase their valuation in the economies of Attention and Reputation. No longer can we command attention simply by shouting "Eyes Forward" from the front of the room. We must truly engage students. We must cultivate a reputation for excellence and innovation by instilling joy and creativity into teaching and learning.
Competing in the Economy of "Free" is difficult. But as many have found, it can reap tremendous rewards. Approximately 62 million school-aged children are counting on us to compete well.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Living and Learning in a Cynical World-The "Conan Challenge"
When I first began thinking about writing this blog, I never thought that one of the postings would be inspired by Conan O'Brien. Yet, on his final appearance as the host of the Tonight Show, O'Brien made a statement that spoke to one of the primary motivations for launching Disruptive Reflections.
O'Brien simply said, "Don't be cynical." He addressed this plea to the young people in the audience.
Over the past several years, I have become increasingly concerned by the vitriolic tone that has come to characterize our national discourse. Surprisingly, it doesn't even seem to matter what the topic happens to be. Important issues such as climate change, energy independence, health care and even education become battlegrounds where the personal integrity of those working to understand the issues is impugned and their motives questioned.
Certainly, mass media and the new social media have exacerbated the situation. Reality TV shows, that thrive on exposing sinister motives and duplicitous behavior, have certainly contributed. Political radio and television shows that advocate for only one point of view and then engage in character assassination of those who do not agree, have also degraded the national discourse. Social media, while providing an opportunity for unprecedented levels of participation in the national discussion, is also prone to manipulation by highly organized special interest groups posing as grass roots initiatives.
Cynicism has little difficulty finding evidence to support it. News media love a scandal and there seems to be no shortage of politicians and other public figures who are more than willing to provide the story. Cynicism, though, poses as great a threat to our personal well-being and that of our society as the most pernicious virus. Rather than attacking our body, it attacks our spirit.
How can we, as a people and as a nation, hope to solve the complex problems that face us if we cannot discuss them in a thoughtful and respectful manner? How can we, as educators, prepare our students to live and learn in a world prone to cynicism without becoming cynical themselves? It is the "Conan Challenge" and it is one that every educator must meet.
O'Brien simply said, "Don't be cynical." He addressed this plea to the young people in the audience.
Over the past several years, I have become increasingly concerned by the vitriolic tone that has come to characterize our national discourse. Surprisingly, it doesn't even seem to matter what the topic happens to be. Important issues such as climate change, energy independence, health care and even education become battlegrounds where the personal integrity of those working to understand the issues is impugned and their motives questioned.
Certainly, mass media and the new social media have exacerbated the situation. Reality TV shows, that thrive on exposing sinister motives and duplicitous behavior, have certainly contributed. Political radio and television shows that advocate for only one point of view and then engage in character assassination of those who do not agree, have also degraded the national discourse. Social media, while providing an opportunity for unprecedented levels of participation in the national discussion, is also prone to manipulation by highly organized special interest groups posing as grass roots initiatives.
Cynicism has little difficulty finding evidence to support it. News media love a scandal and there seems to be no shortage of politicians and other public figures who are more than willing to provide the story. Cynicism, though, poses as great a threat to our personal well-being and that of our society as the most pernicious virus. Rather than attacking our body, it attacks our spirit.
How can we, as a people and as a nation, hope to solve the complex problems that face us if we cannot discuss them in a thoughtful and respectful manner? How can we, as educators, prepare our students to live and learn in a world prone to cynicism without becoming cynical themselves? It is the "Conan Challenge" and it is one that every educator must meet.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Amish, Astronauts and the Arrow of Time
It has been my privilege during the course of my life, to witness some of the greatest scientific and technological achievements ever. Two of these stand out in my memory, not only because of their significance, but also because of the context in which I witnessed them. Both, oddly enough, involved the Amish; at least in my mind's eye.
On July 20, 1969, my sister and I decided to take a drive. We lived in a small suburb just outside of Philadelphia. My sister had recently gotten a car and was anxious to try it out on a day trip. We drove west, visiting Chrystal Caves in Berks County. We then headed south, through Lancaster County.
I was fascinated as we drove along country roads, passing horse and buggies and watching the farmers pull their wagons with mules. Where I grew up, there were no farms, let alone horse and buggies. As we drove along, my sister and I listened to the radio. All that was on that day was news about Apollo 11 and the astronauts as they prepared to land on the moon. The dichotomy between what I was seeing and what I was hearing was striking. Both were alien to the world I knew.
My next vivid memory also involved astronauts and Amish farmers. It occurred almost 29 years later in 1998. I had just recently moved to Lancaster with my wife and two kids. My son and daughter, who were twins, were six at the time. We had just moved into a two story colonial and the back of our house looked out on a field belonging to an Amish farmer who lived nearby.
It was Friday evening in early March. My daughter sat on my lap as we both looked at our Mac located in the second floor study. We were watching a live stream of the second Millenium Evening hosted at the White House. The featured speaker for the evening was Stephen Hawkins. As we watched, I explained that Dr. Hawkins was a very smart scientists who had a severe disability. None-the-less, his brilliance was unbridled. My daughter, not particularly interested in physics at the time, was fascinated by Dr. Hawkins' ability to overcome his handicap.
At the end of the presentation, the audience members, including those watching on the Internet, were invited to submit questions. Suddenly, the picture changed and we were viewing the astronauts in the International Space Station who told Hawkins how much they admired his work. My daughter, of course, took this all in stride. I looked out my window and was amazed.
So what does this have to do with Education or the Arrow of Time?
In his best seller, A Short History of Time, Stephen Hawkins, discusses the Arrow(s) of Time (there are three of them). Together the Cosmological, Psychological and Thermodynamic Arrows of Time all point in the same direction, thank heavens, defining the past, present and future. As time progresses, according to Hawkins, there is a gradual evolution from a state of order to a state of increased disorder (entropy). Thus, one might say that progress equates to achieving a higher state of disorder.
So, other than making us a bit uncomfortable, what does any of this have to do with education, or for that matter, the Amish?
A lot!
When one thinks back over time, specifically considering the evolution of knowledge and learning, the influence of the Arrows of Time is very apparent. Certainly, one of the hallmarks of civilization and progress was the invention of the printing press in 1440. Yet, this wonderful invention was not embraced as a great achievement, but as a threat to the order of things. Prior to this, the written word was primarily produced and disseminated by the church. The knowledge that it contained was mainly available to the elite ruling class. The printing press threatened to make the written word available to everyone. It was anticipated that chaos would ensue and one might contend that it did. Suddenly there were all sorts of new ideas flying around.
Although the printing press greatly democratized publishing, the literature that became readily available was still accessible mainly to the wealthy, educated class. Then in 1635, the first public school opened in Boston. Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams and John Hancock attended. Few would question the impact that educating them had on the order of things.
Today, rapid advances in science and technology, along with subsequent advances in knowledge and expertise, seem to threaten once again our sense of order and stability. The Amish (remember the Amish?) attempt to stave off the disorder by limiting travel and clinging to antiquated practices. Yet, the Arrows of Time persist.
As educators, how do we deal with the growing disorder inherent to progress? How do we teach in a world where information overwhelms us on a daily basis and our voices are drowned out by the cacophony of noise coming from the social media? How do we respond when we are asked to bring order to a world that is driven towards disorder? Do we, like the Amish, become restrictive and confining? Or, do we embrace the energy generated by the Arrows of Time and teach our students to thrive in the uncertainty and disorder that progress demands?
On July 20, 1969, my sister and I decided to take a drive. We lived in a small suburb just outside of Philadelphia. My sister had recently gotten a car and was anxious to try it out on a day trip. We drove west, visiting Chrystal Caves in Berks County. We then headed south, through Lancaster County.
I was fascinated as we drove along country roads, passing horse and buggies and watching the farmers pull their wagons with mules. Where I grew up, there were no farms, let alone horse and buggies. As we drove along, my sister and I listened to the radio. All that was on that day was news about Apollo 11 and the astronauts as they prepared to land on the moon. The dichotomy between what I was seeing and what I was hearing was striking. Both were alien to the world I knew.
My next vivid memory also involved astronauts and Amish farmers. It occurred almost 29 years later in 1998. I had just recently moved to Lancaster with my wife and two kids. My son and daughter, who were twins, were six at the time. We had just moved into a two story colonial and the back of our house looked out on a field belonging to an Amish farmer who lived nearby.
It was Friday evening in early March. My daughter sat on my lap as we both looked at our Mac located in the second floor study. We were watching a live stream of the second Millenium Evening hosted at the White House. The featured speaker for the evening was Stephen Hawkins. As we watched, I explained that Dr. Hawkins was a very smart scientists who had a severe disability. None-the-less, his brilliance was unbridled. My daughter, not particularly interested in physics at the time, was fascinated by Dr. Hawkins' ability to overcome his handicap.
At the end of the presentation, the audience members, including those watching on the Internet, were invited to submit questions. Suddenly, the picture changed and we were viewing the astronauts in the International Space Station who told Hawkins how much they admired his work. My daughter, of course, took this all in stride. I looked out my window and was amazed.
So what does this have to do with Education or the Arrow of Time?
In his best seller, A Short History of Time, Stephen Hawkins, discusses the Arrow(s) of Time (there are three of them). Together the Cosmological, Psychological and Thermodynamic Arrows of Time all point in the same direction, thank heavens, defining the past, present and future. As time progresses, according to Hawkins, there is a gradual evolution from a state of order to a state of increased disorder (entropy). Thus, one might say that progress equates to achieving a higher state of disorder.
So, other than making us a bit uncomfortable, what does any of this have to do with education, or for that matter, the Amish?
A lot!
When one thinks back over time, specifically considering the evolution of knowledge and learning, the influence of the Arrows of Time is very apparent. Certainly, one of the hallmarks of civilization and progress was the invention of the printing press in 1440. Yet, this wonderful invention was not embraced as a great achievement, but as a threat to the order of things. Prior to this, the written word was primarily produced and disseminated by the church. The knowledge that it contained was mainly available to the elite ruling class. The printing press threatened to make the written word available to everyone. It was anticipated that chaos would ensue and one might contend that it did. Suddenly there were all sorts of new ideas flying around.
Although the printing press greatly democratized publishing, the literature that became readily available was still accessible mainly to the wealthy, educated class. Then in 1635, the first public school opened in Boston. Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams and John Hancock attended. Few would question the impact that educating them had on the order of things.
Today, rapid advances in science and technology, along with subsequent advances in knowledge and expertise, seem to threaten once again our sense of order and stability. The Amish (remember the Amish?) attempt to stave off the disorder by limiting travel and clinging to antiquated practices. Yet, the Arrows of Time persist.
As educators, how do we deal with the growing disorder inherent to progress? How do we teach in a world where information overwhelms us on a daily basis and our voices are drowned out by the cacophony of noise coming from the social media? How do we respond when we are asked to bring order to a world that is driven towards disorder? Do we, like the Amish, become restrictive and confining? Or, do we embrace the energy generated by the Arrows of Time and teach our students to thrive in the uncertainty and disorder that progress demands?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Laws of Disruption
In his book The Laws of Disruption, Larry Downes states that "technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally." This phenomenon has led to legal battles over copyright, patents, privacy etc.
If social, economic and legal systems change incrementally, educational systems evolve glacially. This is not surprising. After all, one of the primary functions of education is to preserve the knowledge, traditions and culture of society. It is true, as astronaut Christa McAuliffe proclaimed, teachers "touch the future." Yet, most of their work involves the past.
I remember reading once that schools teach only one subject...history. Schools teach the history of mathematics, the history of literature, the history of science and so forth. On reflection, this is a pretty valid observation. In science and math, we ask our students to prove that which has already been proven. We ask them to discover that which has already been discovered and we ask them to learn, that which is already known.
This is not a criticism. This is what schools were created to do. But at a time when most of the information in the world can be carried in your pocket; at a time when science is capable of manipulating the most fundamental aspects of nature and life; at a time when broadband and wireless networks triumph over time and space, can schools continue to function this way?
In 2008, Clayton Christensen wrote Disrupting Class. It quickly became a must read for educators and Christensen and his co-author Michael Horn became much sought after speakers on the national educational conference circuit. The book stirred an important discussion among educators, although a rather narrow one to my way of thinking.
It is my hope that Disruptive Reflections will expand the conversation on how schools can leverage disruptive innovations to prepare our students for a world that moves at the speed of light, a world that faces daunting problems and endless possibilities. This blog will look at advances in science, engineering, business and technology and relate them to the changing needs of our students.
Join me in this conversation. Look for new posts weekly.
If social, economic and legal systems change incrementally, educational systems evolve glacially. This is not surprising. After all, one of the primary functions of education is to preserve the knowledge, traditions and culture of society. It is true, as astronaut Christa McAuliffe proclaimed, teachers "touch the future." Yet, most of their work involves the past.
I remember reading once that schools teach only one subject...history. Schools teach the history of mathematics, the history of literature, the history of science and so forth. On reflection, this is a pretty valid observation. In science and math, we ask our students to prove that which has already been proven. We ask them to discover that which has already been discovered and we ask them to learn, that which is already known.
This is not a criticism. This is what schools were created to do. But at a time when most of the information in the world can be carried in your pocket; at a time when science is capable of manipulating the most fundamental aspects of nature and life; at a time when broadband and wireless networks triumph over time and space, can schools continue to function this way?
In 2008, Clayton Christensen wrote Disrupting Class. It quickly became a must read for educators and Christensen and his co-author Michael Horn became much sought after speakers on the national educational conference circuit. The book stirred an important discussion among educators, although a rather narrow one to my way of thinking.
It is my hope that Disruptive Reflections will expand the conversation on how schools can leverage disruptive innovations to prepare our students for a world that moves at the speed of light, a world that faces daunting problems and endless possibilities. This blog will look at advances in science, engineering, business and technology and relate them to the changing needs of our students.
Join me in this conversation. Look for new posts weekly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
