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.
Monday, May 24, 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
