Think Different-Teach Different

I recently read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Kuhn’s main premise is that science did not evolved over time, but rather advanced through a series of revolutions. Conflicting theories (for example, the earth is the center of the universe or the earth rotates around the sun) as new knowledge is gathered and tested one theory wins out and the paradigms shifts. The other theory is forgotten or becomes pseudoscience (alchemy, astrology, phrenology, intelligent design, etc.).

Think about the giants of science (Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Tesla, Einstein, Hawking to name just a few), their work changed the way we see the world today.

Then I thought about the American educational system. Who are the most influential minds that have changed education. John Dewey, Howard Gardener, Madeline Hunter, perhaps. Ask yourself, “Have there really been any revolutions or paradigm shifts?” Classrooms function much as they did nearly a hundred  years ago. As we learn more about how the brain actually works and how learning actually takes place will educators apply this knowledge or cling to pseudoeducational practices? Will the Newton or Einstein of education be a neuroscientist?

Those of us with children know first hand that each child is unique. They don’t learn to walk or talk at the same time. We also know that learning things will take some amount of time and that amount of time can vary from person to person. If the goal is for students to attain a certain level of mastery and become productive members of society then we need to make time work for us.
Currently, most schools are built around a one-size-fits-all model of instructional delivery. A bell rings and instruction begins, another bell rings and instructions ceases. These fixed blocks of time occur throughout the day and whether it be history or math, an ELL student or a GATE student the blocks of time remain the same. Many schools have implemented “double blocks” or allocating more minutes allotted for specific subjects, usually language arts or math, at the cost of reducing time for other areas. Simply adjusting the speed of the assembly line at specific points or at specific times fails to acknowledge the individual learning need of each student. I don’t know of too many careers where a bell rings and each worker begins working on the exact same project in a lock step method until everyone has completed their work (I’m sure there are a few jobs like this somewhere, synchronized swimming comes to mind).
In order to make time work for us, we as educators need to shift from assembly line learning to something that is more flexible and built around the needs of the learner. Our students, now more than ever, need to learn how to learn. They need to be given the opportunity to manage their time to complete tasks and experience the feeling of satisfaction from having done something meaningful. Have you ever heard a young child say with determination, “I can do it myself”, and fought the urge to take over, tying shoes comes to mind. Sure it took much longer and they didn’t do it perfectly, but they did it. Have schools taken that away in an attempt to keep the assembly line moving along? Can we help them to get it back? Think Different about how time is spent in your classroom. Teach Different to create better students.

Is it better to praise students for their innate intelligence or for how hard they try? In Jonah Lehrer’s latest book, How We Decide, he explores the latest breakthroughs in neuroscience and uses real world examples to help us understand how we decide. In Chapter 4, he uses the research of psychologist Carol Dweck (currently at Stanford and before that Columbia) as an example of what we praise students for produces very different results. In her study, more than 400 New York City fifth graders were either praised for trying hard or for being smart. Those who were praised for trying hard were more likely to take on more challenging puzzles and willing to learn something new, while those praised for their intelligence were more likely to choose easier puzzles that they could be successful doing. Science is showing that our brains learn how to make decisions based on what we learn from the mistakes we make. Are we structuring our classrooms and schools so students (and teachers) are allowed to learn from their mistakes? Are we teaching students how to make better decisions? Honda has produced a series of short videos about their experience in racing, one is quite fitting. Check it out: Failure: The Secret to Success

For those of us who have lived with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation probably find it only fair that banks and Wall St. firms who accept federal funds experience the “strings” that come with federal funding. In a nation so obsessed with money, one would think we would already have an accountability system like the one that insures that all children meet “world class standards”. Shouldn’t our financial system be held to  “world class standards” or at least some form of ethical standards. I think that salary caps proposed by President Obama are just the beginning. Perhaps implementing requirements similar to NCLB is necessary to save our nation’s financial system. We should take as good of care with our money as we do with our children. It might look something like this:

One must first believe that all money can earn

Only “highly qualified” bankers, brokers, and executives would be allowed to work our money (private, religious, and home institutions would be exempt)

Standards-based reform (standards like “don’t steal” and “poor performance does not earn a six figure bonus”)

Adequate Yearly Progress goals must be met or the institution would be taken over by the government (this assumes that the government has “highly quallified” replacements to run things)

Standardized tests to measure the growth of our money (ETS probably already has such an exam)

Unlimited access to information about our money would be provvided to military recruiters (it’s in NCLB)

Watch Sir Ken Robinson speak at the TED conference in 2006 about the importance of creativity.

It is hard to argue with this, but how do we change it? Would shifting the focus from basic literacy to creativity produce better results? Daniel Levintin’s, This Is Your Brain On Music makes the case that music is one of the few things that can stimulate all regions of the brain. Levintin uses the latest neuroscience (mostly FMRI scans) to support his ideas. He contends that music is one thing that all cultures have valued, throughout time. Society continues to have a place for music and the arts, but do schools? What do you think?