But that's just it! The "what" and the "how" are inseparable!
Leonard Sax talks of two ways of knowing, knowing experientially and knowing intellectually. He points out that other languages, ie. German, French, and Spanish, actually use different verbs for each type of knowledge (kennen/connaître/conocer vs. wissenschaft/savoir/saber). He argues, in his book "Boys Adrift" (which I'm not yet sure whether I recommend), that schools in the United States have become almost entirely focused on the latter, on the wissenschaft, on the intellectual, and have almost completely devalued ideas of "experiential learning."
I think he's right on this point, and that what he's getting at goes far deeper than the usual superficial conversation. That the issue goes even beyond simple questions of "how" to teach "what."
For example, let's take a living environment state standard:
Performance indicator 1.2: Hone ideas through reasoning, library research, and discussion with others, including
experts.
Major Understandings
1.2a Inquiry involves asking questions and locating, interpreting, and processing information from a variety of sources.
1.2b Inquiry involves making judgments about the reliability of the source and relevance of information.
Pretty simple at first glance. We, as teachers, look at this and say, "Okay, now I know (wissen!) what to teach, now I need to simply (!) figure out how to teach it." The problem is, how we teach it completely changes the nature of what it is we end up teaching! We could take students to a Buddhist temple for an hour, and, after eliciting their own questions, allow students to roam freely and try to discover answers to their questions through locating, interpreting, and processing information from a variety of sources. Or, we could give them a worksheet with questions that need to be answered by locating, interpreting, and processing information from two different textbooks in class. What we are teaching is very different. And this only brushes the surface! It is not semantics - it's at the heart of the matter.
We're mixed up. What do we really want from our students? What is our vision for our youth? If it is a vision of robots spitting out facts, then perhaps we can think of what and how separately. However, if it is a vision of creative, self-managed people in service to others, the questions of what and how become more and more entwined.
I realize, of course, that this is not really the heart of what you were saying. In a more direct response, I would like to say, yes! I am with you on the relational how. That this is where we can re-construct, from the ground up, our society's educational priorities, and our schools' priorities for our youth.
To end, this issue may be bigger than we realize. Leonard Sax points out, in the same book mentioned above, that as of 2004, in a number of states, 25% of men aged 30 to 54 were not working and not looking for work. In almost half of the states, the percentage was 20%, and at least 10% in the remaining states. This is up from less than 5% in almost all states in the 1950s and 1960s. What's this trend about? Have we mis-prioritized away from things that are actually of meaning, ie. creative thinking, service to others, community, in our schools and society at large, in the name of relatively uninspiring informational banking?
We got so caught up in "how" to teach "what" that we lost sight of what the what really should be?
13 April 2011
I am excited. Our thoughts seem to be converging. Some of the core issues that are causing each of such concern may be nearly identical, though we are preoccupied with different ramifications and implications.
What are the core issues? A lack of critical thinking, creativity, and independent thought in our schools. A lack of agency. A lack of engagement.
And what are the implications? You speak of lack of success in school, lack of options, lack of purpose, and increasing disconnect between so many students and their schools. I used to speak of a lack of respect throughout the school environment, but now I want to be more accurate (I believe). What I mean is a profound lack of character development. And this lack of development in turn leads to social dysfunction, greater violence, and greater intolerance. All of these implications are simultatneous.
In my research, I looked into the Ontario Ministry of Education's character development initiative. I was astounded to see, articulated as official government policy, that " it must be recognized that a quality education Includes the education of the heart as well as the mind." From this basis, a position has been developed, and "respect," "caring," "safety," and "inclusion" are identified as common core values to be explicitly developed and nurtured across the province in the English, French, and Catholic public school systems. Thus Ontario has embarked on an effort to explicitly shape the character of the province's youth.
All this is secondary to what I want to say next. In the document published by the government summarizing this initiative, they devoted a page to what character development is, and what it is not. Look at the list of what it is not:
- it is not about compliance
- it is not about behavior based on fear of punishment
- it is not about behaviors motivated by extrinsic rewards and recognition
- it does not seek to indoctrinate
- it cannot be done to students
- it is not found in a textbook, binder, or manual
- it is not about a government imposing a set of moral standards
Does that list not damn the very basics of our school wide discipline systems? And, even more poignantly, does it not destroy the fundamental principles of our special education behavior modification plans??
I entered this process focused on respect. I am now fascinated by character development inn general. And I am realizing two things. The first is that one's character seems to be as important (if not more?!) than content knowledge or specific academic skills in one's success as a student in school. The second is that this character development seems predicated on the development of the critical thinking, imagination, and creative thought. And that it requires the intrinsic engagement of students. The very same things that you are speaking to!
What are we teaching our students? And how? We had better revisit our priorities for our youth, as a society, and then honestly re-evaluated our pedagogy. We seem to be straying, and the implications are becoming more and more profound.
What are the core issues? A lack of critical thinking, creativity, and independent thought in our schools. A lack of agency. A lack of engagement.
And what are the implications? You speak of lack of success in school, lack of options, lack of purpose, and increasing disconnect between so many students and their schools. I used to speak of a lack of respect throughout the school environment, but now I want to be more accurate (I believe). What I mean is a profound lack of character development. And this lack of development in turn leads to social dysfunction, greater violence, and greater intolerance. All of these implications are simultatneous.
In my research, I looked into the Ontario Ministry of Education's character development initiative. I was astounded to see, articulated as official government policy, that " it must be recognized that a quality education Includes the education of the heart as well as the mind." From this basis, a position has been developed, and "respect," "caring," "safety," and "inclusion" are identified as common core values to be explicitly developed and nurtured across the province in the English, French, and Catholic public school systems. Thus Ontario has embarked on an effort to explicitly shape the character of the province's youth.
All this is secondary to what I want to say next. In the document published by the government summarizing this initiative, they devoted a page to what character development is, and what it is not. Look at the list of what it is not:
- it is not about compliance
- it is not about behavior based on fear of punishment
- it is not about behaviors motivated by extrinsic rewards and recognition
- it does not seek to indoctrinate
- it cannot be done to students
- it is not found in a textbook, binder, or manual
- it is not about a government imposing a set of moral standards
Does that list not damn the very basics of our school wide discipline systems? And, even more poignantly, does it not destroy the fundamental principles of our special education behavior modification plans??
I entered this process focused on respect. I am now fascinated by character development inn general. And I am realizing two things. The first is that one's character seems to be as important (if not more?!) than content knowledge or specific academic skills in one's success as a student in school. The second is that this character development seems predicated on the development of the critical thinking, imagination, and creative thought. And that it requires the intrinsic engagement of students. The very same things that you are speaking to!
What are we teaching our students? And how? We had better revisit our priorities for our youth, as a society, and then honestly re-evaluated our pedagogy. We seem to be straying, and the implications are becoming more and more profound.
7 March 2011
Dear Nick,
I am also excited by this exchange. Brilliant. A chance to write freely with no parameters, letting the heart speak openly, hopefully passionately! As the Little Prince says, "on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." That is, "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.
To this end, I think it telling that the idea I was most excited to respond to in your letter was the idea you wrote came from your "pen taking you elsewhere." Go! Go I say!
That part? This idea of decisive indecisiveness. What is the source? This passivity?! Why? And who? is there fear of risk taking? Of failure of embarrassment? Is there a lack of self-efficacy? Is it defiance, an instinctual response to subconsciously recognized social injustice and power imbalance? (I'm thinking in terms of what we teach, the language we use, the sources, the inescapable and avoidable baises, on and on.) Or is it positive? Is there a trust in, and therefore deference to, the teacher? We often get frustrated at the idea of students "just wanting to be told the answers." Why? If I'm in their shoes, I don't want to waste time needlessly - I want the answer so I can know, move on, and ask more questions! It would be out of a desire for more learning that I would want the answer. Out of a desire for inquiry.
Also, incredible story about your student and "The Stranger." Brilliant, the idea that "meaningless actually opens up more possibilites." For one, that's a beautiful sight into spiritual freedom (though wherein lies the responsibility?). More exciting is, of course, the inquisitive and willing learner. And how fortunate that her style so closely matched yours! That you found each other in this sense. You, as both teacher and you, together simultaneously, come alive. And "the world needs people who have come alive." A testament to the importance of authentic self.
A Jesuit priest I once knew, named Fr. Arthur, said that people should only teach their own styles of prayer. That if I pray a certain way, that is how I ought to teach others prayer. It is authentic this way. Meaningful. Above all, not faked at all. Here is an opportunity to teach your style of learning!
This gets at, or starts to get at, my fascination with respect. In your anecdote there was an obviously abundant amount of mutual respect. Inspiring! But this is not the norm. Disheartening.
Why do we force this one way of learning? Sure, differentiation, but who are we kidding? We differentiate within strict parameters. Our schools are so narrow. They are set up for a student like yours, but are forced full of so many who do not need to learn like this.
And they shouldn't! Society is responsible for educating its next generation. We don't want a nation of armchair theorists. We need a handful of passionate ones (like yourself) but the more pretending there is, the messier things become. Can we investigate our values?
What is our goal, ultimately? Through it all? In other words, what is the meaning of life? 42? Fair enough.
But respect is up there. Respect, love for our fellow humans. No matter the context, the other. Why else do we hold Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela in such high esteem? And the Dalai Llama, and Thich Naht Hahn? In them we see our ideals becoming embodied, first and foremost among them, respect for others.
How do we reflect this in society? To begin with, respect of self, others, and the space one is in, and the unknown. What, exactly, does this look like though?
I am also excited by this exchange. Brilliant. A chance to write freely with no parameters, letting the heart speak openly, hopefully passionately! As the Little Prince says, "on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." That is, "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.
To this end, I think it telling that the idea I was most excited to respond to in your letter was the idea you wrote came from your "pen taking you elsewhere." Go! Go I say!
That part? This idea of decisive indecisiveness. What is the source? This passivity?! Why? And who? is there fear of risk taking? Of failure of embarrassment? Is there a lack of self-efficacy? Is it defiance, an instinctual response to subconsciously recognized social injustice and power imbalance? (I'm thinking in terms of what we teach, the language we use, the sources, the inescapable and avoidable baises, on and on.) Or is it positive? Is there a trust in, and therefore deference to, the teacher? We often get frustrated at the idea of students "just wanting to be told the answers." Why? If I'm in their shoes, I don't want to waste time needlessly - I want the answer so I can know, move on, and ask more questions! It would be out of a desire for more learning that I would want the answer. Out of a desire for inquiry.
Also, incredible story about your student and "The Stranger." Brilliant, the idea that "meaningless actually opens up more possibilites." For one, that's a beautiful sight into spiritual freedom (though wherein lies the responsibility?). More exciting is, of course, the inquisitive and willing learner. And how fortunate that her style so closely matched yours! That you found each other in this sense. You, as both teacher and you, together simultaneously, come alive. And "the world needs people who have come alive." A testament to the importance of authentic self.
A Jesuit priest I once knew, named Fr. Arthur, said that people should only teach their own styles of prayer. That if I pray a certain way, that is how I ought to teach others prayer. It is authentic this way. Meaningful. Above all, not faked at all. Here is an opportunity to teach your style of learning!
This gets at, or starts to get at, my fascination with respect. In your anecdote there was an obviously abundant amount of mutual respect. Inspiring! But this is not the norm. Disheartening.
Why do we force this one way of learning? Sure, differentiation, but who are we kidding? We differentiate within strict parameters. Our schools are so narrow. They are set up for a student like yours, but are forced full of so many who do not need to learn like this.
And they shouldn't! Society is responsible for educating its next generation. We don't want a nation of armchair theorists. We need a handful of passionate ones (like yourself) but the more pretending there is, the messier things become. Can we investigate our values?
What is our goal, ultimately? Through it all? In other words, what is the meaning of life? 42? Fair enough.
But respect is up there. Respect, love for our fellow humans. No matter the context, the other. Why else do we hold Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela in such high esteem? And the Dalai Llama, and Thich Naht Hahn? In them we see our ideals becoming embodied, first and foremost among them, respect for others.
How do we reflect this in society? To begin with, respect of self, others, and the space one is in, and the unknown. What, exactly, does this look like though?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)