Optivia+ Blog: August 2013

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

The Creative Solution

In order to truly address the creativity crisis and the shortcomings of the US educational system, an institutional change must be implemented. This change needs to target the higher order thinking skills needed in the 21st century marketplace, but also needs to address new ways of learning for the contemporary learner. A problem-based learning model is the strongest candidate as such a solution. “Problem-Based Learning (PBL), as a general model, was developed in medical education in the early 1970's and since that time it has been refined and implemented in over sixty medical schools” (Savery, 7). It has since been adopted and adapted by various levels and disciplines.

The eight instructional principles of problem-based-learning are as follows: 1. anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem 2. support the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task 3. design an authentic task 4. design the task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment they should be able to function in at the end of learning 5. give the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution 6. design the learning environment to support and challenge the learner's thinking 7. encourage testing ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts 8. provide opportunity for and support reflection on both the content learned and the learning process (Savery, 5 – 8) The above list serves a framework of values, rather than a recipe for success. According to Savery and Duffy, in the PBL model “…there are no pre-specified objectives presented to the students. The students generate the learning issues (objectives) based on their analysis of the problem” (Savery, 7). In this way, the learning process is one in the same as Csíkszentmihályi’s flow process. Learning is enjoyable, and thus successful, when framed in problems as opposed to lectures. Under the PBL method, it is possible to see how creativity can be emphasized. However, the true solution to the creativity crisis is not through the emphasis of creativity, but through its honing.

base solution

Creativity and self expression are thought of as sensuous experiences. No one person experiences creativity or creative expression the same as anyone else. Because of this, we all have a wide variety of tastes – tastes in music, in art, in food, in movies and in literature. This is why creative practice is often regulated to the arts. “Researchers say creativity should be taken out of the art room and put into homeroom. The argument that we can’t teach creativity because kids already have too much to learn is a false trade-off” (Bronson). We need to dispense with our personal tastes and our personal biases if we are to use creativity in a critical way. Separating creativity from forms of expression and tastes is rather difficult. But by doing so, we are able to develop critical opinions which move beyond mere “like” or “dislike” and encompass analytical, interpretive and reflective processes. Creativity and creative expression are ways of looking at the world. They are ways of: understanding and relating social issues and events; understanding emotions, developing emotional intelligences, and developing empathy and sympathy; communicating ideas visually, sensuously, emotionally, and intuitively; and deeply challenging ourselves. Unfortunately, creativity is not easily defined. Dr. Betty Edwards, Professor of Art at California State University, is perhaps one of the most famous researchers in the area of creativity. In her seminal work, Drawing on the Artist Within, Edwards quotes Albert Rothenberg saying: “The problem of creativity is beset with mysticism, confused definitions, value judgments, psychoanalytic admonitions, and the crushing weight of philosophical speculation dating from ancient times” (Edwards, 7). In lieu of such statements, it would seem impossible to come to a conclusive definition of what creativity is. For Edwards, creativity is “the force the drives problem-solving, informs effective decision-making, and opens new frontiers for ambition and intelligence.”

We tend to think of creativity as a premise which is easily expressed in poetic languages: visual art, music, performance art, dance, and other forms of expression. But is also expressed mathematically and scientifically as both of these areas seek beauty and beautiful truth. The mathematics and sciences express pattern, symmetry and harmony – and these elemental principles are also beautiful, just like a painting, sonnet or melody. Creativity is seen more readily in the arts, but like Einstein’s thought-experiment, can also be seen in the more objective disciplines. Creativity is an experience – a flow experience – which takes place any time a person feels flow. So either poetically or mathematically, this premise is that creativity requires: some form of imaginative skill, conceptualization and the ability to synthesize something new. But what does this have to do with learning processes?

The act of creation is willful but also cognitive. When one engages in creation or creativity, that person is doing two things: experiencing flow and learning. Explaining how animals evolve or how galaxies move; painting a landscape; writing a sonnet; or solving an impossible equation – all of these are acts of creation and are creative. But more so, they tell a story – each of these activities communicates meaning. This is how creativity relates to learning – it is a willful act of understanding and examining the nature of things. Inherent in all of these skills, is the ability to “look.” Edwards claims that there are two main components to creativity: 1) looking at problems in new, innovative ways and 2) focusing on connections that might not be apparent (Edwards, 12 – 17). “This special way of seeing includes the ability to see a whole field while at the same time perceiving parts within the field in relationship to each other as well as the whole…” (Edwards, 34). Remember, a large part of creativity is creating. This should seem quite obvious – learning through flow experience is linked intimately to synthesis. Learning is a drive to create – it is the energy we use to be creative! Creating and creativity are not about talent or skill. Creating is about seeing, sensing, expressing, and communicating. Anyone can be taught to draw or paint given enough time and practice. Likewise, they can learn calculus if given the right amount of time and strong instruction. In fact being creative is easy! The difficult part is: seeing, observing, and conceptualizing, and then translating that to a manipulated form. There is an undeniable link between the way we think and the ways we use creativity. We are conditioned to use words and numbers to express concepts. Yet, expressing something visually can sometimes open new doors and opportunities.

Creativity is a form of problem solving that requires thinking in a different language – a visual language. This visual language can be observational and perceptual, meaning it is carried out by physical acts like: seeing, studying, drawing etc. or it can be conceptual meaning it is carried out in the “mind’s-eye” and through visualization. Edwards is a major proponent of this vision of creativity, based on her years of teaching and her studies of the artistic process. Edwards says, “Drawings, like words, have meaning – often beyond the power of words to express, but nonetheless invaluable in making the chaos of our sensory impressions comprehensible,” (Edwards, 2). For Edwards, creativity and art are behaviors of looking at problems in new, innovative ways and focusing on connections that might not be apparent. So for Edwards, creativity requires intense study, practical application of theory and methodology, and a philosophical basis. She claims that creative success is based on: training in observation and seeing, practicing methods and techniques, and developing ways to represent the world through models (not unlike scientific models or equations).

Creativity is about the thinking process and education, for instance: no college student would accept an Introductory French Course in which the instructor expected students to speak French on the first day and those students who had no “talent” (or prior knowledge of French) were unable to continue in the course. Creativity and perceptual skills are no different than arithmetic or language skills, they must be introduced, studied and practiced. No one is born creative. “The right half of the brain functions in a nonverbal manner, specializing in visual, spatial, perceptual information” (Edwards, 91). The 20th century placed special emphasis on left-brain thinking – logic, rationale, sequencing etc. The process of creativity is a conscious, deliberate effort that must be decided in the right-brain. The 21st century emphasizes these skills; emphasizes the right-brain functions; and is leading learning into a creative, exploratory domain. In order for the contemporary education system to be useful and practical, it must adapt to this new climate. If we are going to compete globally, improve our education system, and become more allogamous, we need to focus less on 20th century structure and more on 21st century innovation.

references

1. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a Part of the U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. Web. 26 June 2011. .

2. Sung-Jun, Chung. "In Ranking, U.S. Students Trail Global Leaders." USA Today 7 Dec. 2010, The Associated Press ed. Print.

3. Reich, Robert B. "Manufacturing Jobs Are Never Coming Back." Forbes Magazine 28 May 2009. www.forbes.com. Web. 10 June 2011.

4. Digital Media: New Learners of the 21st Century. Prod. Mobile Digital Arts in Association with Tpt National Productions. PBS Teachers, Feb 2011. Documentary.

5. Bronson, Po, and Ashley Merryman. "The Creativity Crisis." Newsweek 19 July 2010. Print.

6. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Flow the Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York [u.a.: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2009. Print.

7. Savery, John R., and Thomas M. Duffy. "Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework." CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01 June (2001). Print. Center of Research and Technology Learning Indiana University

8. Edwards, Betty. Drawing on the Artist Within: a Guide to Innovation, Invention, Imagination, and Creativity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986. Print.

9. Kelley, Tom, and Jonathan Littman. The Ten Faces of Innovation. London: Profile, 2006. Print.

10. Rimer, Sara. "Study: Many College Students Not Learning to Think Critically." The Hechinger Report January 18 (2011). Print. Teachers College, Columbia University

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Einstein, Csíkszentmihályi, and Digital Media

Interestingly enough, as American schools are lagging behind our European and Asian counterparts, we are also finding we are lagging behind in creativity, as well. Is this coincidence, or is there evidence which supports a correlation between learning and creativity? “Around the world other countries are making creativity development a national priority” (Bronson). Schools in Britain, the European Union and China have moved to a “problem-based” learning method and curriculum (Bronson). In these methods, instructors present students with a problem as opposed to a topic or test-question. Then the instructor serves as a facilitator, guiding students in developing answers/solutions through creativity methods. Although, instructors and curriculum boards might spurn creativity activities due to time and State standards; there is no need to see curriculum as a trade-off for creativity.

Searching for information, discovering facts, and engaging in deep research are fundamental steps in the creative process. “Scholars argue that current curriculum standards can still be met, if taught in a different way” (Bronson). Like the schools showcased in Digital Media: New Learners of the 21st Century, learning can take place in new environments using fresh and pioneering methods. The trick to developing new learning practices and truly inventive education is through the teaching of creativity. Like any discipline, creativity is a way of seeing, a way of learning and a culture. Creativity is not an inborn talent and can be taught.

Once it is taught, it can be used by students to discover information through exploration, examination, investigation and analysis. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi is a psychologist who developed unique theories concerning creativity and beauty by studying artists and the process of creating. His most important theory concerns: flow, which is a description of the mental state in which a person becomes completely immersed and focused on a task, and experiences feelings of eager determination, complete involvement and interest, and enjoyment in the process. In layman‘s terms, the sensation of flow is often described as being “in the zone” or “totally absorbed” or “Zen moments” (Csíkszentmihályi, 107). In this sense, flow seems to be a very metaphysical concept with quite practical applications and physiological inidcators. Csíkszentmihályi describes it as, “being at one with things” or “how to live life as a work of art, rather than as a chaotic response to external events.” Csíkszentmihályi explains he is not the first to have the notion of flow, as many Eastern religions have a similar concept of overcoming the duality of self such as the Tao. However, his research and tests empirically support the theory.

Csíkszentmihályi describes the experience of flow as: 1) focused and concentrated, 2) a sense of ecstasy, 3) inner clarity, 4) a loss of self-consciousness, 5) a sense of serenity, 6) timelessness, 7) balance of control and feedback, 8) intrinsically rewarding, 9) awareness of the activity only and 10) a balance of the activity being too easy and too difficult (Csíkszentmihályi, 49). To the right, you will find two diagrams developed by Csíkszentmihályi outlining the target, psychological areas. First, there must be a balance between high challenge and high skill development. If the challenge is too remedial or the skills needed are unrealistic, the practitioner will not experience flow. Instead of developing curriculums based on blocks of knowledge, courses and content should be aimed at increasing flow feelings in our students. Helping them experience flow, will eventually help them develop a habit of flow. When engaged in such lessons, learning will be natural – not autogamously forced. Csíkszentmihályi describes ideal experiences and situations as being in the flow channel and moving outward as skills improve. He says: “In a normal day, most of us experience both anxiety and boredom, along with many other feelings. Flow experiences exist mostly during the high points”(Csíkszentmihályi, 234). During these high points the individual experiences less distraction, feels deeply invested in the activity, does not feel self-conscious or timid, nor is there a sense of over-confidence. Artists enter the state of flow when they create.

According to Csikszentmihalyi, this is “the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it” (Csíkszentmihályi, 208). Csíkszentmihályi says that those persons that practice flow, experience effortless action in which one feels no conflicts or contradictions. He further describes the feeling as if being carried by a current or flowing with a current. The participants in his studies described a feeling of ecstasy when engaged in certain tasks, feeling most alive or forgetting one is alive. I would argue that when you actively pursue flow, you are actively pursuing beautiful moments. This is where their creativity originates from. Another way to think about it: is to imagine each of us being born with a well of creativity. This well is drained when we use up our “creative juices” or become stifled and depressed. Flow activities refill the well, giving us new life. The artist reaches a holistic, inhibited state while within the flow channel. When artists are engaged in their craft, they are simultaneously experiencing arousal and control, while being moved by both instinct and feedback from the work. When an artist paints an image, the image actually creates feedback. Tiny fluctuations and imperfections in the paint, the brush and the canvas create exciting circumstances. Sometimes these are relished and embraced, other times they require willful rejection or correction. When they are beneficial they are referred to as “happy accidents.” When they are not beneficial, they are referred to as “mistakes.”

Colors, shapes and forms develop and stimulate the artist. The artist then continues to work the image, changing, altering, adding, subtracting – creating a piece of flux. Most artists will claim that a work is rarely finished. Instead, the piece merely works towards completion, although never actually getting there. More can be done or undone, but the artist actually finishes when s/he leaves the state of flow, not when the product is complete. A finished painting, like a completed building, is only complete in the most arbitrary ways – because the artwork can be continued endlessly no matter how close to the goal the artist is. The finality of a work is not based in the product itself but in the process. The artist engages, and in a sense, communicates with the work. The work gives the artist information, the artist becomes enriched by the information and seeks more. The information could be symbolic or literal: the forms and objects appear aesthetically pleasing or the forms and objects take on deeper meanings. In this way, the state of flow gives rise to learning. Learning in fact, becomes flow, in that the more feedback, the more information, the more knowledge acquired propagates flow, nurturing it and allowing it to bloom.

When learning ends and anxiety or boredom sets in, the state of flow tapers off and the ecstasy of being in flow comes to a halt. If it is a gradual slipping, then the flow experience seems to quiet into peacefulness, whereas if the flow is abruptly ended, then the artist is left frustrated and unfulfilled. Csíkszentmihályi says that 10% to 15% of people never experience flow, while another 15% to 20% experience it at some point every day. In allogamous learning it is vital to experience flow (Csíkszentmihályi, 82). Flow is not limited to the artist; it is just most easily identified in that field. Flow exists in all fields, including science and mathematics. For instance, Einstein was fond of Csíkszentmihályi’s idea of flow, decades before Csíkszentmihályi developed the model. Einstein worked in flow, although never terming it as such. Rather, for Einstein it was merely a natural state – his mind worked in thought-experiments which were characterized by flow. Einstein was fond of using his mind to create: he imagined scenarios, abstractions, patterns and relationships conceived in the ephemeral, ethereal fabric of ideas.

And in this landscape, Einstein used flow states, creatively and critically. In fact, much of his progress and theories were developed in flow states, for his experiments could not be directly perceived (ie. the nature of time, light and wormholes). Einstein challenged his mind to solve unsolvable problems within the thought-experiment context. Einstein was not an artist, although his methods for practicing science were very much alike the mental practices of creating art. The mental processes are one in the same, even in fields as different as art and science. Within this allogamous landscape, creativity is the vehicle of learning – even in science.

references

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

A Broken System

We have established that the American education system is broken. Its dysfunction stems from the fact that it is built on 20th century industrial models and that it, does not target critical thinking skills needed for the 21st century marketplace. Some schools have addressed this through a complete institutional change by incorporating digital media and embracing cultural and societal changes developing in the contemporary, postmodern world.

According to Lehman and Gee, these schools are targeting something much larger than simply technology integration – these schools are targeting what Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman refer to as the “creativity crisis.” In their July 19, 2010 Newsweek article, The Creativity Crisis, Bronson and Merryman boldly claim: “For the first time, research shows that American creativity is declining. What went wrong—and how we can fix it?” (Bronson). Their article cites creativity studies which were looking for a very definable, measurable sign of creativity: the production of something original or useful. The researchers were looking for divergent thinking and convergent thinking, that is: “There is never one right answer. To be creative requires divergent thinking (generating many unique ideas) and then convergent thinking (combining those ideas into the best result)” (Bronson).

From these studies, researchers concluded that the reason for the creativity crisis in America is three fold: 1) children do not engage in creativity activities for fun – they are distracted by other forms of entertainment and no longer read for fun, draw for fun or play games of pretend, 2) this goes deeper, in that children no longer use their imaginations as they expect to be “shown” images of fantasy thanks to advances in special effects and new media/technology and 3) schools are test-orientated and approach education through systems/structures which emphasize rigor, repetition and test-taking skills (Bronson). Creativity is not an artistic or poetic faculty. Creativity is about innovative solutions, and the new education systems need to be solution-orientated.

This is the true premise of allogamy. “The necessity of human ingenuity is undisputed. A recent IBM poll of 1,500 CEOs identified creativity as the No. 1 “leadership competency” of the future” (Bronson). According to the same IBM survey, leaders will need to: 1) meet the new needs of employees and employers; this will require empathy, understanding and charisma, 2) teach creativity through structured programs and creativity coaching, 3) nurture and instill passion in employees, 4) make the tasks and work meaningful, 5) provide acceptable amounts of time, and 6) step away from the problem and try a different approach when you returning to it (Bronson). All of these needs are contingent on critical thinking skills, problem solving skills and creativity.

This is the institutional change needed in education systems today: a primary focus on higher order thinking skills. Creativity is the highest commodity in today’s marketplace. As a skill (and not a personal trait or inborn talent), creativity allows for innovative problem solving and better learning models. “While our creativity scores decline unchecked, the current national strategy for creativity consists of little more than praying for a Greek muse to drop by our houses” (Bronson). If we are going to meet the demands of the 21st century learner and 21st century market, we are going to need to reevaluate how we implement creativity in the classroom and how we structure education, focusing on (not just incorporating) creativity coaching.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Knowledge and Preparation

The education system has two primary goals: 1) knowledge and 2) preparation. Students are expected to gain knowledge which will one day prepare them for a variety of functions: civic duty, contributing to society, employment, and participating in the public discourse. But of these goals, employment is perhaps the most focused upon. Above all theoretical missions, helping students prepare and procure sustainable employment is key to the education system. We can argue that this goal is not what defines the purpose of education; rather knowledge and learning are the primary objectives. This is however, quite naive – it is foolish to ignore the marketplace pressure placed on education systems.

Education is but a reflection of societal needs, as it is education’s duty to produce the next generation of society members.

summary of the situation

Two years ago Robert B. Reich, who was U.S. Secretary of Labor, and is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote an article in Forbes Magazine aptly titled: Manufacturing Jobs Are Never Coming Back. Riech also subtitled the article: Increasingly, machines make things, not people--and that should be great news for the U.S. In the article, Reich describes the shift in the American economy to what he calls “symbolic-analytic” jobs (Reich). Reich says, “Americans now work in jobs that weren't listed in the Census Bureau's occupation codes in 1967” (Reich). These new jobs are better jobs. These new jobs reflect the 21st century needs.

These are the new normals of today. For us to continually cling to a manufacturing marketplace would be like the people of 20th century continuing to cling to agriculture. We need to look forward, not backward, for growth. Reich cautions that if you are looking for those manufacturing jobs to return, that: “You're on the wrong side of history. You see only the loss of old jobs. You're overlooking all the new ones” (Reich). The future of the American marketplace lies in the symbolic-analytic jobs: “…people who analyze, manipulate, innovate and create. These people are responsible for research and development, design and engineering… they're composers, writers and producers. They're lawyers, journalists, doctors and management consultants” (Reich). If the needs of the 21st century marketplace are analytical, innovative and creative, then why doesn’t the 21st century education system reflect this? PBS aired one of the most fore-thinking and innovative documentaries discussing this very issue – 20th century models of education which do not prepare our students for 21st century job markets.

It was aired in February of 2011 and entitled, Digital Media: New Learners of the 21st Century. I strongly encourage anyone interested in educational practice to view this special as it specifically addresses the need for 21st century education to be revolutionary – a complete institutional change for the entire educational system! The documentary opens with this line: “In the 20th century we taught our kids what to learn… we lined their desks up in rows and put the teacher at the front of classroom. But in today’s world many educators are questioning the status quo and meeting young people where they are,” (PBS Teachers). The special focuses on five different schools across the country which challenge conventional teaching methods and structures, and utilize truly integrated digital media within the classroom. One of these schools, the Science Leadership Academy, is a progressive high school in Philadelphia, PA. The principal of SLA, Chris Lehman, was named as one of the 30 Most Influential People in EdTech by Technology & Learning Magazine, 2009. In the documentary, Lehman is interviewed saying: “What do we want our schools to be? What do we dream for our schools and for our children? What are the most important things that schools can teach kids? And wouldn't it be wonderful to have a national conversation around that, and at least figure ... start to figure that out. And then from there start the process of maybe trying to reinvent education looks like in this country, and that's what I hope for; that's what I dream about” (PBS Teachers). Along these lines, the special is geared at change – purposeful, meaningful, institutional change. Throughout the film educators and scholars question current, orthodox standards and question why education has come to a standstill.

One of the most important ideas is that education is still built autogamously. Our classrooms and curriculums reflect 20th century ideals. During the 20th century, everything could be structured and compartmentalized – everything – no thing was left untouched, from the workplace to relationships to the human mind, itself. The prevailing thought, had been, when something was divided it became more efficient. And when it was more efficient it produced greater quantities. Education is still structured the same way today! Curriculums are divided into units which are divided into lessons and are finally broken down into tasks. This is very much the influence of the assembly line – we even use assembly line terminology: units, performance, product-based, outcomes, etc. Standardized testing is another result of a mechanized worldview. The idea that all students can be processed and measured in the same manner comes from expecting students to simply be cogs in the machine. Testing and curriculums are not the only aspects of education influenced by this assembly line worldview. We even organize our classroom and school day in this mantra!

Our days are broken up into schedules which in themselves have periods or classes compartmentalized. Subjects are distanced from one another and segregated. They are taught by specific compartmentalized instructors who specialize in a single area. This is the essence of autogamy – ideas are self-fertilized, taught down and grown within a rigid, artificially segregated environment. Is the teacher not the foreman and the students not the drones? Shame on us for keeping those 20th century mantras, especially, when our American culture rarely reflects those needs: this stratified practice of education no longer makes sense. According to Robert Reich, it is exactly the opposite of the skills needed in the 21st century marketplace. Lehman specifically critiques this: “We built schools today as an industrial model. Eight-period day, 45 minutes a class, go, go, go, go, go; assembly line, modeled after the factory, 1920 comprehensive high schools. That's how we got where we are today. Society has evolved past that. Schools haven't yet” (PBS Teachers). Society looks for integrated, cross-pollinating ideas. Schools rely on self-fertilization of ideas. But schools, like Lehamn’s, recognize that education can no longer dwell in the 20th century skills sets but needs to foster “analyzing, manipulating and communicating through numbers, shapes, words, ideas” (Reich). As I read these new skill sets, I am immediately reminded of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Every classroom in the country, from San Francisco to Cheyenne to Chicago to Hartford, has a poster of Bloom’s Taxonomy posted somewhere. Bloom’s Taxonomy is the fruit of Benjamin Bloom’s psychological work, along with many others working alongside him.

In The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, Bloom and his colleagues outlined a commonly cited “taxonomy” of the way people think. Each level represents a higher order of thinking and has been used by educators for years to develop activities and lessons targeting those higher levels. Unfortunately, most of the educational practices used today still fall into the lowest tiers of learning. These are autogamous and result from a compartmentalized, Industrialized education. On the other hand, new educational practices, seen by the schools showcased in the PBS special Digital Media: New Learners of the 21st Century, focus on the highest levels. These are integrated learning experiences which are allogamous. We can see autogamous models relying on the base of the pyramid (reaching the greatest number of students with lowest common denominator of information), while allogamous models rely on the tip of the pyramid (engineering learning experiences for individualized students).

We, teachers, consistently say we are striving towards higher order thinking skills: problem solving, critical thinking and creativity. Yet, in reality the vast majority of curriculums still focus on the first three tiers: remembering, understanding and applying. James Gee, Professor of Literacy Studies at Arizona State University, sees education at a crossroads: some schools will remain stuck in the 20th century model and focus only on the bottom rungs of Bloom’s Taxonomy while other schools will become progressive and focus on the top three tiers of the taxonomy. In Digital Media: New Learners of the 21st Century, Gee is interviewed as saying: “We are either going to have two school systems – one for the rich and one for the poor, and the poor one will be a standardized, accountable system that does guarantee you and give you the basics, and will suit you for a service job.

The privileged kids will go to another school system where they will learn all the same facts, but they'll learn to use them to solve authentic problems, and eventually to innovate and produce new knowledge, and they will ... they will make out well in the global system. Or, we can imagine a system where school is not just about what job you're going to have, but about making everybody able to participate in the society, to have dignity, to be able to innovate, and that we're going to see that everybody gets that form of schooling…” (PBS Teachers).

references

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

The Cross-Pollinators

Whenever the discussion of improving educational standards enters the public discourse, impassioned reformers often cite the “failing education system.” I would like to start by taking an objective look at this “failing system” and determine what is failing. I would also like to debunk a lot of the inflammatory rhetoric – education, in general, is not any far worse than it has ever been.

There are no immediate, dire straits, plaguing the current system, that have not always been present. In short, the education system of today is not much worse off than the education system of thirty years ago. The media, general conjecture, popular culture and popular opinion will all have us believe that: 1) teachers are not as prepared as they once were, 2) demographics have negatively impacted US scores, 3) the current generation is more apathetic, more uninterested, and more distracted, and 4) the change in the American family is the core determent of our children’s performance. I feel that there is a lot nostalgia clouding these sentiments. To counter this nostalgia, I would like to take a look at specific statistics.

As part of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) was developed as the chief research division of the United States Department of Education. The IES provides annual statistics on student achievement, performance goals, and Federal education standards. These statistics are completed by four different statistic centers, including the National Center for Educational Statistics which is primarily responsible for the Nation’s Report Card. According to the NCES: “The average reading and mathematics scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress were higher in 2008 than in the early 1970s for 9- and 13-year-olds; scores for 17-year-olds were not measurably different from the early 1970s” (NCES). In lieu of these findings, it is fair to say that since the advent of standardized testing and achievement/performance indicators, American students’ reading and mathematics levels have remained consistent (give or take a few points each year).

This means our students are as well equipped and as successful as students of the past four decades. Proof of this comes directly from the NCES report: “The average reading score for 17-year-olds was higher in 2008 than in 2004 but was not significantly different from the score in 1971. In mathematics, the average score for 17-year-olds in 2008 was not significantly different from the scores in either 2004 or 1973” (NCES). With this said, then where does all the inflammatory rhetoric come from? Why such a panic about the US education system? Why do we call for reform and institutional change? The issue facing modern day education: is its international standing.

As globalism has drastically changed society and culture, so too, is it impacting the educational institution. American students are no longer compared simply to their peers, to varying demographics, or to performance of past students. American students are now evaluated not just on domestic standards, but also international performances. Why? Because: as these students enter an international marketplace, their preparation and performance competes on a global level – not a local level. This is where the US education system lags behind, not as it is compared domestically or through its own history, but against those students from Finland, Denmark, Germany, and Japan. “Compared with the other countries and other education systems, the U.S. average was lower than the average in 9 countries and other education systems” (NCES).

These statistics were confirmed in a USA Today report by Chung Sung-Jun: In Ranking, U.S. Students Trail Global Leaders. Sung-Jun, drawing on information provided by the Associated Press, states: “Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math” (Sung-Jun). Among those countries which have habitually topped the Programme for International Student Assessment reports, were other less recognized countries such as: South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, China and Canada (Sung-Jun). What does this mean for the US education system? U.S. Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, commented on the findings: "This is an absolute wake-up call for America… The results are extraordinarily challenging to us and we have to deal with the brutal truth. We have to get much more serious about investing in education” (Sung-Jun). It is not that the education system is failing, it has always been failing.

The system itself has produced mediocrity at best, and now as we compete globally for jobs, market shares and emerging markets, we can longer be content with the mediocre. 20th century models are geared towards efficiency and effectiveness. The current educational model is based on this – targeting the middle range, and ensuring more students receive efficient education. However, this is not comprehensive. And in today’s global market, a comprehensive, personalized education is necessary to succeed. In this white paper, I am going to boldly claim that we need to not just revamp or retool the US education system, but we need a complete institutional change if we are going to compete globally.

In prior writings, I call this institutional change a paradigm shift from autogamy to allogamy: autogamy being a self-fertilizing idea which is cultivated in 20th century thinking and allogamy being a cross-fertilizing idea, cultivated in 21st century thinking. If the standard for US education is not a comparison of its past, but a comparison of its contemporaries, then its students will need to be contrasted against German, Finnish, Japanese, Chinese and Korean students. This is why an institutional change is necessary and unavoidable.