Must kids learn basic content before they are allowed to think, imagine, and create in school?
In his blog D-Ed Reckoning, Ken DeRosa dismisses the Pittsburgh Regional Future City Competition as a "charming" attempt to to "instill creativity in students without first teaching them the relevant underlying content knowledge." The competition, which is part of the National Engineers Week Future City Competition, includes envisioning a city of the future (this year, with an emphasis on ("water conservation, reuse, and self-sufficiency"), using SimCity4 to create computer models, and then building a model of the city using recyclable materials. He quotes Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article written for the general public that, of course, emphasizes the fun and charm of the kids' ideas rather than delving into how they were taught and how content knowledge was assessed.
First, teams for this competition must have engineers as mentors. That is valuable. I doubt that engineers would waste their time if fun were the only objective. The materials on the Web site of the national competition and the essays suggest to me that the winning teams did more than have fun. There was potential for them to experience how engineers work, become more knowledgeable about today's advanced technologies, and engage in complex problem-solving. I'm sure the essays and presentations that are part of competing were among the most rigorous communication challenges of those students' middle school experience. Also, I thought the list of awards for last year's Pittsburgh competition provide a glimpse of the complexity of the project and suggest that charming ideas were only part of the experience.
Now I'm sure there are many cases of bad implementation for contests like this. I'm sure many teachers go heavier on the fun and creativity but do not think enough about how to tie the semester long project in with the rigorous math and science content knowledge they need to teach. I'm sure there are some teachers who aren't taking full advantage of the opportunity to work with an engineer and who are letting some students slide while others do most of the work. Cases of poor implementation and teacher training don't make such an activity a bad approach, however.
Now I'll go a little further out on a limb. Let's say some students are doing the project in a less than optimal context—mediocre teacher, lost opportunities to teach some of the relevant content underlying the competition. But they are engaged; many, for the first time, have thought of themselves as learners. They are experiencing teamwork, both its immediate social benefits and the potential for some long-term growth as collaborators. They are more aware of complexity and systems thinking, of interdependence. Their attitudes about science and engineering have changed. They can now imagine becoming engineers.
Those outcomes aren't enough, but they are significant. Sure, the excitement will dim for some, and they will fall back into apathy. But middle school is when many students lose interest in math and science, so who's to say this little jolt of fun won't be the spark that keeps some of them going long enough to put them on the path toward realizing that they need to do the hard work of mastering physics and math. Maybe the artistic child who tunes out math and science won't start to pay attention because they now see math and science as ways to apply, enhance, and even develop their creative capabilities.
And who's to say that the challenge of envisioning a city of the future is nothing without the underlying content knowledge? Maybe the act of imagining the city will lead to questions that will lead to deep engagement with relevant content. Maybe a desire to begin building a mental framework in math and science that extends far beyond the project will grow. I know I experienced that jolt in some contexts. And maybe the kids with the wild imaginations will have a role not yet envisioned in our future society. If ideas are the fuel for the future economy, maybe innovative teams will include people who don't need to know—just imagine. I read recently that innovative people have more ideas but often continue to produce bad ideas throughout their careers (Frans Johansson, The Medici Effect).
I don't mean to suggest that content knowledge is less important than creativity. But I question whether particular relevant content always must precede imaginative speculation. I think creative work and rigorous learning are interdependent.
Posts
3 days ago
2 comments:
What about the basic concept of learning by doing?
With such an intriguing project any student who is excited by it will want to acquire the skills to do it well. And next time even better.
No more "just in case" learning. It leaves almost all children behind.
"Just in case" learning is a great way to put it. I am reminded of the import vs. export paradigm that David Perkins talks about in the preface to Studio Thinking (Hetland et al).
"Most educational practice reflects what might be called an export paradigm. What learners do today focuses on exporting knowledge for use in a range of envisioned futures. The math in the textbook is for application somewhere, sometime, in some supermarket or on some income tax form or during possible careers in business, engineering, or science. The history acquired might someday help to make sense of an election and to cast a vote more wisely. The specific activities—problem sets for honing skills, answering questions toward understanding principles, memorizing information toward quizzes—are blatantly exercises that target much later payoffs."
High-quality projects in the arts (or sciences) exemplify the import paradigm. "Importing knowledge into complex meaningful endeavors now, with the future in view, is a stronger model of learning than warehousing knowledge for the future," he says.
I note that he talks about "importing knowledge." Content is just as important. It's how content is introduced and what happens surrounding its introduction that I think must change.
Post a Comment