After watching this video, it is clear that Howard Gardner and Sir Ken Robinson are kindred spirits. They are critical of our current system of educating young people, but they are not delusional about what it takes for young people to become great at something. Gardner's words about discipline being necessary to achieve anything worthwhile, such as creativity, are echoed in Robinson's TED talk. In it, Robinson references, early on, a performance by a "Sirena," which by his tone was apparently quite impressive. Her name is Sirena Huang and in the same TED conference Robinson gave his now famous talk in 2006, she performed a 20 minute violin concerto. I was curious to see the performance he referenced, so I watched it. I have provided the link at the bottom of the post if you would also.
Her eyes closed for the duration, only opening to keep track of her lightning-quick fingers as if to keep them from flying away. It makes me wonder if great violinists close their eyes because their teachers and influences did the same or if it is necessary to experience the full range of emotion, as if opening the eyes to allow visual stimuli would simply be too much to process emotionally. The point of bringing up Serena here was to demonstrate Robinson and Gadner's regard for discipline. Robinson's thesis is outlined here as he discusses Sirena. "…she's exceptional, but I think she's not, so to speak, exceptional in the whole of childhood. What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent. And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents. And we squander them, pretty ruthlessly." So, Robinson recognizes there are problems with our system, but he mentions Sirena's "extraordinary discipline" as the thing that sets her apart from other kids. Kids are talented, variably and in different areas, but they have talents and it is hard work and discipline that allows their creativity to flourish. Our job should be to nurture that creativity but to be cognizant of how true creativity is achieved. And that is different than simply saying, "all children are creative." So to Robinson's thesis, do schools kill creativity? I think he is being intentionally hyperbolic here. In order to get people talking, and draw attention to this cause, he says that schools 'kill' creativity. This implies that not only do they not foster it in any way, but through its operation, schools prevent creativity from happening. He cites all kinds of research and facts that explain both why our school system is the way it is and why they are not designed to maximize creativity. I agree with these facts. But I think he steps too far to say that creativity is killed in schools. His call to action, however is more to the point. We should make changes to schools so they can become engines of creative minds. Technology clearly plays a big role here. This is not because technology is inherently creative or is inherently designed to engage in creative process or produce creative works. However, Robinson reminds us that a young person entering school for the first time, in 2006, would retire in 2065. Even if Moore's Law (the biannual doubling of transistor density in circuits) tapers off over the next half-century, the world of a decade or two from now should be much more 'connected' by technology than it is now. This time period will be the prime working years of Robinson's kindergarten cohort. Most do not spend their time arguing against the use of technology in schools, but rather how best to implement it within good pedagogy. My opinion is that technology moves too quickly to have a formal systemic review of most technologies for use in the classroom. It is necessary for individual teachers to be the testers and for our students to be the guinea pigs. Do not get me wrong, obviously I believe that this should be a careful exercise on the part of the educator, but risks will yield more rewards and keep us riding at the front of the wave of advancing technology instead of paddling behind it. In my classroom, if I do actively wish for creativity to be a central part of an assignment, technology usually is the means to the end, not the end itself. I do not often begin describing an exercise in creativity with, "for this creative project you will make a StoryboardThat." Instead, the prompt is given with reserved encouragement to utilize technologies of their choice. I teach in a high school, so many (certainly not all) of my students can take a creative risk by incorporating some technology. I have a good current example. I have students create a geologic timeline utilizing a metaphor. In other words, they have to create a timeline within the context of some object or concept. One idea a student had would be to turn a tree into a timeline. If they utilize the metaphor or analogy creatively, they will deal with timeline issues (like proper relative scale, accuracy, and clutter) within the context of a tree. So instead of simply drawing a timeline on a tree trunk, they might decide to use the tree's rings to represent the passing of time, or perhaps they will use the tree's height to represent all of Earth's history and branches signify important events that have changed the course of history on Earth. There are several objectives to this assignment: 1) Gain an appreciation for the immensity of geologic timescale (we call this concept: wrestling with the idea of 'deep time'), 2) accurately represent important events and 'chunks' of time, and 3) learn to scale by math and measuring, which is really a derivative of the 2nd objective. I would not limit students to drawings or models. I have had students do projects using Minecraft and other computer-based programs to meet these goals. They are not always successful in utilizing the technology, but that becomes part of the learning process. To improve how I use technology to not kill my students' creativity, I might offer an incentive to ADD the use of technology to their project. I would be clear that this would not exempt them from the other assignment objectives, but that they would be rewarded for taking the creative risk. Proper scaffolding of this would be necessary. For example, I would be less willing to have a student work with iMovie if they had no previous iMovie experience. I would not be ok with my assignment being the first opportunity for them to learn a skill that might have a steep learning curve. But there might be ways for a student to try integrating a new technology in a limited way without learning all of what that technology has to offer. That strikes me as an appropriate way to use technology to enhance creative opportunities in my classroom. Sirena Huang at TED 2006 https://www.ted.com/talks/sirena_huang_dazzles_on_violin#t-1336449
0 Comments
The media-infused presentation has a lot of practical uses in the classroom. The Prezi I created on genetic inheritance patterns is something that I would use as an in-class assignment akin to a webquest. I might also use it as a stand-alone assigment students could complete outside of class before a discussion on genetics in a flipped classroom style. The multimedia aspect of this presentation allows students with various learning styles to experience the same information in a variety of ways. My genetics presentation could certainly be made better by asking questions that would access the many intelligences students possess. By asking students to apply humor or story-telling, this might increase the effectiveness of the presentation.
Media-infused presentations can help foster the development of the disciplined mind by offering multiple approaches, as mentioned above. Gardner (2007) also states that students must spend considerable time on a subject. The fact that a presentation such as those created in Prezi could be used outside of the classroom can extend the analysis of any topic and make it easier for a student to spend quality time examining that topic. Importantly, Gardner selects a science as one of four precollegiate topics to introduce discipline. Though simply learning the facts is very different than thinking in a discipline, it may help to prepare students for when they are better able to achieve a disciplined mind in college or graduate school. A synthesizing mind is quite another challenge and at first glance it is difficult to see how a simple presentation could help advance students toward it, but it may serve a role. Of all the kinds of synthesis, I believe metaphor and narrative are possibly the best to use with genetics and the presentation I created. For example, I often use a metaphor of making apple pie to help students understand the "central dogma" of biology, which is the production of protein from our genes. As a way for students to truly synthesize the information they access in the Prezi, I could ask them to come up with a metaphor that connects the content with something else in their mind. Reference Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hi all, I was introduced to a new Web 2.0 tool today called EduClipper. It is a digital curation website with which I have created this eduClipBoard on the topic of mitosis and meiosis. I've curated this content because I wanted to have a way to help students explore the differences between the two processe. I also wanted this to be a stand-alone module that I could assign to students who miss school within the unit on cell growth. The fact that it places multiple files and links in one space makes it appealing.
This is an exercise I have my students do frequently. I call them THINK questions. They are essentially a do-now or starter. I try not to ask questions that have a definite correct answer, but this one happens to be covered in my content. I want to start using some images to help students visualize the question and help get them started. The instructions I always provide are below in blue. The prompt is in red and the image follows.
With a partner who sits near you, ponder the following question…then write your opinion WITH SUPPORTING thoughts on an index card. Ensure your names are on it and give it to Mr. Edens. You have 3 minutes starting when the bell rings. “I don’t know” is not an answer. I’m not asking you to know…I’m asking you to THINK! Today’s topic is DNA replication, a process by which your cells make two copies of DNA from one original strand of DNA. Think from the perspective of a cell and its needs! Provide one POSSIBLE EXPLANATION for WHY a cell would need to replicate its DNA. This should require more than one simple sentence. |
AuthorScience teacher for 6 years. Life-long learner and problem-solver. Copyright
Archives |