We aren’t very good at predicting the future. What the children in my third grade class this year will face before they retire sometime in the latter half of this century is well beyond my ken. Yet it is my job to prepare them for that unknowable time. Furthering creativity in thinking is probably my best bet.
Robinson presents us with a problem. We are using a system to educate children for an unpredictable future, an outmoded system based on life as a linear progression, education to meet the needs of industrialism, when we need a system that furthers creativity. We need a system that creates conditions where growth can flourish organically and develop the great diversity of intelligences.
I loved his example of Gillian Lynne, the incredibly successful dancer and choreographer for Cats, Phantom of the Opera and many others. He bemoans the loss of her great talent had someone seen her not as a dancer, but rather as an ADHD kid in need of medication. I am not arguing here against the diagnosis of ADHD, or of medication. That’s another discussion altogether. I am agreeing with Robinson that we educators tend to look at our students simply as more or less successful versions of the ideal child, who will move, more or less successfully, through our system toward the goal of acceptable college and acceptable career, where they will live more or less successful lives. We tend to forget that there are about as many ideals as there are human beings, and that we need to create conditions under which a child’s growth toward his or her personal ideal can flourish. The following two speakers address one aspect of the how of creating those conditions, that of motivation.
The main thrust of these TED Talks is the effectiveness of intrinsic motivation, one in the business environment (Pink) and the other (Mitra) in an educational environment, albeit not a traditional educational situation. The findings are fascinating and surprising, at least at first.
The Wikipedia model beat out the MS Encarta model!? I admit, I don’t remember the last time I looked to Encarta for information; I use Wikipedia on a regular and frequent basis. It is a great resource. I realize it does not have a traditional, formal, peer review protocol, and is therefore suspect as a source for serious academic research, but for everyday information needs it is unbeatable – cheap, easily accessed, and remarkably thorough and accurate (at least when compared to the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica). See article in Nature, as cited by Wikipedia in its article about itself: Jim Giles (December 2005). "Internet encyclopedias go head to head". Nature 438 (7070): 900–901. doi:10.1038/438900a. PMID 16355180. The study (that was not in itself peer reviewed) was cited in several news articles, e.g., "Wikipedia survives research test". BBC News (BBC). December 15, 2005. Encarta no longer exists as an encyclopedia.
The Wikipedia development model is one example of a project driven by a desire to accomplish something, to take pride in an outcome fashioned by one’s own hands. The children who discovered Mitra’s “Hole in the Wall” computers were driven by their innate senses of curiosity to explore what they had found. Using Pink’s terminology, the children had autonomy. They were able to direct their own learning. Even when given a particular task, they were free to follow any route they wished to solve the problem. They pushed themselves because of a desire to better their understanding, to achieve mastery. Working in groups, especially those of their own making, helped give them purpose, something larger than just the self to work for.
When we give people the opportunity to grow or think organically, to follow their thoughts and predilections, they are more engaged and more aware. They are more open to incidental, but significant ideas that they may have shut out as intrusive in a more traditionally structured environment. In the end the findings are not so surprising, though still fascinating.
It has been fun to watch wikipedia SLOWLY gain acceptance in higher education. I am not sure if higher ed faculty are being convinced of the value of wikipedia, or, if it's simply a result of the turnover of older faculty (sometimes digital immigrants at best and sometime hostile to technology) leaving for other pursuits or retirement.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, I have always thought that wikipedia was a project in development and the early naysayers were simply far too eager to kill a fragile embryo because it threatened their traditional "sage on the stage" approach to teaching and learning - sometimes called "education" in most locales. :-)