Scott Ganz (American Enterprise Institute) published an interesting article analyzing what effect, if any, youth sports may have on shaping the economic, academic, and social prospects of Americans.
Considering our current discussion on how we might help students develop the skills necessary to become competitive participants in today's global economy, I thought this article might put a twist on things!
Monday, May 19, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
New and Improved Senior Project
I know that this is near and dear to the hearts of both Shawn and Dick. I believe that the Senior Project will change--the question to debate in this thread is HOW it should change.
Ideas?
Ideas?
The House System
To keep this blog streamlined, let's flesh out our "house system" in this discussion thread.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Creativity Part III
Here are the last of my six ideas about creativity.
4. Expand/enhance teacher opportunities for creative thought and expression.
I think that one of the most important and practical things we can do to get our students to think more creatively and to be more creative in general is to practice it ourselves, and to value that practice. It is very difficult to convince other people that something is important for them to do if we don't think it's important enough for us to do.
I'm not really sure what form this would take. Working together on cross-curricular projects would be one possibility; and increasing our creative work in our classes is only a positive. But I'm also thinking that maybe we should have more opportunities for teachers to be involved creatively in other endeavors, too. Again, I think it's important, if we want kids to take the idea of creativity seriously, that we take it seriously. Maybe we could develop teacher music ensembles; poetry groups; art classes; active participation in the upcoming alumni/staff theater production; active participation in other creative groups/clubs/activities on campus...the main thing is to be involved in some creative enterprise. I know we're all busy, and it's hard to find time to do the things we already need to do. But if we think that this is important (which I do), then we should make it happen.
The bottom line is that I think we have to prove to students that creativity is important by engaging in it ourselves. And hopefully we'll mean it--and benefit from it ourselves, too!
5. Expand existing, or create new creatively oriented curricular and extracurricular options.
This one's pretty simple. If we want students to think more creatively and be more creative, then we need to give them more options and opportunities to do so. And not just in our classes, but in other classes, and outside of class, as well.
Therefore, I think we need to look into expanding our offerings for creatively oriented courses. Shawn and I have talked about possibilities like having a jazz band, music composition courses, film production courses, etc. We could also expand extracurricular creatively oriented offerings, or simply encourage more participation in those that already exist. I don't know how or what it might look like, but perhaps there should even be some sort of requirement that every student is involved in some sort of creatively oriented extracurricular activity. No slight is intended toward athletics, but I think that perhaps, in the context of a global job market, giving kids more creative opportunities is more important than giving them more athletic opportunities.
This means that we as a staff, busy as we are, would have to commit to developing these course offerings or extracurricular activities. But I look at this as potentially a real positive, and I think in the long run, as much work as it will be, the reward for both us and our students would be worth it.
6. Foster a culture that encourages student buy-in as early as possible.
One of the biggest problems we've had at Charter through the years (and we're fortunate that this is one of the biggest problems!) is the fact that we have a certain culture and certain expectations, and a number of our incoming students (mostly freshmen) first of all don't understand it, and second of all try to resist it. You all know the students I'm talking about. Now some of them start to come around by the end of their freshman year; a few more as sophomores; and a lot of them by the time they're juniors. But even so, there are always a handful who, even as seniors, have not "bought in" to what we're all about.
The real problem is not that this phenomenon exists, but that it has been increasing the last few years, first with the move to the new more "normal" campus, and then with the development of more "normal" things like the increased presence of sports on campus. (Because I've mentioned it a few times already, I should clarify that though I have no personal interest in sports, I have nothing against the concept of sports per se; but I do absolutely believe that American schools put way too much emphasis on them--especially considering the looming global job market. How relevant are sports to that?)
For the last few years, I've been doing what I can to combat this trend. The students in my classes all know why I'm here and why they're in my class. And for the rest of the school, in addition to pumping up Saxon Day as big as I can, I've started doing the occasional "bizarre lunchtime performance" with my AP Calculus class. As random as they may seem, these are not random in purpose. They are intended to be a statement of that ineffable "Only At Charter" quirkiness that (I hope) we all hold dear.
But while these have had some effect, and there continue (as always) to be converts to the Charter way of thinking, I have still noticed the increased influx and persistence of antithetical attitudes in certain segments of the student body. These kids who continue to think that being "cool" is more important than anything else--certainly, than caring about school--seem, to me, to be growing in number, and in their continued resistance to the Charter way.
I think what I am beginning to witness is a polarization of our campus, with some students who get it while others more stubbornly hold out and refuse, and the kids in the middle are pulled one way or another. For the moment, I think we end up pulling most of them over to "our" side. But I don't like this increased polarization that I think I'm beginning to see. This separation of "us" and "them." This breakdown into "cool" vs. "Charterian."
Now I know I've talked about this before, and you might rightly ask what this has to do with fostering creativity. Well, it's pretty simple, actually.
The "cool" attitude (which is anything but) is that basically, everything is stupid. "Studying is stupid. School is stupid. Saxon Day is stupid. Those kids who do those things at lunch are stupid." Tell me you haven't heard this sort of attitude more prominently the last few years. And the moment we try to implement more of these creatively oriented ideas, can't you just hear these "cool" kids? "I don't want to do this stuff. It's stupid."
So therefore, my final suggestion is to find ways to encourage student buy-in to the whole Charter deal as early as possible. Because if they buy in to what we're all about, then they'll buy in to whatever we want to do next.
How do we do this? There could be a lot of things we could do. But I do have an idea.
Well, actually, it's just a germ of an idea that actually came from JP, but he and I have talked about it, and also talked about it with a few other teachers, and as crazy as the idea sounds...I think there just might be something to it.
The basic idea is to implement some sort of a "House" type system, like that in some British schools, as portrayed in the Harry Potter books. I know--it sounds a little crazy--but I think something like this could potentially provide a big source of positive peer pressure; as well as provide built-in structure for other things we've talked about--like the senior "adopt-a-freshman" idea that came up at the meeting. I think it could definitely encourage freshmen to buy in to the whole Charter concept if they have a senior who is sort of a buddy with a vested interest, because they are in the same "House" (or whatever), who takes them under their wing and explains, "these are the things that will help us, these are the things that will hurt us."
I don't really expect you to take the idea too seriously...at least, not at first. The first time JP brought it up to me, I laughed it off as a joke. But the more I've thought about it, the more I think there could be some serious potential. So after you're done laughing, really think about some of the possibilities. Because as serious as it might seem I couldn't possibly be...I am. (If anyone wants to engage in more discussion, or if you don't know what I'm talking about, feel free to talk to me in person, or to post on here.)
In any case, whether we ever do anything like that or not, the bottom line is that I firmly believe we do need to find ways to increase student buy-in as early as possible. If we get them to buy in as freshmen, think of how many battles will be won without even being fought; and think of how much more creative we will be free to be if students are mentally here for the same reason they are officially here; and we don't have to waste as much time dealing with counterproductive attitudes.
Whatever we do, it should be with the intent of improving ourselves as teachers, improving Charter as a school, and of course, improving pupil learning. But I think in many ways we're approaching the limit of improvement in terms of refining what already exists. The next logical step in improvement, then, is to look into new things that will make us better. So let's be creative, and take some productive risks.
4. Expand/enhance teacher opportunities for creative thought and expression.
I think that one of the most important and practical things we can do to get our students to think more creatively and to be more creative in general is to practice it ourselves, and to value that practice. It is very difficult to convince other people that something is important for them to do if we don't think it's important enough for us to do.
I'm not really sure what form this would take. Working together on cross-curricular projects would be one possibility; and increasing our creative work in our classes is only a positive. But I'm also thinking that maybe we should have more opportunities for teachers to be involved creatively in other endeavors, too. Again, I think it's important, if we want kids to take the idea of creativity seriously, that we take it seriously. Maybe we could develop teacher music ensembles; poetry groups; art classes; active participation in the upcoming alumni/staff theater production; active participation in other creative groups/clubs/activities on campus...the main thing is to be involved in some creative enterprise. I know we're all busy, and it's hard to find time to do the things we already need to do. But if we think that this is important (which I do), then we should make it happen.
The bottom line is that I think we have to prove to students that creativity is important by engaging in it ourselves. And hopefully we'll mean it--and benefit from it ourselves, too!
5. Expand existing, or create new creatively oriented curricular and extracurricular options.
This one's pretty simple. If we want students to think more creatively and be more creative, then we need to give them more options and opportunities to do so. And not just in our classes, but in other classes, and outside of class, as well.
Therefore, I think we need to look into expanding our offerings for creatively oriented courses. Shawn and I have talked about possibilities like having a jazz band, music composition courses, film production courses, etc. We could also expand extracurricular creatively oriented offerings, or simply encourage more participation in those that already exist. I don't know how or what it might look like, but perhaps there should even be some sort of requirement that every student is involved in some sort of creatively oriented extracurricular activity. No slight is intended toward athletics, but I think that perhaps, in the context of a global job market, giving kids more creative opportunities is more important than giving them more athletic opportunities.
This means that we as a staff, busy as we are, would have to commit to developing these course offerings or extracurricular activities. But I look at this as potentially a real positive, and I think in the long run, as much work as it will be, the reward for both us and our students would be worth it.
6. Foster a culture that encourages student buy-in as early as possible.
One of the biggest problems we've had at Charter through the years (and we're fortunate that this is one of the biggest problems!) is the fact that we have a certain culture and certain expectations, and a number of our incoming students (mostly freshmen) first of all don't understand it, and second of all try to resist it. You all know the students I'm talking about. Now some of them start to come around by the end of their freshman year; a few more as sophomores; and a lot of them by the time they're juniors. But even so, there are always a handful who, even as seniors, have not "bought in" to what we're all about.
The real problem is not that this phenomenon exists, but that it has been increasing the last few years, first with the move to the new more "normal" campus, and then with the development of more "normal" things like the increased presence of sports on campus. (Because I've mentioned it a few times already, I should clarify that though I have no personal interest in sports, I have nothing against the concept of sports per se; but I do absolutely believe that American schools put way too much emphasis on them--especially considering the looming global job market. How relevant are sports to that?)
For the last few years, I've been doing what I can to combat this trend. The students in my classes all know why I'm here and why they're in my class. And for the rest of the school, in addition to pumping up Saxon Day as big as I can, I've started doing the occasional "bizarre lunchtime performance" with my AP Calculus class. As random as they may seem, these are not random in purpose. They are intended to be a statement of that ineffable "Only At Charter" quirkiness that (I hope) we all hold dear.
But while these have had some effect, and there continue (as always) to be converts to the Charter way of thinking, I have still noticed the increased influx and persistence of antithetical attitudes in certain segments of the student body. These kids who continue to think that being "cool" is more important than anything else--certainly, than caring about school--seem, to me, to be growing in number, and in their continued resistance to the Charter way.
I think what I am beginning to witness is a polarization of our campus, with some students who get it while others more stubbornly hold out and refuse, and the kids in the middle are pulled one way or another. For the moment, I think we end up pulling most of them over to "our" side. But I don't like this increased polarization that I think I'm beginning to see. This separation of "us" and "them." This breakdown into "cool" vs. "Charterian."
Now I know I've talked about this before, and you might rightly ask what this has to do with fostering creativity. Well, it's pretty simple, actually.
The "cool" attitude (which is anything but) is that basically, everything is stupid. "Studying is stupid. School is stupid. Saxon Day is stupid. Those kids who do those things at lunch are stupid." Tell me you haven't heard this sort of attitude more prominently the last few years. And the moment we try to implement more of these creatively oriented ideas, can't you just hear these "cool" kids? "I don't want to do this stuff. It's stupid."
So therefore, my final suggestion is to find ways to encourage student buy-in to the whole Charter deal as early as possible. Because if they buy in to what we're all about, then they'll buy in to whatever we want to do next.
How do we do this? There could be a lot of things we could do. But I do have an idea.
Well, actually, it's just a germ of an idea that actually came from JP, but he and I have talked about it, and also talked about it with a few other teachers, and as crazy as the idea sounds...I think there just might be something to it.
The basic idea is to implement some sort of a "House" type system, like that in some British schools, as portrayed in the Harry Potter books. I know--it sounds a little crazy--but I think something like this could potentially provide a big source of positive peer pressure; as well as provide built-in structure for other things we've talked about--like the senior "adopt-a-freshman" idea that came up at the meeting. I think it could definitely encourage freshmen to buy in to the whole Charter concept if they have a senior who is sort of a buddy with a vested interest, because they are in the same "House" (or whatever), who takes them under their wing and explains, "these are the things that will help us, these are the things that will hurt us."
I don't really expect you to take the idea too seriously...at least, not at first. The first time JP brought it up to me, I laughed it off as a joke. But the more I've thought about it, the more I think there could be some serious potential. So after you're done laughing, really think about some of the possibilities. Because as serious as it might seem I couldn't possibly be...I am. (If anyone wants to engage in more discussion, or if you don't know what I'm talking about, feel free to talk to me in person, or to post on here.)
In any case, whether we ever do anything like that or not, the bottom line is that I firmly believe we do need to find ways to increase student buy-in as early as possible. If we get them to buy in as freshmen, think of how many battles will be won without even being fought; and think of how much more creative we will be free to be if students are mentally here for the same reason they are officially here; and we don't have to waste as much time dealing with counterproductive attitudes.
Whatever we do, it should be with the intent of improving ourselves as teachers, improving Charter as a school, and of course, improving pupil learning. But I think in many ways we're approaching the limit of improvement in terms of refining what already exists. The next logical step in improvement, then, is to look into new things that will make us better. So let's be creative, and take some productive risks.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Creativity Part II
Here are the first three of my six ideas about fostering creativity.
1. Foster a culture that encourages people to be themselves.
I don't have any clinical evidence to back this up, just observation and a little common sense--but I think one of the most difficult and limiting things a person can experience is the pressure to be something he or she is not. This sort of pressure stifles everything--personality, thought, expression, and creativity. Therefore, in my opinion, the first thing we need to do is to foster a culture that encourages students--and teachers, for that matter--to be themselves. I am convinced that a whole lot of creativity is suppressed (all over the world, not just here) because people are too afraid to be who they really are...or could be.
If I'm afraid to be me--to say what I might be thinking or imagining, because of what other people might think; and if the people around me are also afraid to be themselves; then think of how we might be limiting ourselves. Think about the possibilities that can never be, simply because we are all too timid to reach out and say, "Hey, what about this?"
In order for creativity to flourish, we have to have a culture that embraces the uniqueness of individuals, because that, to me, is really the wellspring of creativity. To me, in essence, creativity is an expression of individuality; even a sort of non-conformity; a sort of willingness to think, "Well everyone else does that...but what about this?" Which is not to say that all creative people are non-conformists, nor that all non-conformists are creative; nor do I mean to imply that all conformity is negative, which is obviously not true. Conforming with rules and laws is obviously desirable (and the right thing to do). But certainly, those creative geniuses of our world are definitely not the people who did things the way everyone else had done them before; and this is what I mean by non-conformity. Mozart, Picasso, and Einstein (yes, he was a creative genius) weren't afraid to stand up and be themselves, and do things the way they thought they should.
2. Foster a culture that encourages productive risk-taking.
We as a school--as teachers, as administrators, and as students--should be willing to stick our necks out and take some risks; because creativity requires risks. It requires being willing to try something, and to fail, and to pick up and try again.
My high school Honors English Lit teacher once gave us an assignment to write an interpretation of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," and he told us to be creative, and to write it as anything but an essay. Those were the extent of his instructions: write an interpretation, be creative, no essays. I don't remember the details of what I wrote, but I remember that as I re-read the poem, the metaphors and imagery began feeding my imagination, and that I essentially wrote a new poem using the same themes but with completely different imagery and metaphors, which stood as my interpretation of what the poem was about. I remember being really quite pleased with what I had done, and excited by the opportunity to write something other than an essay (not that essays aren't important).
So I was looking forward to the day when the teacher handed the papers back, curious to see what he thought of what I had done. The day came...and he told the class that he had simply thrown all the papers in the trash, because that was where they had belonged. I was mad--not that he hadn't liked it, because it was one of those papers that I had liked so much that, although I was curious about it, I didn't care what he thought. I was mad that he threw it out because I'd written it by hand and I didn't have another copy.
Fortunately for me, that teacher's decidedly ill-conceived actions had no chance of stifling my creativity, because I am driven to express it if not one way, then in others. But how many of my peers may have decided then and there that they would never stick their necks out again, I don't know. Perhaps most of them were simply so unaccustomed to thinking creatively that they had felt utterly lost with the assignment to begin with; and this experience only confirmed their negative feelings toward creativity.
Now, I know that nobody at this school would do something like that teacher did, but I do think that it is experiences like this that teach people to be afraid to be creative; or give them justification to think that they are not creative. Creativity entails risk; and risk is often uncomfortable. Knowing that, we should do whatever we can to make it easier for our students and ourselves to feel comfortable taking those risks. They, and we, need to know that even if something doesn't work the way we hoped, that it will be OK, and we can pick up and move on.
That being said, taking risks just for the sake of taking risks, or being "edgy," is not what creativity is about. If we're going to take a risk, it should be for the sake of potentially gaining a legitimate reward. Risk-taking for any other reason is not productive.
3. Foster a classroom culture that actively promotes "rigorous creativity."
As much as I am a creative person, I am also somewhat of a cynic. And therefore in the past, when I have heard "education people" talking about creativity or creative thinking, and bandying about psychology terms that I was fairly sure they were misapplying and talking about research that I was fairly sure was nothing of the sort, I would dismiss what they said without a second thought.
Because what it always came off as was, "School is too hard for some kids. They're just never going to learn what you want them to learn. But if you give them 'creative' projects that access their 'affective domain,' why then, 'research' shows that will help them learn all they are capable of, and plus make them feel warm and fuzzy." And that's what it always felt like: total fluff.
At Charter, we're not about fluff. We're the opposite of fluff. And creativity is not fluff. What we're talking about is what I think of as "rigorous creativity."
Here's how I define it.
"Rigorous creativity," first of all, has a definite purpose. You don't engage in it just to indulge creative feelings; you engage in it because it's the best approach to whatever you're doing.
Second, it is intellectual, not emotional. It's about thinking, not feeling. It's about solving problems, not reflecting on them.
Third, it is refinable. It is not, in other words, a talent you have to be born with; it is a skill you can learn and improve. Certainly, some people may be more naturally gifted than others, but anyone can get better at it, and everyone should.
Finally, since it is purpose-oriented, it has measurable outcomes which should be judged not on subjective merit, but on objective criteria based on the accomplishment of the purpose.
Now obviously, you could apply these ideas to a specific assignment (create a piece of artwork that depicts: the central themes of Moby Dick...the causes of the Civil War...the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...). But when I say we should foster a classroom culture that actively promotes "rigorous creativity," I really mean all the time. You don't have to give a whole bunch of (probably rather lame) assignments like my parenthetical examples above.
Because rigorous creativity is, in essence, a way of thinking. A calculus student who has learned how to think in a rigorously creative way (and understands derivatives) will immediately grasp why the velocity function is the derivative of the position function. Moreover, before being taught it, he or she will understand that acceleration is the derivative of velocity; and that the derivative will tell you about the rate of change of any related variables you might consider. Think of how much better off this student will be than one who is stuck at, "well, I know that to take a derivative, I bring this number down, then subtract one."
I admit that getting certain students to even try to do this will always be an uphill battle. But I think, as a start, that we can foster this rigorously creative culture in our classrooms by practicing it ourselves, and modeling it in our instruction.
More to come in Part III
1. Foster a culture that encourages people to be themselves.
I don't have any clinical evidence to back this up, just observation and a little common sense--but I think one of the most difficult and limiting things a person can experience is the pressure to be something he or she is not. This sort of pressure stifles everything--personality, thought, expression, and creativity. Therefore, in my opinion, the first thing we need to do is to foster a culture that encourages students--and teachers, for that matter--to be themselves. I am convinced that a whole lot of creativity is suppressed (all over the world, not just here) because people are too afraid to be who they really are...or could be.
If I'm afraid to be me--to say what I might be thinking or imagining, because of what other people might think; and if the people around me are also afraid to be themselves; then think of how we might be limiting ourselves. Think about the possibilities that can never be, simply because we are all too timid to reach out and say, "Hey, what about this?"
In order for creativity to flourish, we have to have a culture that embraces the uniqueness of individuals, because that, to me, is really the wellspring of creativity. To me, in essence, creativity is an expression of individuality; even a sort of non-conformity; a sort of willingness to think, "Well everyone else does that...but what about this?" Which is not to say that all creative people are non-conformists, nor that all non-conformists are creative; nor do I mean to imply that all conformity is negative, which is obviously not true. Conforming with rules and laws is obviously desirable (and the right thing to do). But certainly, those creative geniuses of our world are definitely not the people who did things the way everyone else had done them before; and this is what I mean by non-conformity. Mozart, Picasso, and Einstein (yes, he was a creative genius) weren't afraid to stand up and be themselves, and do things the way they thought they should.
2. Foster a culture that encourages productive risk-taking.
We as a school--as teachers, as administrators, and as students--should be willing to stick our necks out and take some risks; because creativity requires risks. It requires being willing to try something, and to fail, and to pick up and try again.
My high school Honors English Lit teacher once gave us an assignment to write an interpretation of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," and he told us to be creative, and to write it as anything but an essay. Those were the extent of his instructions: write an interpretation, be creative, no essays. I don't remember the details of what I wrote, but I remember that as I re-read the poem, the metaphors and imagery began feeding my imagination, and that I essentially wrote a new poem using the same themes but with completely different imagery and metaphors, which stood as my interpretation of what the poem was about. I remember being really quite pleased with what I had done, and excited by the opportunity to write something other than an essay (not that essays aren't important).
So I was looking forward to the day when the teacher handed the papers back, curious to see what he thought of what I had done. The day came...and he told the class that he had simply thrown all the papers in the trash, because that was where they had belonged. I was mad--not that he hadn't liked it, because it was one of those papers that I had liked so much that, although I was curious about it, I didn't care what he thought. I was mad that he threw it out because I'd written it by hand and I didn't have another copy.
Fortunately for me, that teacher's decidedly ill-conceived actions had no chance of stifling my creativity, because I am driven to express it if not one way, then in others. But how many of my peers may have decided then and there that they would never stick their necks out again, I don't know. Perhaps most of them were simply so unaccustomed to thinking creatively that they had felt utterly lost with the assignment to begin with; and this experience only confirmed their negative feelings toward creativity.
Now, I know that nobody at this school would do something like that teacher did, but I do think that it is experiences like this that teach people to be afraid to be creative; or give them justification to think that they are not creative. Creativity entails risk; and risk is often uncomfortable. Knowing that, we should do whatever we can to make it easier for our students and ourselves to feel comfortable taking those risks. They, and we, need to know that even if something doesn't work the way we hoped, that it will be OK, and we can pick up and move on.
That being said, taking risks just for the sake of taking risks, or being "edgy," is not what creativity is about. If we're going to take a risk, it should be for the sake of potentially gaining a legitimate reward. Risk-taking for any other reason is not productive.
3. Foster a classroom culture that actively promotes "rigorous creativity."
As much as I am a creative person, I am also somewhat of a cynic. And therefore in the past, when I have heard "education people" talking about creativity or creative thinking, and bandying about psychology terms that I was fairly sure they were misapplying and talking about research that I was fairly sure was nothing of the sort, I would dismiss what they said without a second thought.
Because what it always came off as was, "School is too hard for some kids. They're just never going to learn what you want them to learn. But if you give them 'creative' projects that access their 'affective domain,' why then, 'research' shows that will help them learn all they are capable of, and plus make them feel warm and fuzzy." And that's what it always felt like: total fluff.
At Charter, we're not about fluff. We're the opposite of fluff. And creativity is not fluff. What we're talking about is what I think of as "rigorous creativity."
Here's how I define it.
"Rigorous creativity," first of all, has a definite purpose. You don't engage in it just to indulge creative feelings; you engage in it because it's the best approach to whatever you're doing.
Second, it is intellectual, not emotional. It's about thinking, not feeling. It's about solving problems, not reflecting on them.
Third, it is refinable. It is not, in other words, a talent you have to be born with; it is a skill you can learn and improve. Certainly, some people may be more naturally gifted than others, but anyone can get better at it, and everyone should.
Finally, since it is purpose-oriented, it has measurable outcomes which should be judged not on subjective merit, but on objective criteria based on the accomplishment of the purpose.
Now obviously, you could apply these ideas to a specific assignment (create a piece of artwork that depicts: the central themes of Moby Dick...the causes of the Civil War...the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...). But when I say we should foster a classroom culture that actively promotes "rigorous creativity," I really mean all the time. You don't have to give a whole bunch of (probably rather lame) assignments like my parenthetical examples above.
Because rigorous creativity is, in essence, a way of thinking. A calculus student who has learned how to think in a rigorously creative way (and understands derivatives) will immediately grasp why the velocity function is the derivative of the position function. Moreover, before being taught it, he or she will understand that acceleration is the derivative of velocity; and that the derivative will tell you about the rate of change of any related variables you might consider. Think of how much better off this student will be than one who is stuck at, "well, I know that to take a derivative, I bring this number down, then subtract one."
I admit that getting certain students to even try to do this will always be an uphill battle. But I think, as a start, that we can foster this rigorously creative culture in our classrooms by practicing it ourselves, and modeling it in our instruction.
More to come in Part III
Creativity Part I
In The World is Flat, many of the themes of which are also present in 2 Million Minutes, Thomas Friedman (in Chapter 7, for those of you who have the book) talks about Georgia Tech's music program, which has been expanded specifically in response to the challenges of globalization--because if Americans are to have any competitive edge, it may be in our ability to think and respond creatively, and to be able to think across disciplines. The quasi-mythical well-roundedness of Americans may need to become less mythical, in other words.
But this ties in with discussions I've had with Shawn, and that Dick has mentioned a few places in this blog, about what we can do to foster creativity and creative thinking in our classes and at our school. And I promised in an earlier post that I would share my thoughts on the issue.
So here they are. I will post them in a couple of segments, to keep individual posts from being too long.
No one who knows me will be surprised to hear me say that I think the #1 most important thing to focus on is our school culture. By and large, there are a lot of good things to say about our school culture. We take academics seriously--though we have a growing influx of students who perhaps do not. We also know how to have fun--though we have a growing influx of students who perhaps think it is more important to be "cool." These attitudes are always going to be present to at least a degree as long as we are dealing with teenagers. But it was inevitable that they would increase when we moved here across the street to a more "normal" campus. It was even more inevitable that these attitudes typical of a more "normal" school would increase the moment we started increasing the presence of "normal" high school things like football and cheerleading.
But to paraphrase my own interview in the Saxon Day issue of the Charterian, "normal" is average, ordinary..."normal" means being the same as everyone else, and therefore when people say to us as individuals, or as a school, "You should be more normal," what they are really saying is, "You should be more like everyone else," or really, "You should be less yourself." I can scarcely imagine worse advice. We can, and must, combat these attitudes at every opportunity, with every tool at our disposal. Especially when one looks at what goes on in "normal" high schools!
In the next posts, I will describe in more detail six things that I think are necessary for the flourishing of creative thought on our campus. But I present them in brief form below.
1. Foster a culture that encourages people (students and teachers) to be themselves.
2. Foster a culture that encourages productive risk-taking.
3. Foster a classroom culture that actively promotes "rigorous creativity."
4. Expand/enhance teacher opportunities for creative thought and expression.
5. Expand existing, or create new creatively oriented curricular and extracurricular options.
6. Foster a culture that encourages student buy-in as early as possible.
More to come in Part II
But this ties in with discussions I've had with Shawn, and that Dick has mentioned a few places in this blog, about what we can do to foster creativity and creative thinking in our classes and at our school. And I promised in an earlier post that I would share my thoughts on the issue.
So here they are. I will post them in a couple of segments, to keep individual posts from being too long.
No one who knows me will be surprised to hear me say that I think the #1 most important thing to focus on is our school culture. By and large, there are a lot of good things to say about our school culture. We take academics seriously--though we have a growing influx of students who perhaps do not. We also know how to have fun--though we have a growing influx of students who perhaps think it is more important to be "cool." These attitudes are always going to be present to at least a degree as long as we are dealing with teenagers. But it was inevitable that they would increase when we moved here across the street to a more "normal" campus. It was even more inevitable that these attitudes typical of a more "normal" school would increase the moment we started increasing the presence of "normal" high school things like football and cheerleading.
But to paraphrase my own interview in the Saxon Day issue of the Charterian, "normal" is average, ordinary..."normal" means being the same as everyone else, and therefore when people say to us as individuals, or as a school, "You should be more normal," what they are really saying is, "You should be more like everyone else," or really, "You should be less yourself." I can scarcely imagine worse advice. We can, and must, combat these attitudes at every opportunity, with every tool at our disposal. Especially when one looks at what goes on in "normal" high schools!
In the next posts, I will describe in more detail six things that I think are necessary for the flourishing of creative thought on our campus. But I present them in brief form below.
1. Foster a culture that encourages people (students and teachers) to be themselves.
2. Foster a culture that encourages productive risk-taking.
3. Foster a classroom culture that actively promotes "rigorous creativity."
4. Expand/enhance teacher opportunities for creative thought and expression.
5. Expand existing, or create new creatively oriented curricular and extracurricular options.
6. Foster a culture that encourages student buy-in as early as possible.
More to come in Part II
Indian Entertainment
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/sports/othersports/07cricket.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
When I saw this article in the NY Times, I knew I had to post it.
When I saw this article in the NY Times, I knew I had to post it.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
How Much Color is Too Much?
My initial reaction to the documentary was probably just what the producers wanted – I was disturbed, shocked, and ready to mount a crusade against the American education system, or maybe even American pop-culture in general (that’s how edgy my Catholic side actually is which is also disturbing). Half an hour into the documentary I allowed the skeptical artist side of me to cock his eyebrow and tweak his jaw a bit…
One particular scene in the video stood out to me. The Chinese boy sits down and positions his books, thermos, and writing utensils on the desk in front of him, then winces and repositions them. He repositions them a second time and is almost frustrated that even after three different combinations of object-placement, he failed to achieve the optimum feng shui and places his head in his arms.
At this point in the documentary, I noted that the reaction of the audience was probably what the producers intended. There was a whispered sigh all around me suggesting “aw how cute” just as the director cut to the next scene. Now, part of me does agree that the Chinese boy’s struggle with obsessive compulsive disorder is indeed humorous (“Monk” is one of my favorite shows), but looking further into the scene I am just as disturbed by the Chinese boy as the future-sorority-pledge-American-girl.
After watching this part of the documentary, I really started to think about which society is more adequately balanced. The Americans had more color in their lives, and apparently get more exercise with all the sports-playing yet they studied less than the students in the other countries. And in the other countries they studied more, sure, but playing chess was looked at as a waste of time by the Indian boy’s dad, and the Chinese boy was pent up about his desk arrangement.
So what is the adequate balance? I don’t know enough about Chinese and Indian culture, so I can’t begin to criticize them fairly. But I do have my beliefs as to what a meaningful American life is like, and I think that while the documentary does throw very valid issues at our faces, we cannot look at our nation in the mirror and wish for the education genie to make us exactly like these other countries. The level of expectation for our students is inadequate as far as those high school exit exams suggest, but having a colorful life where we have time to smell the roses and appreciate the weather (and have time to practice for Saxon Day and put on plays and go to the movies with friends and geek out about “Lost”) is significantly important.
The Greek system? Yeah, I don’t agree with pretty much anything I’ve ever seen while visiting my cousin’s sorority (which is supposedly an academic-based sorority regardless of the fact that they forced their pledges to miss their midterms so they could go to some event where they poured dog food on frat boys – I’m being serious). But should we set the level of expectation for our students so high that our colorful American boiling pot becomes monotone? I don’t think so.
I pretty much agree with my French-teaching Asian counterpart that the documentary is biased and that we shouldn’t jump to a hasty crusade against all facets of American culture based on it. Of course, this is coming from the guy who hung a pirate flag in his classroom during his first semester as a teacher.
One particular scene in the video stood out to me. The Chinese boy sits down and positions his books, thermos, and writing utensils on the desk in front of him, then winces and repositions them. He repositions them a second time and is almost frustrated that even after three different combinations of object-placement, he failed to achieve the optimum feng shui and places his head in his arms.
At this point in the documentary, I noted that the reaction of the audience was probably what the producers intended. There was a whispered sigh all around me suggesting “aw how cute” just as the director cut to the next scene. Now, part of me does agree that the Chinese boy’s struggle with obsessive compulsive disorder is indeed humorous (“Monk” is one of my favorite shows), but looking further into the scene I am just as disturbed by the Chinese boy as the future-sorority-pledge-American-girl.
After watching this part of the documentary, I really started to think about which society is more adequately balanced. The Americans had more color in their lives, and apparently get more exercise with all the sports-playing yet they studied less than the students in the other countries. And in the other countries they studied more, sure, but playing chess was looked at as a waste of time by the Indian boy’s dad, and the Chinese boy was pent up about his desk arrangement.
So what is the adequate balance? I don’t know enough about Chinese and Indian culture, so I can’t begin to criticize them fairly. But I do have my beliefs as to what a meaningful American life is like, and I think that while the documentary does throw very valid issues at our faces, we cannot look at our nation in the mirror and wish for the education genie to make us exactly like these other countries. The level of expectation for our students is inadequate as far as those high school exit exams suggest, but having a colorful life where we have time to smell the roses and appreciate the weather (and have time to practice for Saxon Day and put on plays and go to the movies with friends and geek out about “Lost”) is significantly important.
The Greek system? Yeah, I don’t agree with pretty much anything I’ve ever seen while visiting my cousin’s sorority (which is supposedly an academic-based sorority regardless of the fact that they forced their pledges to miss their midterms so they could go to some event where they poured dog food on frat boys – I’m being serious). But should we set the level of expectation for our students so high that our colorful American boiling pot becomes monotone? I don’t think so.
I pretty much agree with my French-teaching Asian counterpart that the documentary is biased and that we shouldn’t jump to a hasty crusade against all facets of American culture based on it. Of course, this is coming from the guy who hung a pirate flag in his classroom during his first semester as a teacher.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Thanks Shawn
I neglected to say that I thought that the in-service yesterday was the most useful session that I have attended since being at the school. Thank you Shawn!
Charter sophmore reactions to the documentary
I have shown the DVD to 3 of my 10th grade classes and the reaction was interesting. Although the documentary is fairly fast moving, most of the students were unable to pay attention for even the first 10 minutes of the DVD. This, in my opinion validates the overall theme of the DVD, most American learners are not concerned with other cultures and are not willing to apply themselves to studying and / or thinking beyond issues that are of interest to them. I stopped it after the main idea of the video had come across and opened it up to discussion. I was immediately met with a number of xenophobic and racist of comments from at least 6 students in my 5th period class. Comments such as "how could they eat with their hands" and "don't the Chinese eat dogs?" again validated the DVD's idea of the limited American high school student's world view / interest . Most the sophomores who watched the DVD seemed to think that the Chinese and Indian students were dreadfully hard done by by having to work so hard. Most seemed to totally miss the point of the documentary.
Human Nature
After having read the previous posts, I am afraid to admit that in comparison with the rest of you, I was a poor student. I have no trouble sympathizing with the two American students in the documentary and almost feel a kinship with them.
In the Simpsons, the jokes are always presented with a bit of truth behind them. There is a song in the Mary Poppins/Shary Bobbins episode where they sing (to the tune of "A Spoonful of Sugar"):
"If you cut every corner
It is really not so bad,
Everybody does it -
Even mom and dad
If nobody sees it,
Then nobody gets mad,
It's the American way"
If I was in the place of those two American students, I would be the same way. Why should I expend more effort if I already get good grades and can get into a good college? Why would I spend weekends studying when I could earn some money at a job and then earn a full ride scholarship for college? It seems like the fault is not on the heads of the students, but on the school system that allows them to coast through without challenging them.
While I agree that this attitude is not the most admirable, it seems to be human nature to try to do the least work possible to get by. Even the Chinese boy admits that he spends a chunk of his time at home playing computer games, and that he doesn't have to work as hard as his classmates to understand the concepts.
The Indian and Chinese students are presented as working hard with eventual monetary reward as motivation. Though the American girl may not become a doctor, I fully expect her to be successful in the future and earn a good living. Our economy seems to (at least for now) be structured in such a way that you don't have to excel in math and science in high school to enter a well-paid and highly respected profession.
The university system seems to do a decent job at weeding out the students that do not possess the necessary work ethic. The naturally gifted students that coast through high school are usually challenged by the higher standards in college. But in high school it seems like it is still very easy to get by without being fully challenged. We will never be able to change the system at large, but as teachers hopefully we can force our students to work hard by raising our standards and increasing our expectations.
In the Simpsons, the jokes are always presented with a bit of truth behind them. There is a song in the Mary Poppins/Shary Bobbins episode where they sing (to the tune of "A Spoonful of Sugar"):
"If you cut every corner
It is really not so bad,
Everybody does it -
Even mom and dad
If nobody sees it,
Then nobody gets mad,
It's the American way"
If I was in the place of those two American students, I would be the same way. Why should I expend more effort if I already get good grades and can get into a good college? Why would I spend weekends studying when I could earn some money at a job and then earn a full ride scholarship for college? It seems like the fault is not on the heads of the students, but on the school system that allows them to coast through without challenging them.
While I agree that this attitude is not the most admirable, it seems to be human nature to try to do the least work possible to get by. Even the Chinese boy admits that he spends a chunk of his time at home playing computer games, and that he doesn't have to work as hard as his classmates to understand the concepts.
The Indian and Chinese students are presented as working hard with eventual monetary reward as motivation. Though the American girl may not become a doctor, I fully expect her to be successful in the future and earn a good living. Our economy seems to (at least for now) be structured in such a way that you don't have to excel in math and science in high school to enter a well-paid and highly respected profession.
The university system seems to do a decent job at weeding out the students that do not possess the necessary work ethic. The naturally gifted students that coast through high school are usually challenged by the higher standards in college. But in high school it seems like it is still very easy to get by without being fully challenged. We will never be able to change the system at large, but as teachers hopefully we can force our students to work hard by raising our standards and increasing our expectations.
A (moderately) dissenting view
To preface my thoughts, I should say that I agree with the premise of the documentary - our academic standards are lacking in rigor and we are probably losing our edge in science and technology. Also, I am inclined to take a contradictory stance just because most people seem to feel strongly in favor of the film and my reactionary nature kicks in.
That said, I don't completely trust the way everything was presented in the documentary. Obviously, for practical purposes, the sample size was small. One cannot deny that the filmmakers have their own message which they want to present, and at times (especially regarding the American students) I felt the way in which they did so was a little unfair.
From the very beginning of the film the two students were presented in a negative light. Their very first comments introduced them as somewhat lazy, with a strong sense of entitlement. The Chinese girl, in contrast, was presented as a violin virtuoso.
The general tone was condescending toward the two Americans. The film had no problem showing the American students all hanging out at someone's house playing Gamecube, and then presenting some statistics about the sorry state of American education in a video game format. When the boy discussed college plans with his mom, they began with him mentioning how the college had Xbox 360s, which was irrelevant to their subsequent discussion of a potential career in computer graphics, except to suggest that he only wants to study computers because he likes to play video games. The Indian boy is portrayed as only playing chess on his computer, and the Chinese boy is never shown playing computer games, though he mentions that he does play them a lot.
Worst of all was how the American high school teacher was presented. Out of all the things they could have shown, the only time they showed a teacher interacting with students was when he was making a joking comment which was not representative of the test as a whole. Had I been that teacher, I would have been upset over the highly subjective nature of the editing. There are so many things that a film crew could show me saying during the course of a school day, that when taken out of context, would put our educational system in a bad light.
The Americans were used as an introduction to set the tone, and then the filmmakers withheld their fate until the very end to provoke outrage. As viewers, we are supposed to feel bad for the hardworking Chinese and Indian students that had to settle for their second choice, whereas the ignorant Americans yet again strutted off triumphantly into the sunset.
Obviously, expecting a documentary to maintain objectivity is senseless, but the filmmakers' bias is too strong (and too evident) for me to put complete faith in what they have presented.
That said, I don't completely trust the way everything was presented in the documentary. Obviously, for practical purposes, the sample size was small. One cannot deny that the filmmakers have their own message which they want to present, and at times (especially regarding the American students) I felt the way in which they did so was a little unfair.
From the very beginning of the film the two students were presented in a negative light. Their very first comments introduced them as somewhat lazy, with a strong sense of entitlement. The Chinese girl, in contrast, was presented as a violin virtuoso.
The general tone was condescending toward the two Americans. The film had no problem showing the American students all hanging out at someone's house playing Gamecube, and then presenting some statistics about the sorry state of American education in a video game format. When the boy discussed college plans with his mom, they began with him mentioning how the college had Xbox 360s, which was irrelevant to their subsequent discussion of a potential career in computer graphics, except to suggest that he only wants to study computers because he likes to play video games. The Indian boy is portrayed as only playing chess on his computer, and the Chinese boy is never shown playing computer games, though he mentions that he does play them a lot.
Worst of all was how the American high school teacher was presented. Out of all the things they could have shown, the only time they showed a teacher interacting with students was when he was making a joking comment which was not representative of the test as a whole. Had I been that teacher, I would have been upset over the highly subjective nature of the editing. There are so many things that a film crew could show me saying during the course of a school day, that when taken out of context, would put our educational system in a bad light.
The Americans were used as an introduction to set the tone, and then the filmmakers withheld their fate until the very end to provoke outrage. As viewers, we are supposed to feel bad for the hardworking Chinese and Indian students that had to settle for their second choice, whereas the ignorant Americans yet again strutted off triumphantly into the sunset.
Obviously, expecting a documentary to maintain objectivity is senseless, but the filmmakers' bias is too strong (and too evident) for me to put complete faith in what they have presented.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)