Category: Week 4 – Anti-Teaching / Mindful Learning

In this week’s readings, Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown in A New Culture of Learning (2011) mentioned that the old saying, “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime” doesn’t capture the rapidly changing dynamics in almost all aspects of today’s world. What if there’s something else that should be fished instead? Or, even worse, what if there aren’t any fish left? All the resources this week cited a need to teach, on some level, curiosity and a willingness to be creative as a solution to dynamic problems.

I agree with this, to an extent. Certainly, being a creative fisherman– one who thinks critically about how to make and cast fishing nets and how these skills might be used to get other types of food– is much better than being an uncreative one. After all, it is this creativity that leaves you open to change. And, of course, curiosity naturally leads to creativity, so that should be fostered as well.

But these readings seem to completely dismiss the usefulness of just learning how to fish. Ultimately, if you want to learn how to be creative with your fishing skills, don’t you have to learn how to be uncreative first? To just know how to do it outright? That is, there seems to be no credit attributed to just knowing something, even if the thing that is known is subject to change over time.

Taking this a step further, I would even push back a little on the memorization and types of reflexes that Ellen Langer writes against. When a student is panicking on an exam, having that reflex and knowing what they should be doing– never mind the why– might actually save them on a particular question, allowing them to answer it an move on. (Of course, Ellen Langer would probably then start arguing about right vs wrong answers and such, but let’s face it– that is the nature of exams and most forms of assignments in classes. That’s the foundation for how we know how well students are doing. If we throw out right vs wrong answers completely, how do we measure progress or give students valuable feedback?)

What I think I would propose instead is altering the original saying to something like, “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and probably feed him for a long time, teach a man to think critically about his fishing skills and definitely feed him for a lifetime.” (But maybe that’s a mouthful.) Yes, things change, but I don’t think they’re changing so fast that old knowledge is becoming obsolete at a rate that would make skills– at least the basic ones– completely unusable to the point of not even being worth teaching people how to just do them (making them think critically about it after they have a foundation for which to base such thinking on, and encouraging critical thinking all the while). People have been fishing for thousands of years, after all. How much has fishing really changed in the last 5,000 years? 1,000? years? 100 years? 30 years? 5 years?

I am finding a common theme across many of these talks. Our children and youth set an example for learning. They are unique, curious, and active learners if provided with the right conditions. Sir Ken Robinson’s talk, “How to Escape Education’s Death Valley” describes what learning could be like if we leveraged the diverse talents they possess vs. pushing conformity across a narrow field of study.

While we are not Finland, we can certainly learn from a system that has a vastly lower drop out rate. They must be doing something to foster a unique learning environment where children thrive and enjoy learning. And the result is they want to keep going and finish, not drop out. Finland sees teaching as an esteemed profession, doesn’t require standardized test, and offers individualized learning, but it’s the embracement of play that I see immense opportunity.

Play can be an outlet for fun and exercise, but can also be an avenue to discovery and sparking curiosity, which we need in American classrooms. Play lets children learn in a more natural way. If classroom environments where a place for play then maybe kids wouldn’t be so eager to go to recess. It would be learning through play that kept them engaged. I think this is where the value we place on teachers comes in. Ensuring that teachers have access to resources, continuing education, and are properly supported will help further alternative ways to learn through play in the classroom.

I also found many takeaways from Robinson’s talk including his proverb like messages about learning. The ones below I personally found to be powerful. What were your takeaways?

“Curiosity is the engine to achievement”

“No learning means no education”

“Human life is inherently creative”

“Education is not a mechanical system it’s a human one”

 

 

This week’s content has me fired up! I am such an advocate of education, so I am a sucker for any inspirational talk that reminds me of my purpose. I am also a lover of any literature that challenges the norm in education. After all, education is about growth, right?

Ken Robinson is a funny guy with a good purpose: highlighting the issues in education. He immediately had my attention when he properly defined irony: No Child Left Behind. As a former high school English teacher, that legislation and the push for standardized testing left me frustrated on a regular basis. Ken points out the honest truth: standardized testing is a push for conformity—not diversity—and that alone is ruining the purpose of education. Testing should not be the dominant force; it should be an option some take to prove knowledge—not one that is mandated across the U.S. (T., 2013).

The problem with the standardized testing, among many, is that it pushed for rote memorization, which ties into one of Langer’s seven myths about education (2016). This is not real learning! Moreover, in non-memorization based subjects, like English, it was nearly impossible to prepare students for the tests because they were full of content that was watered down, poor applications of useful skills. Essentially, the way to be a successful teacher is to teach to the test—not to the content. This defeats the entire purpose. However, if you were a history teacher (please don’t get mad, Dr. Nelson!), then your job was easy: teach the facts. You’ll be fine.

All of these thoughts got me thinking about my least favorite quote of all time: “Those who can do, and those who can’t teach.” It basically implies that teachers are less than; they might know the facts, but they cannot apply them well enough to be successful in the real world. Ken Robinson highlights what teachers do that goes far beyond the content: they mentor, they provoke, they engage (T., 2013). Education happens in the classrooms, the hallways, the lunchrooms, and more—not in committee meetings. Teachers deserve all of the respect in the world, so I live by a different version of that quote: “Those who can teach, and those who can’t do.”

If you’re looking for another video to get you fired up about education (and that quote), spend three minutes watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGKm201n-U4. It’s a little edgy, but it reiterates the truth: teachers make a difference.

References

Langer, E. J. (2016). The power of mindful learning. Hachette UK.

(2013, May 10). How to escape education’s death valley | Sir Ken Robinson. Retrieved September 6, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX78iKhInsc&feature=youtu.be

 

Key ideas behind mindfulness is that it is the antithesis of memorization and education focused on memorization stifles creativity. Learning mindfulness seems like learning a combination of critical thinking skills and how to question authority. And I agree- students should be taught these skills. Students should be taught about bias and perspective. At the college level, these ideas should be taught in first-semester courses. In middle and high school, these ideas should be introduced when discussing history, science, and literature. However, not all courses can or should consist purely of questioning facts. Most careers require learning linguistic cornerstones (aka memorization of terms). You cannot begin to debate the nuances of a topic unless you are able to read and understand previous work on a topic and know the language of the debate. Learning terms should not just include memorization of the words that describe the terms but understanding the concepts behind them. Part of this process of memorization is mindfulness- students should be engaged in thinking about how these terms fit together and how they fit into the broader topic. When we discuss learning techniques with students, we should be emphasizing that learning requires the hard work of memorization and simultaneously making mindful connections.

When I first got the syllabus for this class, I remember reading over the readings for each week and mentally putting a star by this one. In my own life, mindfulness has been such a beneficial resource for my own mental health, physical health, and education. While the word itself may make you think of something like this TED talk, the truth I have learned is that “mindfulness” can be applied to every part of your life- including teaching and learning. As the A New Culture of Learning reading pointed out, we must be aware and utilize the various “motivations for learning across generations, platforms, purposes, and goals” (p. 31). 

I would make the argument that simply “going through the motions” is potentially dangerous to education. While it is true that repetition is important to mastering a skill (we have all grown up hearing “practice makes perfect!), if we are not being intentional about our actions and choices, are we really learning? We have all been out driving to work or class and then realized we just kind of “showed up” where we were headed- how dangerous is this to our driving! Processing information with intention is so important to safety and growth.

I liked how the “Mindful Learning” reading pointed out that teachers have the ability to take large quantities of information and turn it into bite-sized pieces. In my own experience, I can confirm that sometimes it is hard to get students to focus when there is so much information stuffed into one semester. Once you lose the attention of your students, what is the point of continuing to lecture to a dead room?

 

Here are some of my resulting questions this week:

• How could mindful learning improve your classroom as a teacher?
• How could mindful learning improve your classroom from the perspective of a student?
• What does mindfulness look like to you?