Tuesday, February 15, 2011
How Cool is Photo Booth?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Dan Pink: Science of Motivation
Go figure a business lecture would be very relevant to us as teachers. Is it because we run our classrooms like a business. I think we do. Let us examine…We give our students daily jobs; they have responsibilities and expectations to do that job in a given amount of time. We give them assigned spaces similar to cubicles. We let them walk around periodically but they still belong in one particular seat, which is where we expect to find them. They have specific work hours, lunch, and are expected to be to "meetings" on time and prepared. Kids do not set their schedules, we the teachers or bosses do. We have meetings on the rug at certain times, we do math at a certain time, they may go outside at certain times, etc. We manage their days. There is a code of conduct. Like a professional company, there are acceptable behaviors and consequences if you deviate. We expect productivity. They must produce or there are consequences such as calling their parents or staying inside to finish work, similar to staying late to work on something for your boss. I feel like I could go on forever, but I will not. I would be happy to debate this issue with any of my colleagues. It is not nice, friendly, or even politically correct to even suggest teachers are like bosses, kids are like workers/employees, and schools are not businesses, but they are if you break them down. It does not mean there are not great teachers; there are great bosses after all. It just means we are subconsciously showing students how the career world works. What they will be facing in the future; we are preparing them for work. This should sound familiar to economists and any Marxists. As a teacher, I am not proud of this but Dan Pink's lecture really opened my eyes to the similarities.
Everything he said about businesses and rewards is applicable to my classroom. Do we not use the carrot and stick system? Sure we do. In the simplest form of this system we offer candy, when candy no longer works as a motivator, we start talking about bad grades on their report cards and what will their parents say. Dan Pink makes the connection that rewards/incentives often achieve the opposite result as we expected. We all have the kids that could care less if he gets the lollipop on Friday for doing his job. He/she could care less if recess is spent reading a book indoors. What do we do as teachers then? The problem is no one knows. That is why there is a huge industry of motivational tools, tips, programs, and workshops directed at parents and teachers to motivate children.
Additionally, Dan talks about motivation dulling creativity and the thinking process. This reminded me of the Ken Robinson talk about schools killing creativity. If you dangle a carrot in front of a kid, he will focus on the carrot, and do whatever is necessary to get the carrot and nothing more. He will try to find the easiest and quickest way to get the carrot, even if he has to use shortcuts or cheat. I think this is true. This is not because he/she is a bad kid, but his focus and thinking has been narrowed to getting that carrot. That was Dan Pink's point. Motivation needs to be much more than an object, or a sweeter carrot than the one used before. Motivation needs to be specific to each child and needs to be intrinsic. If the ideal situation is to motivate each child individually, why don't we as teachers do just that? Why, because it is easier said then done!
Ken Robinson: Bring on the Learning Revolution
I think this was a great follow-up to Ken's schools killing creativity lecture. He began by saying we make poor use of our talents, and poor use of our students talents. One thing Ken discussed hit me particularly hard; he said we often go through life without knowing our true talents. I have always personally felt this way. While there are many things I believe I am very good at, was there something I was not exposed to as a child that would have uncovered a true gift or talent. Was I meant to be a musician, an artist, etc? While I find his point personally applicable, it makes me think about my teaching. Am I exposing my students to a variety of material which will enable them to find their own gifts or talents? The point that Ken makes about children and talents is completely relevant to all teachers. It is our job, meaning the school district and other personnel, to expose students to the arts and sciences, as well as the other core subjects we have labeled more important.
In continuing his point, later in his lecture he talks about education not being a straight track to college. College does not begin in Kindergarten. He is right; schools are obsessed with getting children to college. One of the elementary schools I have subbed for has a massive program designed to send every one of their students to college. They have classrooms adopt colleges the students may go to someday. However, is college the only path for these students? Ken told the story of a fan wanting all his life to be a fireman. His teachers told him this was a waste of time and he needed to go to college. This story made me think of an activity another elementary school requires of its students. At the end of each year from 4-6th grades, the students must research careers they are interested in for the future. There were so many obvious flaws to this mandatory activity. First, the websites the students were supposed to use were all college type careers. There were no trade type careers. Second, the form the district issued for these students to fill out had questions such as, What subjects in school do I need to be very good at to do this job (a somewhat benign question unless you look into it a little bit), and How many years in college do you need in order to have this career, and How much money can you make in this career? I believe these questions and this activity reinforces Ken's point. First, the kid is told he must already be good at certain subjects for this job or he/she can cross this one off the list, secondly, college is necessary if you want a "valid" career, and thirdly, it is the money that validates you as a person. I had one boy who comes from a very poor background who said he wanted to be a babysitter. This certainly is not what the school is looking for in this activity. He obviously could not find any information from the websites we gave him to use. As a new teacher, I went to a colleague and she told me to have him pick something else. The district did not want these types of answers. However, this is probably the career someone in his family has and what he has been exposed to. Maybe the babysitter he is familiar with has a great life and is successful. This was a very difficult day as a teacher, as I let him leave babysitter on his form and gave him an alternate website to use. It is exactly what Ken was saying, we have a fast-food type of education, it is standardized, not individualized.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Ken Robinson: Do Schools Kill Creativity?
Ken Robinson delivers an important message to educators in a comical, yet meaningful way. I encourage all who read this blog to watch this video http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
He is right, as educators, we have no idea what education is going to look like in 5 years, but we are supposed to educate students for the future. If we do not know what education is going to look like in 5 years, how can we say we are preparing students for the future? I think it is a nice catchy thing to say but are we really educating beyond what students need to know for next year? Ken also makes the point that kids take chances, they are not afraid to be wrong. While I think kids are afraid to get things wrong, his point is more that kids have the courage to try things. Adults, not so much. We have an embedded fear suggesting we cannot be wrong, especially when it comes to education. We as teachers must know the best way to educate students; we are the ones who are supposed to know. What happens if we do not know how to reach every student? Ken believes that we educate kids out of their creativity. We sure do! It starts early when we tell kids to color inside the lines…both literally and figuratively. We tell them it is not ok to be creative. There is only one-way to do something and it is the teacher's way.
Additionally, Ken makes the point that kids are educated from the waist up. We have told students that the only certain subjects are valued. Skills that can get them jobs. This has been the push since industrialization where the idea of formal education was to get a job. Times have certainly changed but we still tell kids they need to have the skills such as math and science in order to get a good job. However, in today's market a college degree does not mean you will even get a job, let alone one that will pay the bills. Robinson attributes this to universities who are trying to create students in their image of higher academic achievement. They focus on the standard academic subjects and are essentially try to produce college professors.
Perhaps the most interesting one of Robinson's stories was of the famous dancer. How clear and striking was his message of pointing children in their own direction instead of a diagnosis needed medicinal intervention. If there were a diagnosis of ADHD in the 1930's this very talented and respected dancer would have been directed to take medication and settle down and be quiet. My quick summation will certainly not do his point justice so please take the time to watch this video. His points are so interesting and completely applicable to us as teachers.