McKenna Pope made a dent – when she was 13 years old.
I wonder if she was given any transcript-like credit for a social studies course, or for a persuasive communications “project” in an English class. Or maybe for statistics.
#RealWorldEd
There are so many reasons for educators to watch the TED talk below – “Guy Hoffman: Robots with Soul.” As for me, I am paradoxically inspired, mesmerized, puzzled and saddened by Hoffman’s talk.
When I watch and listen to Hoffman, I think of what he must have been like as a K-12 student. What amazing curiosity, drive, passion, and persistence this learner must have had – must continue to have. Through his work, I am inspired by what contributions robotics and roboticists will make in our lives.
And yet I am saddened by the conversations I can imagine that some (many?) schools would have regarding the content and context of such an idea-generating talk.
“What department would we place this course in? He wants to build robots as part of his learning, so it must be ‘Engineering Class,’ right?”
“We don’t have a course called ‘Engineering.’ Maybe we just put it in physics?”
“But how would we cover all the stuff we are already doing in physics? There’s no time or room to add robotics like this in my course.”
“Could it go in a math class? Hoffman mentions math in the talk, doesn’t he?”
“No, it should go in Drama class. Weren’t you listening? He said he took a drama course and method acting is what really helped him break through in the contrast between the computing mind and the adventurous mind.”
“But Drama is just a semester elective. Our kids could never get this work done in just a semester, given the basics of acting that we need to cover.”
“It should go in computer animation, when we get that class up and running.”
“What about psychology? He talks about emotions, and our ‘Human Psych’ course is the only course that has ’emotions’ in the learning outcomes.”
“Why not biology? After all, he is using human biology as a mechanism for understanding how to make the robots more ‘human.'”
“Are you kidding me? When would we have time to build robots in 10th grade biology? It’s AP, for goodness sake?”
“Look, if he wants this to be part of his schooling, he’s gonna need to find a faculty sponsor, and the faculty member will need to create a course proposal. It’s already December, so our deadline is passed. Any course proposal would need to be submitted by NEXT December, and then we might add the course the FOLLOWING year, if the academic committee approves the course. And forget about team teaching with a math, drama, physics, and biology teacher-team. That’s way too many resources to commit to an elective, non-essential course.”
WHAT IF…
OR — we could build in time during the school day for passion-driven, cross-curricular learning. So what if the 17-year-old version of Guy Hoffman’s idea doesn’t fit neatly into one of the silo-ed, department-organized, subject-area courses? Those course structures only represent part of our school day and school week. We don’t just organize by departmental subject area. We co-organize by student-interest and make space for just this kind of exploring, searching, questioning, experimenting, and integrating.
After all, we know that to nurture innovators, they must have time, room, and opportunity to practice observing, questioning, experimenting, networking, and associating.
Oh that we might make it so. If not us, then who? If not now, then when?
#iDiploma
As I fell deeper into bow making, I began to search far and beyond my neighborhood.
I’ve been studying the TED talk below – “Dong Woo Jang: The art of bow-making.” In a high-pressure, high-stakes testing environment, Dong Woo Jang pursues a personal passion and extended project that helps him construct knowledge, skills, understanding, and wisdom from areas that we would typically separate and subdivide in school, likely with no intentional, threaded connection.
What drive and persistence it takes for a young person to make time for such committed exploration and discovery while living in a system that dominates so much of his day having to study someone else’s interests.
What if school were more purposefully designed for the committed pursuit of our passions and curiosities? So that a story such as Dong Woo Jang’s would be ordinary instead of extraordinary.
Jack Andraka discovered an early-detection method for pancreatic cancer. From all I can tell, he worked with great determination and persistence over a number of months. From the passion and project, he grew context and content mastery.
He was 15 years old. A ninth grader.
I just watched his TED talk (a #MustWatch), and I am inspired by his scientific and human contribution to the medical and health communities. To our world.
Of course, I am also deeply curious how much he was able to “work on this” in school. In the TED talk, there is mention of his biology class, and it’s a very interesting reference. Images in the talk show Internet searches at home and lab work at Johns Hopkins. Two of my hundreds of questions – did he earn credit at school for this work? What role did any teachers and admin play?
So, I’ve tweeted him, and I hope I’ll get a response.
I fully believe that we can redesign school – systemically – to enable more of the “Jack Andrakas” to surface and succeed. That would mean more success for all of us.
= = = = =
Related: Brittany Wenger
And the problem is that, like a lot of design professions, we got fixated on the idea of providing a particular kind of consumer product, and I don’t think that needs to be the case anymore.
– Alastair Parvin: Architecture for the people by the people, TED
Clothed in the vestments of “architecture,” at its core, this talk is more universally about design thinking. And while I know that I have trained myself to suffer/benefit from the affliction/blessing I call “How-Does-This-Apply-To-School-And-Education?,” Parvin’s talk has profound implications for those in education who are willing and able to think about our design challenges for Education 3.0.
How have we in education gotten fixated on the idea of providing a certain kind of structure and experience called “school?” How might we examine and re-examine those fixations and “lead up” to what could be better for our learners and our citizenry?
How are you willing or not willing to rethink what we do as “school?” How might we use our knowledge and wisdom as learning architects to reconsider what we do and how we do it?
it's about learning 