MATTHEW  ISOM

 

 

 

 

 

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers, and divines

                                                                                                                                      --Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

 

          It is commonly acknowledged that in any given school setting there will always be a significant percentage of students who are not engaged and who do not perform well. These students struggle in school, learning little, and efforts to raise their skills and knowledge are arduous, slow, and of questionable efficacy.  Many reasons are cited for this lack of involvement, reasons ranging from disadvantaged socio-economic background, media addiction, ADHD diagnoses, to epidemic laziness. To view the issue in these terms, however, is to make the assumption that the students need to be “fixed.” Older generations like to look at the youth and shake their heads at their inadequacies; seldom do we consider that students might be just as they always have been: bright, hopeful, and intelligent people who are perfectly capable of doing well.  

          Today, however, it is all too common to hear that our schools are in crisis and that drastic measures must be undertaken to help students.  Typical results of this line of thinking are the cry to raise standards and increase testing. Why do so many people, especially the people who determine the direction of our schools, feel that our students are to blame for their undeveloped talents? Perhaps it is because to accept that our students are fine would be to acknowledge that our approach to education is largely toblame for today’s apathy and poor showing on tests.  This is a notion that most are loath to make, and so it is that we hear the cry of “back to the basics.”

          Over the years numerous progressive approaches to teaching have been suggested to help students gain greater understanding. One that is particularly inviting in light of the connected and collaborative nature of today’s learners is project-based learning (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). Project-based learning is an intriguing idea that seems particularly promising today in the Digital Age when students, now known as “The Net Generation,” spend significant amounts of time collaborating as they create projects, movies, and blogs, among other things. Teachers and educational theorists posit that if students are given the opportunity to take ownership for solving authentic problems (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008) and to create products of their own design, they will be more engaged in the learning process (Pugh & Girod, 2007).  Proponents of project-based learning typically see it as a collaborative effort wherein a community of learners works synergistically to solve authentic problems (Smith, 2006).

           Not everyone agrees that project-based learning is the answer.  The current focus on standards, standardized testing, and teacher accountability for increased scores is testament to the fact that the powers that be are not looking to project-based learning as the primary means to increase learning, for the aim of projects is to give students depth of understanding, not the more superficial understanding that is easily measure by standardized, multiple-choice tests. Additionally, simply is not enough time for extended projects in math and English classes when so much time is spent methodically preparing students for the proficiencies that they will need in order to pass school district mandatedtests. Assumptions are made concerning what the important skills and knowledge are, and things like insight, creativity, and meaning are not often considered worthy of much consideration, regardless of their vital importance.  This is largely because it is so difficult to measure increases in a learner’s passion with subject matter or even his ability to apply those ideas to his later life in a meaningful way. An exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of our education system help shed light on why it is that project-based learning is not considered worthy of much consideration in the eyes of administrators and the public at large. To a significant degree, our public education system is based on the behaviorist model of learning which focuses on modeling “correct” learning approaches and teaching students the skills to proficiently and accurately produce desired results (Tomlinson, 1997).  

In the late 1800’s Edward Lee Thorndike took the forefront in educational theory with his behaviorist approach to learning.  In Tomlinson’s words, “he defined teaching as simply ‘the art of giving and withholding stimuli with the result of producing or preventing certain responses’” (Tomlinson, p. 8). Behind this approach lies the assumption that the teacher understands what should be learned and there is little or no room for exploration of ideas by students, for with exploration new ideas might be discovered. In the behaviorist approach, learning is seen as training, not exploration.

          Up until Thorndike introduced this view of teaching in the 19th Century, schools in the United States had no set theory of teaching and each teacher determined his or her own curriculum and teaching methods. Thorndike sought to unify the nation’s approach to education by turning to “scientifically proven practices [which], when combined with a system of training and supervision, could then replace the traditional rule of thumb strategies employed by the average teacher” (Tomlinson, p. 8). As Tomlinson sees it, Thorndike’s work did much more than give unity to America’s schools.  It created a “paternal society” in which “the cognitive elite were vested with the power to direct the masses towards the good [and] in the case of schooling, this natural order was reflected in a system where common researchers and administrators provided scientific knowledge and organizational control while teachers contributed their labour and unconditional loyalty” (Tomlinson, p. 8). In a system like this, the teacher can be likened to an advance pigeon trainer of sorts who understands just what it is that students need to know to be well-functioning members of society.  Thus, students are to follow the lead of the teacher, and there is little to no room for individuality and personal exploration. To engage in a self-directed learning project would run counter to the behaviorist theory of education. It would do so because inherent in behaviorist theory is the idea that in exploring ideas lies a possibility that answers might be found that run counter to the thinking of the teacher.  To the behaviorist, these ideas would be wrong and a waste of time. Certainly such projects would not increase learning.

           Many in the field of education today (perhaps a majority) follow Thorndike’s basic ideology, although Tomlinson’s choice of wording (all Thorndike’s) might cause them to resist that statement.  Leaving aside the paternalistic elements, at the core of Thorndike’s theory we see trust in “scientifically proven practices” and a reliance upon data to quantify learning, both of which are Thordikian concepts. The influence of Thorndike on today’s schools can be seen in the following reference: “Thorndike’s own contribution to the industrialization of education was prodigious. He devised rating scales to standardize and measure children’s proficiency in . . . history and English comprehensions, and sold millions of arithmetic textbooks that stressed drill, repetition, and the ‘overlearning’ of basic skills” (Tomlinson, p. 9).  The similarities between Thordike’s methods and the current education buzz words are almost startling, as is exemplified by the words “ standardize,” “measure children’s proficiency,” “scientifically proven practices,” and “rating scales.”And, as such, one should particularly take note of Tomlinson’s final words concerning Thorndike: “Thorndike’s economy of rote learning, drill and standardized outcomes effectively reduces schooling to a monotonous regimen devoid of intellectual satisfaction that kills the inherent curiosity and inventiveness of childhood—the creative spirit of the scientific mind” (Tomlinson, p. 17).

           While the creative exploration of project-based learning is anathema to those following the behaviorist model of learning, it is embraced by those who feel that society has outgrown a model of education that dates back to the Industrial Revolution.  Sir Kenneth Robinson (2011) ushers a call to “change education paradigms” in his eponymous TED lecture. “If you are interested in the model of learning, you don’t start from this production line mentality. This is essentially about conformity. Increasingly it’s about that as you look at the growth of standardized testing and standardized curricula.” He adds that our schools “act as if the most important thing that students have in common is ‘their date of manufacture.” The thrust of his comments center around the idea that the current educational system stamps out creativity, collaboration, and deeper thinking.  He concludes, “I believe we’ve got to go in the exact opposite direction. That’s what I mean about changing the paradigm” (Robinson, 2011).

The changed paradigm that Robinson calls for is the view that children have amazing creative problem solving potential but that it is “killed,” as he puts it, by our system because it isn’t taught and atrophies, and also because of our focus on “the right answer” trains students to look only for that. Just why our society is so concerned with right answers is a mystery if we are seeking progress.  By its very definition, progress implies change. What is all too rarely considered is that any breakthrough that has been made in civilization has been made by someone who “thought outside the box,” questioning standard conceptual models (Copernicus), questioning rights (Jefferson), questioning what it is to lead a good and moral life (Gandhi), and questioning what is beautiful (Monet). It is clear that to Robinson, if we want to move forward, we need to change the status quo, move from data-driven measurement of progress and go, instead, with evaluation of products that are collaboratively created.

Alfie Kohn agrees with Robinson’s idea that our century-long approach to educating children is outdated and is actually detrimental to the development of children. He says, “There is such an emphasis on rigor and raising the bar and higher standards, that we end up with a lot of kids who are alternately bored and anxious because the education isn’t really about helping them feel like proficient thinkers who love learning. Instead they have to memorize facts and practice skills to do well on tests.” And in a powerful indictment of today’s educational focus, he adds, “The more back to basics learning is, the more kids lose interest in learning and the more superficial their thinking and the more the gap grows between the haves and have nots” (Kohn, 2008, NP).

      Paul Kirschner is determinably opposed to project-based learning. As such, he would disagree with Robinson and Kohn concerning the need for students to work collaboratively to create projects in order to learn more fully. He suggests that students need direct guidance to learn and that setting them loose to solve problems on their own, as one does in project-based learning, actually diminishes learning. Kirschner dismisses pro-project-based learning, the idea that, in his words,  “people learn best in an unguided or minimally guided environment, generally defined as one in which learners, rather than being presented with essential information, must discover or construct essential information for themselves” (Kirschner, et al., 2010, p. 76). Kirschner’s thinking is based on the intriguing and uncommon idea that strong understanding is only possible when long-term memory can be easily accessed during the learning process.  When students try to figure out problems on their own, as they do in project-based learning, their minds spend too much energy trying to remember the ideas that form the building blocks for deeper insight.  In his words, “Everything we see, hear, and think about is critically dependent on and influenced by our long-term memory” ((Kirschner, et al., 2010, p. 76).

          Kirschner, et al. refer to a study of chess players which showed that expert chess players gain much of their prowess from their store of memorized chess games played by chess Masters. Corroborating this exact idea is a 60 Minutes segment entitled “Mangus Carlson: The Mozart of Chess?” Bob Simon says that Magnus Carlson, the current world chess champion, has memorized approximately 10,000 chess games (Simon, 2012, NP).  By mastering winning patterns, these chess players are able to take their thinking to a new and higher level, something that would not, in Kirschner’s opinion, be possible had long-term memory not been used. In the words of Kirschner, “expert problem solvers derive their skill by drawing on the extensive experience stored in their long-term memory and then quickly select and apply the best procedures for solving problems” (Kirschner, et al., 2010, p. 76). Thus, the opposition that Kirschner presents to problem-based learning is similar to that of the behaviorists, for learning is seen as something that builds upon mastered knowledge, and in project-based learning there is not enough guidance to form this mastered knowledge base. Of particular interest in the chess example, the behaviorist “training” does not preclude creative thought, as one might initially believe. In the words of Greeno, et al. (1996), “what someone knows is often a reflection of that person’s experience, and indeed, coming to know something requires an experience in which that knowledge can be acquired (Greeno, 1996, p. 17). Additionally, “the most successful learners elaborate what they read [and do and remember] and construct explanations for themselves” (p. 19).

          Whereas long-term memory can greatly aide a chess player (or any other learner) as he attempts to choose a procedure to solve a new problem, working memory plays a vital role in learning new information, a role that appears to contradict the assumption that a self-guided, discovery learner can find more meaningful answers.  Kirschner feels that “inquiry-based instruction requires the learner to search a problem space for problem-relevant information” and that “all problem-based searching makes heavy demands on working memory.” He adds that “while working memory is being used to search for problem solutions, it is not available and cannot be used to learn” (Kirschner, et al., 2010, p. 77).  If this is true, those who oversee project-based learning need to be sure that significant time and effort is expended to create a readily accessed knowledge base for students to work from so that their working memory is not over-taxed. It is likely that most teachers do not do this sufficiently, and in these cases project-based learning is not nearly as effective as it could be.

          Pugh & Girod  are teachers who do spend extensive amounts of time directing student thinking prior to field learning, and the cognitive interference Kirschner reports is not mentioned in Pugh’s quantitative study “Motivation, Learning, and Transformative Experience” (Pugh, et al., 2009). Rather, he submits that meaningful learning takes place when an idea is expounded upon in an authentic environment, such as experiential learning would afford. “We want students to be differently in the world because of powerful science ideas. As part of this goal, we emphasize the importance of application of learning outside of school, changed perception, and increased interest in science ideas and aspects of the world illuminated by those ideas” (Pugh & Girod, 2007, p. 13). For Pugh & Girod, learning is meaningful and transformative when students are engaged in a quest for knowledge of sorts.  Pugh & Girod refer to a lesson taught by Girod to fifth grade science students wherein the concept of erosion “was taught to [them] as a battle between the earth’s resistive features and those forces that destroy it. This battle metaphor provided students with a lens that [they] could try out in their everyday lives” (Girod, 2001). This “trying out” is the exploration of project-based learning. The results, as reported by the students, are telling. One girl relates, “I guess I knew about erosion before, but I didn’t really know it was all around us, happening all the time. I see it everywhere I go now. At recess, all us girls, we normally sing and dance around the school, but yesterday we went around the school looking for erosion” (Girod, 2001, p. 139).

          According to Howard Gardner (think Multiple Intelligences theory), this kind of learning experience that the girls had will stick with them for the duration of their lives because it has been internalized as they lived the experience of learning.  He says that it is only when one has to think as he encounters ideas that seem counterintuitive to the layman’s understanding, such as the thought of erosion is an ongoing battle, will deep learning and understanding take place. The problem with typical understandings of physics (and this applies to all areas of knowledge) is that the ideas are removed from human experience.  They are not felt.  And as such, “this knowledge is superficial, not rooted in experience, and of little practical use; it remains remote from those situations that encourage the taking of risks for understanding” (Gardner, 1995, p. 227). When students engage in projects, especially in the field, the knowledge is felt and it takes hold.

           There are different kinds of learning, ranging from the data-driven behaviorist models of Thorndike and Skinner to the situative model propounded by John Dewey and followed by Pugh & Girod. These models are distinctly different, and it is incumbent upon us to decide what type of learning environment our students need. It is clear that our students are not scoring as well in mathematics, science, reading, and writing as they should be.What is the solution? Thorndike’s methods tend to work, so we can continue pushing our students to master concepts and skills that will be tested and they will improve, and these results will be measurable, and our society feels that if something is measurable, it must be important (my mind turns to St. Exupery’s Little Prince, but I digress).

           In closing, two questions come to mind. The first is whether or not it might be possible for students to improve the same skills if they were given ample opportunities to create projects that required deep understanding of said skills. And if it would be possible, how would students respond to this different approach? Would they be more inclined to work hard than they are now? The second question has to do with other, deeper goals of education. Pugh and Girod talk of learning as transformative experience that changes perspective on life and gives meaning to learners as they find themselves as agents personally experiencing what it is to truly understand ideas. With project-based learning, not only are facts and skills acquired, but lives are transformed, and a vision is gained that will last a lifetime.  And, after all, isn’t that what learning is all about?

 

[Art] quickens us from the slackness of routine and enables us to forget ourselves by finding ourselves in the delight of experiencing the world about us in its varied qualities and forms.—John Dewey, Art as Experience (1934, 1958, p. 110)

 

 

 

References

 

Gardner, H. (1995). The Unschooled mind--How children think and how schools

should teach. New York, NY.:Basic Books

 

Girod, M. (2001). Teaching 5th-grade science for aesthetic understanding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

 

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.

Berliner and R. Calfee Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46).

New York: Macmillan.

 

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J.& Clard, R. E. (2010). Why minimal guidance during

instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist,

discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.

Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

 

Moran, S., Kornhaber, M. & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating multiple intelligences.

 Educatonal leadership, 64(1), 22-27.

 

Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital--Understanding the first generation of

digital natives. New York, NY: Basic Books

 

Peterson, S. E. & Miller, J. A. (2004). Comparing the quality of students’ experiences

during cooperative learning and large-group instruction.

 

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think

differently? On the horizon. 9(6) NCB University Press.

 

Pugh, K. J., & Girod, M (2006). Science, art, and experience: Constructing a science   pedagogy from Dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of science teacher educations.           18, 8-27.

 

Pugh, K.J., Linnenbringk-Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L.& Steward, V. C., Manzey, C.(2009). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: A study of deep engagement in science. Published online 15 April 2009 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com).

 

Shirkey, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus--How technology makes consumers into

collaborators. New York, NY: Penguin

                                                                       

Simon, B. (2012). Magnus Carlsen: The Mozart of chess? 60 Minutes. CBS News Online. Retrieved May 31 at            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc_v9mTfhC8

 

Smith M.K. (2009). Communities of practice. The Encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved May 27, 2013 from

http://www.infed.org/bibilio/communities_of_practice.htm

 

Tomlinson, S. (1997). Edward Lee Thorndike and John Dewey on the science of education. Oxford review of education, 23(3), 365-383.

 

Willingham, D. T. (2008). What is developmentally appropriate practice? American

           educator, 32(2), 34-39.