So why is this relevant? First because I had the biggest "Aha!" moment of the course doing this week's readings. Herrington et al make a passing reference to "constructivist philosophy" in the abstract of their article (Herrington et al, 2003). Woo et al make several references to "social constructivist learning theories", "the theoretical principles of social constructivism" and so on (Woo et al, 2007). Never having heard of these before, I looked them up. Lo and behold, there is a huge volume of information to be assimilated! I've barely begun to scratch the surface, but finally I can see the forest and not just the trees. Finally I have a sense of the epistemological theory/philosophy behind inquiry-based learning--the penny finally dropped! As always, I wish we had started there--but that's just the INTP in me. I can't help who/what I am. I'm just the "oddball" who needs to start with the theoretical before making my into the practical. Suffice it to say I now have a whole lot of additional reading to do!
But I think this also raises some legitimate questions about "inquiry" and "authenticity". We INTPs (and I have every reason to believe my elder son is one as well) are notorious for preferring to work alone rather than as members of a team. We are extreme introverts (being careful to make the distinction between "introversion" and "shyness"--they are NOT the same) who exist "in our own little worlds". We're often (unjustly!) accused of being not only "absent-minded" or "unaware" of people around us but even "arrogant" or "antisocial". (Several US Presidents, including Abe Lincoln, have been categorized as INTPs. So have Charles Darwin, Carl Jung, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Carl Sagan, Glenn Gould, Marie Curie, and many others. In terms of fictional characters, think of Sherlock Holmes, Greg House MD, Doctor Who, Linus (Peanuts), or Luna Lovegood (Harry Potter).)
I would propose that many on that (very partial) list are people who lived and breathed "inquiry". But INTPs simply do not function well in group/team settings (notice that I have chosen to write an individual paper for this course, rather than work on a team!). Yet while "constructivist learning theory" is supposedly/theoretically acutely aware of the importance of the background, culture, learning styles, and other characteristics of the learner, "inquiry" and "authenticity" are nonetheless relentless in their insistence that "learning" must be social/interactive/collaborative--to the point of running roughshod over that supposed sensitivity to individual qualities/characteristics. Perhaps "social constructivism" is not as respectful/inclusive as it purports to be???
As I've also mentioned previously, my children attend Connect Charter School (CCS) here in Calgary. The school has very close ties with the Galileo Educational Network. CCS is an inquiry-based school. It uses the Galileo rubric. For the most part, I'm delighted with the education my kids are getting at CCS. But I also have some issues. That elder child of mine who I'm sure is also an INTP is sometimes upset about the emphasis on "collaborative learning". One of the few "areas to work on" in his "progress reports" is consistently language around collaboration, social interaction, support for peers, and general "extroversion". He can get quite upset about this when we talk about it, lamenting that it's not fair, they don't understand who he is, and so on. It's like there is a complete blind spot to who he is, in the name and service of a (rigid) deployment of "authentic", "inquiry-based" learning. Perhaps some acknowledgement of different personality types and learning styles could be made? (Apparently not.) (Of course, Susan Cain has spoken and written extensively about the general blindess extroverts have toward introverts and the social pressures on introverts (and INTPs) to "come out of their shells", "participate more fully" and so on--all of which can be incredibly frustrating and infuriating to us introverts! It makes us feel bad, like there's something "wrong" with us, and generally stigmatized, even though we're as legitimate as all the extroverts.)
(Another issue I have is that my kids--who are both classified as "gifted"--don't know their multiplication tables and can't identify all of the provinces and territories of Canada on an unlabelled map. Some things you just have to memorize, it seems to me!)
Another area where the theory and practice of "social constructivist education" (which I think is now my preferred term, rather than "inquiry-based learning") seem to collide is around the issue of cultural sensitivity. In their article on patterns of engagement, Herrington et al discuss the willingness or lack thereof of students to "suspend disbelief" (Herrington et al, 2003). As someone who has studied film and literature, I was quite intrigued by the notion. Yet I found myself thinking about students from different cultural backgrounds as I read their section on "delayed engagement" or the reluctance/discomfort on the part of some students to do this. Their position seemed extremely culturally specific and shockingly culturally insensitive. As someone just starting out as an ESL instructor, working primarily with (young, international) adult learners, the cultural backgrounds and concepts of teaching and learning among my students is something of which I must be acutely aware. The theory of "social constructivist education" seems to suggest that different cultural concepts and expectations need to be respected, but the article seemed to suggest that any reluctance to embrace "the willing suspension of disbelief" was somehow the learners' "fault" (they "have difficulty in changing dependent learning habits", they're "not self-motivated", they're "unhappy when...directed support is withdrawn", they "resist authentic approaches", they're "too exam-oriented", and so on and so on). (Herrington et al, 2003).
Forgive me, but please explain to me again how this is learner-centered and learner-driven?! This kind of shaming/blaming of learners for what may well be culturally-driven and entirely legitimate "discomfort" seems both shocking and shameful to me!
My last observation is, I promise, a brief one. Newmann and Wehlage propose that they want to ascertain "how authentic instruction and student achievement are facilitated or impeded by" several factors. (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). Granted, they were writing more than 20 years ago, but I found it quite telling/revealing that they didn't mention what to me is a very obvious factor--the physical environment. Sir Ken Robinson's video this week is only the latest instance when we've been reminded that the notion of "school" as a "mechanistic process" or an "industrial production"--what it may have been during the 19th and 20th centuries--is no longer appropriate, if it ever was. But schools are still built to resemble factories! Newmann and Wehlage are entirely typical in being entirely blind to the role the physical environment plays in education; how the physical separation and isolation of schools creates literal as well as metaphorical "barriers" or "walls" between school and the community. One of the participants in the "What is Authentic Education" video even talks explicitly about the need to "break down the walls between the school and the community"--but only means it in the metaphorical sense. The idea of breaking down the actual walls is outside of his frame of reference--his ideology.
When I studied film, we talked about "ideology"--in the Marxist cultural criticism and semiotic senses. "Ideology" is a cultural construct which is so widely and deeply held that it becomes "naturalized". To those within an ideology, that which exists within it seems so entirely natural that it becomes invisible. It's not "just the way it is", it simply is--as if it always has been and always must be. This is how it seems to me that people (don't) "see" schools. They "are" the way they are because "that's how schools are". People glance at something and "see" a "school". The signifiers are so completely naturalized within the ideology in which those people exist that they are utterly transparent and they immediately "see" a "school". But they never stop to actually "look" at the thing and think about why it is the way it is and how it might be different.
Please try it as an exercise--actually look at schools you see, and wonder if they could be architecturally/physically different. How could they be more integrated with the community? How could they be designed and built differently so they're not mechanistic industrial factories, but places for 21st century teaching and learning? (One of the great failings of architects, planners, and policy/decision makers over the years has been their reluctance to listen to the people who actually use the urban environments, buildings, and facilities they design/build/operate. They've gotten better at it in recent years, but still need a push now and then--and as Sir Ken says (quoting Ben Franklin), there are immovable people, movable people, and people who move!)
CITATIONS:
- INTP. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTP.
- INTP Personality. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality.
- Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T.C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 19(1), 59-71. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/herrington.html.
- Woo, Y., Herrington, J., Agostinho, S., & Reeves, T.C. (2007). Implementing Authentic Tasks in Web-Based Learning Environments. Endcause Quarterly. #3, 2007. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/implementing-authentic-tasks-web-based-learning-environments.
- Constructivism (Philosophy of Education). (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education).
- Introduction to Inquiry-Based Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://calgaryscienceschool.blogspot.ca/2011/11/introduction-to-inquiry-based-learning.html.
- Designing Inquiry-Based Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://calgaryscienceschool.blogspot.ca/2009/09/designing-inquiry-based-learning.html
- Susan Cain: The Power of Introverts. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts
- Newmann, F.M. & Wehlage, G.G. (1993). Five Standards of Authentic Instruction. Educational Leadership. 50(7), 8-12. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr93/vol50/num07/Five-Standards-of-Authentic-Instruction.aspx
- Ken Robinson: How to escape education's death valley [video file, published 2013-05-10]. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX78iKhInsc.
- What is Authentic Learning? [video file, published 2013-09-06]. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNP7hv0d0Rk.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteYou made very strong arguments in support of introverts and for independent learning! Learning how to collaborate is important, but learning can also happen without a “team”. Learning to work independently is an important skill.
And I wonder (tiny side-track), are we ever truly alone in our learning? When people read books, they are – in a sense – interacting with an author. In creating a text, an author’s intended message will be interpreted differently by each reader because each reader has had different experiences, which will shape perspectives and alter the individual reader’s experience of the text. Thus, an author’s experiences and the reader’s experiences have connected. Is this collaboration in a different sense?
That being said, I do feel that learning collaborative skills is important because it is a reality – people need to know how to work together, at least to a certain extent. In a school setting, this is where differentiation can facilitate different learning styles. It is important to recognize that some people enjoy working with others all the time and interact easily and others do not. This is not a “fault” and there should be room for everyone’s style of learning to be validated. Introverts will likely pursue jobs that suit their need to work more independently. I can see many artists as being introverted. And though I do not profess to be an expert in this area, I believe that I have family members who would also fit in this category.
I’m excited to be moving in the direction of inquiry and problem-based learning environments, which should lend itself well to differentiating for students’ needs. Interestingly, in the Discipline-Based Rubric for Inquiry Studies (Galileo Education Network, 2013), collaboration and group work are not mentioned in the “Authenticity” category (Galileo Education Network, 2013, p. 1). The only mention of the term collaboration is under “Connecting with Expertise”, in which it states, “The teacher designs the task in collaboration with [experts], either directly or indirectly. The study requires adults to collaborate with one another and with students on the design and assessment of the study work” (Galileo Education Network, 2013, p. 4) “Team work” is mentioned in the “Beyond the School” category. Under the “Elaborated Communication” category it states, “Students have opportunities to negotiate the flow of conversation within small and large group discussions” (Galileo Education Network, 2013, p. 4).
It made me wonder why your son’s personality, which would influence his learning style, is not “encouraged and celebrated” (Cain, 2012) in a school that is affiliated with Galileo Education Network. In looking at the Connect Charter School’s website, however, goal five of the six Charter Goals is focused on collaboration: “Foster a culture of collaboration and caring relationships of mutual respect with students, staff members and parents sharing a passion for learning; together and from others, in the classroom, within the school and beyond” (CCS website). In my case, my daughters, also in Calgary, went to Westmount Charter School. Although I wasn’t necessarily fully been on board with all the parts of the charter, I knew that to get the things that I was fully in support of, I had to accept the other parts too.
Galileo Educational Network, (2013). Discipline-based rubric for inquiry studies. Retrieved from http://galileo.org/rubric.pdf
Cain, S. (2012). The Power of Introverts. TedTalks. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts
Connect Charter School, (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.connectcharter.ca/wordpress/our-charter/
Thanks, Mary--LOTS to chew on and think about in your thoughtful comments!
DeleteOn the side track, let's just say there's been considerable debate within "post-structuralism" about the idea of "the author", ever since Roland Barthes wrote his famous essay "The Death of the Author"...and leave THAT one to the side for now!
I think you're quite right that introverts will gravitate toward professional lives which suit their personalities (especially if they have the benefit of either being self-aware enough to understand that on their own, or--even better--have the kind of testing that's readily and cheaply available to help them understand the kinds of working lives that might suit them best.)
I shouldn't pick too much on Connect! As you experienced at Westmount (where we were also offered a spot, but HE chose CCS--largely, I think, because a couple of his best friends were going there), you have to "take the crunchy with the smooth" (as Billy Bragg put it in one of his songs). My son LOVES a lot of what Connect's inquiry-based approach provides: open-ended, student-generated avenues of exploration; complexity; being able to do "deep dives" into subjects, making "connections" across disciplines, and so on. It's only on the "learning is collaborative" side that it seems to be a less than ideal fit, and it's frustrating (for him and me!) to keep seeing comments to the effect that he "needs" to "work on" things that are are framed as flaws or shortcomings but in reality are simply inherent parts of an introverted personality--but this "bias" or "blind spot" is pretty much universal among extroverts!
Michael,
ReplyDeleteYour insights into authentic Inquiry learning raise many thought-provoking questions. I wish I had time to address them all. You referenced your “armchair psychoanalysis” previously on my blog. We need more individuals, sitting in armchairs, looking in and contributing their thinking. As in any profession, we often become ‘closed’ in our thinking and require a fresh and bold perspective. The perspective of an Inquiry parent should be appreciated and carefully considered. My heart broke when you recounted the struggles of your eldest child - his worry that people ‘don’t really know him’ resonated with me. The feeling that you are not understood is one of the worst impressions a child (or anyone for that matter) can have.
I have to agree with your assertion that some children can be ‘bulldozed’ in an inquiry setting. Inquiry by its very nature is a collaborative style of learning. However, inquiry is a method, a tool. We do not blame the paintbrush for the shortcomings of the artist. Teaching ‘Inquiry’ does not absolve teachers of their duty to be aware of, respect and accommodate for difference in their classrooms. Over the last 15 years, I have taught many ‘lone wolf’ learners. Different learning styles should be embraced, celebrated and accommodated for – not browbeaten into the mainstream. Ken Robinson (2013) asserts that education must be a human system, not a mechanical one, and that honoring, difference, curiosity and creativity leads to authentic and engaging learning. When a pupil chooses to work independently, they should be able to. A balance can be struck between collaborative and individual work. As teachers we must respect this choice, not belittle it. We must honour who they are; not try to mold them, into who we think they should be.
At my school, we became aware of this Inquiry ‘blind-spot’ you so rightly described. We began using Personality Dimensions (http://www.personalitydimensions.com), which is based on Personality Temperament Theory. It considers the characteristics of different personalities and learning styles and the influence each has on collaboration and negotiation. You are an “Inquiring Green” – scientific, academic and introverted. I am a split between a “Resourceful Orange” and an “Authentic Blue”, a social creature with a ‘let’s get it done’ attitude, also concerned with everyone getting along while ‘doing it’. We have used this framework to improve collaboration and negotiation as we work in our grade teams. Our next step will be learning to recognize these traits in our learners, thereby allowing us to tailor inquiry and collaborative efforts to suit individual learning styles. I have not entirely decided how I feel about sorting people by ‘colours’ and am by no means advocating this particular approach, but I do think that our intentions are worthy.
As teachers, we must become more skilled at recognizing the different personalities and preferences of the learners in our classrooms. Understanding who they are enables us to employ strategies to meet their learning needs and to more effectively bring different ‘thinkers’ together when collaboration is required. Jardine (1999 – 2011) compares inquiry-based teaching to a garden, which invites all learners, despite their differences. However, effective Inquiry, like a garden, must be carefully tended to. Teaching Inquiry does not absolved teachers of their responsibility to recognize, celebrate and nurture difference. Teaching inquiry means knowing your learners and shaping the learning landscape in the garden accordingly.
Thank you for making your thinking visible to me this week,
Cheers,
Colleen
References:
Jardine, D. (1999-2011). On the nature of inquiry: Choosing a topic. Retrieved from http://www.galileo.org/tips/inquiry_topic.html
Robinson, Ken. (2013, May 10). Ted Talk: How to Escape Education’s Death Valley. [Video blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX78iKhInsc#t=12
Thanks VERY much, Colleen--I truly appreciate your thoughtful and generous comments!
DeleteI share your reservations about overly simple or facile categorizations of us all--be it by colour or 4 letters...but that said, when I read the best non-propretiary description of Inquiring Greens that I could find it was like reading my (auto)biography--wow, is it on the mark in describing me!
I shouldn't be overly critical of the practices and people at CCS. My son LOVES a lot about being there--the open-ended, student-generated, complex, longer-term, deep exploration, the acknowledgement of diverse process and outcomes, and all that good stuff. But the strong emphasis on the idea that learning is collaborative gives us pause in terms of his experience and gives me pause more broadly speaking about something which seems so fundamentally integral--as you say, by its very nature--to inquiry-based learning.
In a (rather sad) nutshell, it seems that our present culture (perhaps especially acutely in "can-do", "positivist" Calgary!) is fundamentally biased against introverts. We just have to live with the constant barrage from not only extroverted people around us, but an entire culture which prizes extroversion and "positive thinking" (Lord, how I hate that term, and how I loved Oliver Burkeman's book, "The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking!), and constantly treats introverts as if there's something "wrong" with us...sigh.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteWe connected on footie so I will throw this against the wall and see if it sticks. Being an INFP, I had great joy in seeing this Star Wars Meyers Briggs poster. It puts things in perspective for me.
You insights into collaboration were profound. Personality types are often that forgotten piece in teamwork, especially on staffs that look to transition from group to team. Too often, the idea of contemplation, quiescence, and consideration are characterized as apathy by others. Though I have view Susan Cain’s video, I am excited to see it after seeing your reference and explanation.
In relating to schools, this past year, I took over for my principal (6 mo. illness) covering the day to day admin operations from January to June. Wow--how my vision of a school changed. I started noticing things, walls, hallways, behaviours, paint chips that I had never seen before since now the school was under my leadership. Based on this, I see the power that future schools boards and archtitects have in creating truly amazing, collaborative, community, educational facilities in years to come, however, it will take risk. It will take risk in avoiding, as you mentioned, “what’s always been done” perspective and encouraging change. I am excited for it.
And finally relating to inquiry, Edwards (1997) argues “inquiry will need to be properly conceptualized and publicized”. How can teachers and admin do this to build schools that promote, build, and learn through inquiry?
Clifford H. Edwards
"Promoting Student Inquiry." The Science Teacher, Vol. 64, No. 7, October 1997, pp. 18, 20-21.
Starwars links didn't work... here it is. http://www.geekinheels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/star_wars_mbti.png
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jordan! The Star Wars Myers-Briggs chart made me laugh out loud...and I just had to share it immediately on Facebook. (Yoda, I am!)
ReplyDeleteIt takes an IN_P to know one! You're so right about how our way of being in the world is so often misunderstood, misconstrued, and misrepresented by (well-meaning, but simply non-understanding) extroverts. They often perceive not only apathy, but even outright arrogance, hostility, or resistance--which simply aren't present or true!
You're absolutely right that it will take tremendous risk-acceptance to fundamentally rethink how schools might be designed in the future. But (as an INTP) I can SEE all of the potentially incredible opportunities, outcomes, and benefits--I just have to go through the laborious work, so alien to us INTPs--of getting other people to the same place--LOL)
Your final question REALLY got me thinking. There's a veritable explosion of literature around "design thinking" which shares a lot with inquiry--you might want to look into it a bit. In an ideal world, architects (and other designers) THEORETICALLY follow a process quite similar to inquiry as they develop designs (at least they're taught to in school, but that kind of thinking often tends to be shunted aside in the workplace). You got me thinking that it would be FASCINATING to bring together some of the most creative and thoughtful minds in architecture with leading "experts" in inquiry (maybe with a facilitator who "speaks" both professional "languages" and can translate between the two at least until they have a common vocabulary and do the "conceptualization" part of the work). The really important subsequent step would then be for those people to form a team to do the publicization part of the process.
I've seen some AMAZING things come out of "design charrettes", where a team of facilitators like that bring together all of the various stakeholders (teachers, administrators, office staff, operational staff, parents, students, community leaders/representatives, neighbors, school board officials, city planners, and so on) for guided/facilitated discussion--sometimes very "blue sky" conversation, sometimes much more focused/practical. You'd be amazed at what kinds of things people can come up with if they're asked to participate and assured that no idea is too crazy!
(I have to post my response in two parts--too long for Blogger! Pleases see the second bit as well.)
It's a step-by-step process, I guess (I'm thinking as write--or is that writing as I think?). You're absolutely right that a clear concept is the first step. Publicizing the concept and getting "buy-in" comes next. Once people are on board with the CONCEPT, they can start working together to come up with plans to build/implement the concept.
ReplyDeleteI'll conclude my thoughts on your closing question (lest I ramble on forever) by cutting and pasting part of what I wrote on Colleen's blog this week. She touched on the phrase "breaking down the walls between school and community" that was mentioned in one of the videos. I think it's relevant to your question about building a new or different kind of school:
I realize there would be a zillion objections (security, etc, etc, etc) to the idea--but it seems nobody is LITERALLY thinking "outside the box"--the PHYSICAL box of schools. Why CAN'T we have some sort of "integrated campus", where "school", "library" (academic AND public), community (resource) centre, job (re)training, adult education, arts/culture/recreation facilities, other community resources (police? fire?), maybe even some "appropriate" commercial business, and so on all reside on the same grounds or "campus"????? (The cost efficiencies alone would be amazing...and the campus itself could be "educational"--community gardens, all kinds of "green building" stuff, etc) THEN school could/would truly be "connected to" or "integrated with" all SORTS of other good stuff--and there could be zillions of opportunities for "authentic" learning and countless avenues for inquiry. Or am I just thinking WAY too far "outside the box" and heretically???