Looking Back
My summer began with my purchase of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. When the book finally arrived and I dove in and started reading I honestly had to check my email to see if I’d started reading the wrong book! Why would a course called “technology and leadership” have me reading a book about ancient scientific insights, the chemical makeup of planets or the possible existence of alien life forms? The fact that the purpose of reading the book was never directly stated made it all the more mysterious. There were no questions to guide us, no papers to write with prompts hinting at the most important ideas of the book. The fact that the message was left up to our own interpretation was as powerful as it was enigmatic.
The first day of summer session never even mentioned the book, which further perplexed me and made me wonder- why did we read this? Then Punya gave us our first World of Wonder where he showed us two pictures he had taken, one of bubbles in a pot and one of clouds in the sky. Ordinary pictures really, nothing exciting at all, but he made them wondrous. He asked questions about everyday, ordinary things. The idea that he was looking at something that no one else would notice- that was a compelling notion.
My team was tasked with presenting the first world of wonder to the class the next day. I could not google “world of wonder” pictures. It was not searchable and could only be discovered through authentic observation and creative thought. I found myself looking at literally everything in my house and wondering if there were any questions I could come up with about that object’s existence. I started thinking about the book again to see if there was a connection between what I read in Cosmos and the World of Wonder, to see if I could harness any ideas from it. My personal takeaway from the book was that of perspective and the reality that there are layers that are larger and smaller than the layer we can perceive. I looked at my record player and wondered- how does that work? I researched pictures of records online and found that when you look at them through an electron microscope those tiny grooves look as large as the Grand Canyon. I found pictures of brain cells that had architecture like trees in a vast forest. I found a picture of cheek cells that you’d swear were pictures taken in deep space of stars and other galaxies. I realized that the dimension and scale of my investigation changes what I see entirely. If I were to look at the Grand Canyon from space, for example, I might think it looks much like that groove on the record I was looking at in my living room. Therefore, if we change our perception- if we change the way we look at something- we might see something entirely different.
This idea of looking with fresh eyes, of looking for wonder in the everyday was my greatest takeaway from the summer. Suddenly there was another layer of the world to investigate that had been hiding in plain sight. The class was all I could think about when I got home and I was eager to share what I had learned with my husband. When we were asked to find letterforms around the city for the Alphabits assignment: in sidewalks, architecture, plants, again we were forced to look at the world through a specific new lens. Long after this assignment ended I still find myself looking for my assigned letters in my daily life. How can I create an experience for my students that’s as rich and enduring as these experiences were for me? How can I create a layer of mystery and intrigue to guide them as they uncover the scientific principles of neuroscience?
In order for my class to really connect with students and matter to them on a deeper level I have to stir up my own sense of wonder and curiosity about the world so that I can teach my students to look at the world with the disciplinary lens of a chemist or a neuroscientist. In order to do this it is important for me to begin to cultivate my own creative mindset by looking into different disciplines and my personal interests and passions as sources of inspiration. Mishra and Henriksen agree that successful teachers see creativity as “… not a generic or detached skill but a mindset that affects how they see the world” (2013). To begin to discover one’s inner creativity they suggest, “Teachers might stimulate their creativity by deliberately- perhaps for 10 minutes a day- observing the world around them, keeping their eyes open for new ideas.” Making an effort to see the world differently in my everyday life made me start to see connections with neuroscience and other disciplines that I had never thought about before. Being mindful and deliberate about thinking creatively has given me such a proliferation of new, inventive ideas that I feel like I’m teaching for the first time again. Thinking about how I can change the way a student sees rather than just how they think is a radical idea for me. It felt authentic to learn in this way- to construct, be creative, look around with a new eye and a motivation to see something I did not see before that I might want to investigate. Even as a science teacher I am not sure I ever felt truly like I could be a scientist because I felt like I did not know how to ask the right questions. This made me see that we are all scientists with questions about the world if only we are given the right environment and tools to foster our creativity.
This summer also made me consider the “user experience” of my classroom and my general approach to covering the required chemistry topics during the course of the year. Mishra and Henriksen agree that the user experience for students matters, “Open-mindedness also means considering other people’s perspectives. A creative teacher imagines him or herself in the position of students, asking how a particular class or group of students would want to learn something and what methods could make a topic interesting for that group” (2013). How can I make Neuroscience or Chemistry relevant to my students? How can I make a lesson about molecular cascades or neuronal signaling tangible and accessible for them? The tools we were given over the summer: Quickfire challenges, MacGyver challenges, video assignments, performances in the form of skits or writing songs, MakerSpaces, photo assignments, designing many pieces of art to express ideas- all of these will allow me to create a dynamic and engaging class that my students will be excited to come into everyday. There was an enthusiasm that I brought with me to class everyday because I never knew what to expect. We were not taking notes and writing papers or taking tests. We were creating something new using technology and collaborating with our teams everyday. As an MSUrbanstem student, I felt for the first time I was experiencing the future of education. It is revolutionary because the focus was not just about how to creatively get students to learn pieces of information. The focus was really on what students could DO with that knowledge once they attained it so that true understanding could take place. The focus on creative assessments as a way to guide me in my practice to create enduring understanding in my students is something that I am excited to implement in my own classroom. As we discussed in class, I want students to see the world as malleable and see themselves as agents of change.
Looking Forward
These newfound ideas influence me as a future educator because I seek to inspire my students the way that MSUrbanstem has inspired me and demand more of my students intellectually so they can feel the exhilaration of performing mental gymnastics and the creative explosion that I felt this summer. I also feel compelled to share these tools and ideas with others at my school and beyond and to collaborate with teachers outside of my subject area so that I can design more genuine assessments. This experience changes how I think about teaching because it makes me think about how I can influence student thinking on the deepest of levels so they can extend what they learn to new situations and take the disciplinary lens of my content area with them for the rest of their lives. I care a lot more about what students can DO with the knowledge they are given and I plan to use that to guide the importance I place on a given topic.
In my school there is an emphasis on covering many topics- of breadth over depth. Watson and Kopnicek argue, “In too many classrooms across the US, science is skill taught as a cohesive set of facts to be absorbed and children are viewed as blank slates on which teachers are to write” (1990). Perhaps this was important in a time when information was not as available as it is at present. However, in the technologically advanced society we are currently in, just knowing facts without seeing their connection and application to the real-world is useless. Watson and Kopnicek consider an alternative approach, “It is definitely a process of uncovering rather than covering.” This sentence really reverberated with me. I am only truly teaching my discipline if I can design lessons that are engaging and require students to peel back the layers in order to understand. Teaching a set of facts and definitions without context or connection to other disciplines and student experiences is not only boring but ineffective! I must design my lessons with an authentic and creative assessment in mind so that my teaching will be rooted in the solving of this real-world investigation. To build true understanding, assessments “have to take students beyond what they already know” (Perkins and Blythe, 1994). I plan to design performances of understanding that go far beyond what an exam or quiz could ever assess. Changing the assessments changes the focus of the class from memorization of definitions and sets of facts to true understanding of the wonder of the world. I now realize that if the assessments do not change then the true focus of my class cannot change either. Maybe this is the piece I have always been missing in my practice.
In my school there is an emphasis on covering many topics- of breadth over depth. Watson and Kopnicek argue, “In too many classrooms across the US, science is skill taught as a cohesive set of facts to be absorbed and children are viewed as blank slates on which teachers are to write” (1990). Perhaps this was important in a time when information was not as available as it is at present. However, in the technologically advanced society we are currently in, just knowing facts without seeing their connection and application to the real-world is useless. Watson and Kopnicek consider an alternative approach, “It is definitely a process of uncovering rather than covering.” This sentence really reverberated with me. I am only truly teaching my discipline if I can design lessons that are engaging and require students to peel back the layers in order to understand. Teaching a set of facts and definitions without context or connection to other disciplines and student experiences is not only boring but ineffective! I must design my lessons with an authentic and creative assessment in mind so that my teaching will be rooted in the solving of this real-world investigation. To build true understanding, assessments “have to take students beyond what they already know” (Perkins and Blythe, 1994). I plan to design performances of understanding that go far beyond what an exam or quiz could ever assess. Changing the assessments changes the focus of the class from memorization of definitions and sets of facts to true understanding of the wonder of the world. I now realize that if the assessments do not change then the true focus of my class cannot change either. Maybe this is the piece I have always been missing in my practice.
Bibliography
Henriksen, D.; Mishra P. (2013). Learning from creative teachers. Educational Leadership (70) 5.
Perkins, D.; Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership (51) 5 p 4-7.
Watson, B.; Kopnicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptual change: Confronting children’s experience. Phi Delta Kappan, p. 680 – 684.
Perkins, D.; Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership (51) 5 p 4-7.
Watson, B.; Kopnicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptual change: Confronting children’s experience. Phi Delta Kappan, p. 680 – 684.