February 5, 2013 at 5:52 am, by Carl

Check out these three articles from 2005.  Good stuff here.

 

Change or Die

 

First, try this on for size from Fast Company, my favorite business magazine.  The article is called “Change or Die.”  Provocative, huh?   Within it, the writers present a scary notion for educators (though we were never the target audience).  In the end, when I consider what it is I (we?) attempt to do in the classroom, it is to open minds and eyes to new material and hopefully help students learn or, perhaps better stated, change their worldview in light of the new knowledge.  Of course, the knowledge could sustain what they already believe, but even that would really be a change.  Yet the scary truth is that most people REFUSE to change (and yes that includes you and me).

 

Why do we refuse to change?   First, our brains work on Frames of ideas:  “The big challenge in trying to change how people think is that their minds rely on frames, not facts.”Neuroscience tells us that each of the concepts we have — the long-term concepts that structure how we think — is instantiated in the synapses of the brain,” [George] Lakoff [professor of cognitive science and linguistics at UC-Berkley] says. “Concepts are not things that can be changed just by someone telling us a fact. We may be presented with facts, but for us to make sense of them, they have to fit what is already in the synapses of the brain. Otherwise, facts go in and then they go right back out. They are not heard, or they are not accepted as facts, or they mystify us: Why would anyone have said that? Then we label the fact as irrational, crazy, or stupid.” Lakoff says that’s one reason why political conservatives and liberals each think that the other side is nuts. They don’t understand each other because their brains are working within different frames.”

 

Secondly, for change (learning!) to take place, there must be support (can anyone say “learning communities?”) and the change often must be sweeping, powerful and provocatively stated.  Is there any hope to keep our brains flexible enough to embrace new change?  Yes and the answer is right up our alley—learning.  The authors quote Dr. Michael Merzenich, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, who says that the brain can change forever. Merzenich is a leading neuroscientists and he says that being constantly open to learning is the key.  “Unless you work on it, brain fitness often begins declining at around age 30 for men, a bit later for women. “People mistake being [physically] active for continuous learning,” Merzenich says. “The machinery is only activated by learning. People think they’re leading an interesting life when they haven’t learned anything in 20 or 30 years. My suggestion is learn Spanish or the oboe.””  He goes on to suggest a radical thought being implemented by some revolutionary companies called “fifth day” in which each person goes to work in another area every fifth day.  What if, at Valencia, professors and support staff had to take over one another’s job for a day every other week or so?  Not in a gimmick to make people smile, but in a way that forced us to keep learning and also making us more open to the situation of others.  Perhaps after sitting at a receptionist desk, some professors might become more patient with admin tasks or perhaps having to stand in front of a class teaching math when your skill is English might open some conversations about learning between colleagues.

 

The kicker?  If you stop learning, then you have a 50/50 chance at dementia.  So, a person who refuses to change is thus really admitting that they have stopped learning and that basically leads to the forgetful place none of us wish to go.

 

IQ on the Rise

 

Wired Magazine wasn’t to be left out in 2005, writing on the rise of IQ scores.    The part that really caught my eye was the tag line—“Why are IQ test scores rising around the globe? (Hint: Stop reading great authors and start playing Grand Theft Auto).”  Since I had just finished an active learning experiment using a computer game in my Western Civ history class, I was struck.  Basically, the authors point to a series of research on the issue that have come to the conclusion that while education scores of test are not improving (we all knew that, right?) g was improving and in doing so, IQ test and such were improving.  The early answer to why (still in speculation and being tested) has a lot to do with leisure, discretionary income and our societal goals.  The point is that with all of the massive changes in technology over the past 50 years, we have had to learn by “scrutinizing a changing set of icons, looking for patterns and correlations.  This is not the kind of thinking that happens when you read a book or have a conversation with someone or take a history exam [ouch!].  But it is precisely the kind of mental work you do when you, say struggle to program a VCR or master the interface on your new cell phone.”  The authors go on to say exactly what Dr. Jim Gee is saying all over the place—“the best example of brain-boosting media may be videogames.”

 

So now I’m really thinking—here’s even more proof that how we do learning still has tons of change to come.  Not only am I seeing that what we do is so valuable (who really wants dementia?), but the cutting edge of how is improving general intelligence.  Is it possible that the reason educational test scores lag behind because WE HAVE NOT made significant changes to HOW we do what we do?

 

 

Flat World

 

Well, just past that article lay another stunner, this one on Thomas Friedman’s book, The World is Flat.    Of course, you remember I just posted about Friedman here on his latest book, but back in 2005, he showed that the world has long since caught up and we Americans simply are not ready.  We’ve grown far too lazy.  Too entitled!  We all know that having been in a classroom; trying to get students to embrace learning is such a chore because they honestly do not think it matters to their future.  But here, not only am I seeing that it could help them avoid the sad days of Alzheimer’s, but could help them avoid a lifetime of low hourly wages, or worse.  Friedman quotes Shirley Ann Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute saying the US is in “a quiet crisis” Friedman goes on to say “If we don’t change [there’s that word again] course now and buckle down in a flat world, the kind of competition our kids will face will be intense and the social implications of not repairing things will be enormous.”  Later he touches again on education when asked what he thinks we should tell our kids: “When I was growing up, my parents told me, “Finish your dinner. People in China and India are starving.” I tell my daughters, “Finish your homework. People in India and China are starving for your job.””

 

But again, what if his daughter turns to him complaining of some lame excuse of a homework project that is better suited for the 1950s than 2005?  What is he to say?  Can you see how important our job is becoming?  Literally you can build a case for the security and future of our nation riding on our shoulders.  But how do we make such a change?  And what change?  Is the change merely to take all education onto an online framework?  Does real learning even take place there?  Is it better simply because its free?

 

These are the questions we should have been asking in 2005, questions we need answers for now in 2013.