More on Prensky
Dear Kelly, as usual, your recent post is deeply thoughtful. So is your comment to my previous post. That said, I don't feel like you've quite captured why people are supporting Prensky on this topic of engaging students. For example, in your post you cite this quote from Chris Lehmann:
I used to say to my English classes, 'Hey, on a warm spring day, I'd rather be outside playing Ultimate frisbee than teaching English, but we all have to be here, so let's find a way to make it meaningful.' The flaw in Prensky's article is that there is a difference between recreation and work.
No one's arguing against English. What we're discussing is the importance of meaningfulness and how you get there. It's awfully difficult to teach in a non-engaging way but still impart meaning. Why? Because you can't get anyone's attention. Folks can rail about the injustice of that all they want, but it's reality.
As I noted in my post, and as any gamer can tell you, good video games are hard work. They also happen to be fun and engaging at the same time. It doesn't have to be either one or the other. As Jim Collins would say, visionary organizations "do not oppress themselves with ... the 'Tyranny of the OR'" but rather recognize that we can have both at the same time. What Prensky and others are advocating is that we understand that students have the opportunity at home through video games and other technological experiences to do work that is both hard AND engaging. Then they head to school where too often the work is just hard (or perceived as irrelevant) but NOT engaging. But we expect students to do the work anyway, and then we get frustrated because they push back or tune out.
I don't think anyone is arguing against struggle. I don't think anyone is arguing that some stuff is 'difficult and mundane.' I don't think anyone is telling kids that life is like a video game or is 'confusing fun with life skills' or thinks that we should 'just let kids play until they're 21 and then see what happens.' What we are noting (as do you) is that there are ways of teaching that make the difficult and mundane more interesting, more engaging, and more relevant. There are ways of teaching that go beyond simply blaming kids for their inattention and put more of the ownership for student learning on us. This is a very similar theme to what we're seeing in the data-driven decision-making arena: schools that take greater ownership of and responsibility for their students' learning end up with better student learning outcomes than those that simply say, "Well, we taught it. Now it's up to the kids." The bottom line is, if the kid isn't learning, your instruction isn't successful. If you have to be more engaging to make it happen, so be it. That's part of teachers' jobs: to be interesting and engaging enough to capture and keep kids' attention on the learning task and to be able to explain the relevance and meaning of the task sufficiently to motivate kids to work.
People work hard when they find meaning in the task. This is true in school. This is true in life. Yes, there's some mundanity in life, but I think it's tough to argue that mundanity is a desirable aspect of schooling, one we should be arguing to retain. If the task to be done today is mundane but will pay off for kids later, it's our responsibility as educators to explain that to kids in such a way that they buy into it. Just telling them it will be good for them later, and then getting frustrated because we don't get buy-in, doesn't cut it. Again, that's our fault, not theirs.
You note in your comment that the lecture and note method is out of style in most classrooms. I wonder if most people would agree with you. I know from the hundreds of schools that I've personally visited that worksheets are by no means out of style. I know that teaching the same thing to all kids, regardless of whether some kids are ready for it or whether some kids already know it, is still predominant. I see a lot of teachers that are seemingly trying hard to engage kids but still haven't found the magic formula. When this happens, it seems that we have two choices: keep trying to figure out the answer or blame the kids. And while many teachers keep plugging and keep looking for new solutions (including those that involve technology and/or gaming), many begin to blame the kids. It's these latter educators that I think all of these Prensky advocates are arguing about. I love this recent Seth Godin post: "We've 'tried everything,' by which we mean we've tried a few things that everyone else has done as long as they didn't involve doing anything differently from what we normally do." For many educators, he hits it right on the head.
All of this has always been true. What is different now (and why Prensky's article is so salient) is that until recently kids didn't have anything to compare teachers' instruction against except other teachers. Now they have these high-powered learning environments called video games that are purposefully designed to keep kids' brains in their own individualized zones of proximal development. The subject matter may be questionable, but the intentional cognitive engagement that is occurring is not. Personally, I'm not certain that most teachers can ever compete against that. But we have to try if we're going to stay relevant to students. We can't expect them to pay attention to us just because we want them to. Discarding rigor or difficulty is not the answer. Finding the right balance of engaging activities (or technologies) to ensure student attention is the answer. Again, to come back to Seth Godin's quote in my previous post, it's not the kids' fault that we don't have their attention. It's ours. How do we know when we're successful? Not when we say we are but when the kids' actions show we are.
I've read your post and your comment each half a dozen times now. I don't know if we're that far apart but I wanted to at least note where I think we may differ. Maybe you've been blessed with a good teaching staff. Maybe you see less of this because you're a great administrator. From your blog writing, I'm guessing that this is true. But there still are a lot of teachers who blame students for their lack of engagement and their lack of learning. They may not be the majority, but there are enough of them to be concerning (to me at least). I can't quite tell if you're okay with that or not (for example, you note that at age 14 it's awfully hard to get kids to respond to anything). I'm willing to say that it's our fault, not that of the students, and that we have multiple examples (including Chris Lehmann's own school) where middle and high schools have found ways to keep adolescents meaningfully engaged with course content. And, yes, in some of those schools they're recognizing that technology is not a prerequisite but can be a powerful helper.
You asked what in my own life I've found useful from my schooling experience. I was fortunate to have enough good teachers in my life (both K-12 and higher ed) to
- instill in me a love of learning and a loathing of seemingly-meaningless work;
Here's what I'm struggling to see: Why are folks arguing so hard for
boredom? Why are folks arguing so hard for mundanity and slogging
through? Why can't we escape 'the Tyranny of the OR?' In my own life I've found that the more my work is also recreational, the more I like it. It's not that I'm engaged in recreation instead of work. It's that my work becomes more recreation-like (i.e., fun, engaging, interesting). If people work at it, align things right, and maybe get a little lucky, the difference between recreation and work can be awfully slim and life can be rewarding and energizing. There's tremendous power in being in a job that seems like play because you like it so much!
Thanks for your thoughtful extension of the conversation. I am highly enjoying your blog and appreciate your willingness to think both deeply and publicly about leadership issues. We need more principal bloggers like you. I don't know if any of us are adding anything new to the discussion, but I'm guessing that those of us who are having the conversation are probably learning at least a little bit.
Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!
As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.
A new method promises to capture an elusive dark world particle.
- Scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) devised a method for trapping dark matter particles.
- Dark matter is estimated to take up 26.8% of all matter in the Universe.
- The researchers will be able to try their approach in 2021, when the LHC goes back online.
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?
But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.
What's dead may never die, it seems
The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.
BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.
The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.
As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.
The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.
"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.
An ethical gray matter
Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.
The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.
Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.
Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?
"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."
One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.
The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.
"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.
It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.
Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?
The dilemma is unprecedented.
Setting new boundaries
Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."
She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.
- As a stand-up comedian, Pete Holmes knows how words can manipulate audiences — for good and bad.
- Words aren't just words. They stich together our social fabric, helping establish and maintain relationships.
- Holmes has a clever linguistic exercise meant to bring you closer to the people around you.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.