Does Pink validate your beliefs of the world that we live in today, or for what the future holds for our students? Do you agree with Dr. Stager's assertion that " too many of the Web 2.0/School 2.0 community have given up on the promise of school. Media mashups and video games are discussed as substitutes for the discipline and powerful ideas required to play an instrument, write a novel, build a mathematical model, design a computer application, construct a robot, or make sense of a rapidly changing world." How does Daniel Pink shape your vision for 21st Century learning? How does Gary Stager? What does all of this have to do with our discussion of integrating multimedia on your classroom?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Conceptual Age - reflection
By now you should have read Part 1 - The Conceptual Age from A Whole New Mind by Daniel Pink. Dr. Gary Stager has spoken out critically about the evangelism of Daniel Pink by the educational community. Please read his current blog posting regarding Daniel Pink and his Keynote delivery at the Pennsylvania Educational Technology Expo & Conference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Last night I finished reading Daniel Pink’s book and found myself completely occupied with its argument and assertions. I had heard the book referenced numerous times from various Ed Tech gurus as David Warlick, Will Richardson and Alan November—the same individuals that Gary Stager criticizes in his blog attacking Pink’s work. I have read many of the books that Dr. Stager characterizes as pseudoscience, evangelical, and prosperity theology, including Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Who Moved My Cheese?, Good to Great, and the World is Flat, and found it interesting that one of the few individuals Dr. Stager seemed to offer as someone to repudiate these neuvo-business prosperity theologians was Sylvia Martinez. Is she even an academic scholar? I started to read her blog, but truthfully did not have the patience or time to read someone regurgitating Stager’s argument.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, as I began to read Dr. Stager’s blog I immediately questioned my own positive impressions and general agreement with Pink’s work. Having spent 10 years as a classroom teacher, I have often felt frustrated by various individuals who my district pays a small fortune to speak to the faculty. I have often found these individuals to have relatively little experience in the actual trenches of public education, and have often found that much of their skills are not in the actual pedagogy they promote as new, effective and necessary, but rather in their ability to articulate a simple and logical agenda and promote it as something new and transformative. Bena Kallick and her Habits of Mind is our district’s most recent example of this frustration. Simply, I can understand and appreciate the hesitation and skepticism one might feel to have an individual without any educational credentials, particularly instructional experience, promote an agenda that challenges the status quo.
With that said, I found Dr. Stager’s critique failed to deliver any substantial value. (I also found his website to be a bit of a joke as it struck me as the very self indulgent bullshit he is critical of Pink and others for). In fact, his lengthy diatribe sounded more like an envious elementary school student, rather than a true educational scholar offering an alternative to Pink’s work. Pink makes clear that both sides of the brain need to be utilized in order for the next generation of workers to successfully compete in this “Conceptual Age”. The assertion by Stager (and Martinez) that he is attacking successful individuals in careers that have historically required a greater emphasis on right-brain attributes is absurd. He is simply making the case that tomorrow’s workers need to be innovators and creative thinkers. Exclusively emphasizing rote memorization, standardized test scores and traditional skills deemed necessary to be successful is no longer enough to guarantee success.
It is hard to argue that public education, particularly in urban areas, has had difficulty maintaining the arts in their curriculum. Moreover, the fact that many white collar middle class jobs have been outsourced to India and China to workers that can perform these tasks much cheaper is undeniable. I think what I found so profound about Pink’s work was its simplicity. After reading his book, it simply struck me as a no-brainer. Sure, he is probably making a small forture, for which Stager is critical, but most of the book is logical given the economic realities of globalization.
Historically, the U.S. has stood at the forefront of innovation, which has translated into material prosperity and economic abundance. If we are going to continue to lead the world we must alter our present educational doctrine, accept global economic realities and encourage the type of innovation and creativity that will continue to provide wealth and professional satisfaction to our next generation of workers.
As an educator today, if you do not understand or foresee that we preparing today’s students for careers that do not exist yet, than our educational system is in grave danger, as our pedagogy is dated. In the last several years, what I have found so frustrating with some of my colleagues is there unwillingness to learn something new, change and adapt to the 21st century. As a result, I see pockets of excellence with respect to instruction in schools today. I find this scary, as a 20th century approach to instruction and public education will do little to prepare students for the realities they are soon face in their professional careers.
Make no mistake, I certainly advocate and believe it necessary to instill the traditional skills that have occupied much of the instructional experience to date. I think accountability and standardized tests are generally a good think. After reading A Whole New Mind it was clear to me that Pink does as well. However, today’s educational experience must include more than these traditional skills to master that become reflected on a standardized test. In essence, today’s student must be able to do more than previous generations of students were asked to master. I believe this was the core of Pink’s argument. The next generation of workers must be able to tap into their left brain skills if they are going to achieve the same level of wealth and professional success as previous generations. On the surface this seems to be quite a task, but one that can be achieved with the innovation and creativity that Pink and others are calling for our educational leaders to promote.
In reading, A Whole New Mind and the beliefs of Dr. Gary Stager on his blog, I can see many valid points that are made. There are things that both Daniel Pink and Dr. Stager make valid points about.
ReplyDeleteWhen first reading the conceptual age many of his theories make sense. He speaks about the people that are L-brained and R-brained. Scientifically L-brained people have more logic abilities where the R-brained people are more creative. Currently, the majority of the populations’ occupations are dominantly L-brained such as accountants, engineers, lawyers, etc. R-brained occupations consist of interior designers, actors, fashion designers, artists, etc. There are few occupations that use both such as architecture, graphic design, educators, etc. I believe that Daniel Pink is trying to get the point across that in the future there will be more occupations such as these that use both hemispheres of the brain; I also believe this as well. One can just see the increase in job descriptions from 1920 to 2000, imagine how many there will be within the next 50 years.
Dr. Gary Stager doesn’t agree with any of Pink’s ideas. I get it. I too have to listen to people who are not educators. In my district we have a math representative that has not ever taught math or know math. I can definitely relate to Dr. Stager. The fact that he is also a Dr. makes me think that he is frustrated that possibly Pink makes more money than he does. Pink is not saying that we should be totally R-brained but that we should use both. Like the saying goes “Having the best of both worlds”.
I believe Stager jumps at every point Pink makes but we have to face the facts that skills that use to be taught in the past are no longer required, such as memorization and computational skills. I remember having remembered all of my friend and family members phone numbers if we were to ask the ‘typical’ student what their home phone number was they would probably know it but if you asked them what their father and/or mother’s cell phone number is they would need to look in their address book in their cell phones. Cell phones have omitted many skills. Why mentally estimate what deal is better at a grocery store if you can calculate it in your cell phone. I hate admitting to this, especially as mathematics teacher, but I have accepted these changes. Now I want to learn about what skills students will need for the future in order to be successful in this new age so that I can use many varities of teaching and technologies to implement these skills.
There was a point in Pink’s books that made me a believer. He asked the reader to decipher between three different fonts, I was not shocked that I actually new all three, what shocked me most is that in my every day duties of using the computer I subconsciously acquired a skill of differentiation between fonts.
The way to infuse students with both R and L-brained abilities is in technology. For example, video games, students both use their creativity to open doors, jump on objects, etc. as well as use logic abilities to put together puzzles and figure out what needs to be done in order to get to the next level. There are many ways to use technology to create a fun and healthy way of learning and exercising both hemispheres of the brains, they key is what is the best way to utilize and manifest it in your content area.
I couldn’t help but laugh when you used Dr. Gary Stager as an argument against Daniel Pink. I sat behind Gary at last year’s NYSCATE Metro Conference during the keynote address. Now I cannot remember the name of the person who spoke but Stager was making snarky comments during the whole speech. He actually used many of the same arguments he brought up against Pink. I have attended two of Stager’s workshops at conferences, I think he is a smart guy with a lot to offer but his place in the ed tech community is to play the devil’s advocate. His role is much needed, I believe too many ideas get bounced around the ed tech community’s echo chamber.
ReplyDeleteI think education has gotten into the position it is currently in because we listen too often to just educational scholars. We are seeing the convergence of so many different fields like no other time in our history. Education is colliding with business, music with computers, art with math.
I don’t think Pink is speaking to pedagogy style specifically when he gives keynotes. The “business” books usually do a good job of putting things in a global context. I think business was the first to truly compete in a global context so it has more experience and m ore to speak to than education.
Stager says Pink hasn’t run a business but what Gary is missing is Pink has sold the quintessential 21st century commodity, entertainment through ideas and discussion. What sells more prolifically in the digital age than ideas?
Stager talks about the economic fear mongering but look at the dire situation areas like Ohio and Michigan are dealing with. Students in these areas are not going to take over their parents’ factory jobs. These students need to be prepared for a new world and economic future. Stager actually used this economic fear mongering line at the conference I saw him. There comes a point where you can’t ignore discrepancies in imports over exports and student visa from foreign countries. I don’t believe economics should drive education. We should create citizens not employees. But what does a citizen look like in this day and age and what are they a citizen of? It used to be “What was good for GM, was good for the country”. Is it now “What is good for Google is good for the country”?
I think Pink makes good arguments for a more rounded use of our brains. The fact that Pink wants to increase arts education is not as Stager puts it “neither mind nor future economic prosperity are sufficient arguments for arts education”, but rather for us to think different and reach our capacities.
One of the biggest failures of education was to create standards for each individual content area. By doing this we told the students that math has nothing to do with art or music. We need standards for a 6th grader and the have them addressed in themes with content specialty teachers accountable to assess student learning in their content area. Pink is advocating for this more holistic approach. Lines are blurred all of the time these days. Work blends with play, a career researching DNA can become an art endeavor where you create art work of people’s individual DNA for hundreds of dollars a pop!
This blending and blurring is what is propelling change so quick these days. Different points of views are what bounce people from link to link around the internet (it has given us this assignment). With the game on so many fields why not have as many people as we can contributing to education even if they are from the business field.
I do worry that we will change too much and let our creativity move us too far from the core values we need. Pink addresses this with his search for meaning. With abundance consumers are driven towards products that bring meaning towards their life. I hope we are attracted towards meaning for everyone as a whole and not individuals, especially in these times. I think the investment strategies that were used in the past 10 years are the type of creativity that Pink is talking about in his books. Investors created new ways to invest that could not be outsourced. A creativity so complex few can figure them out. Is this adaptation a weather bell for other creative changes? Will the change be for individuals or society as a whole? Can the creativity lift us from the current crisis or drive us further in?
After reading “The Conceptual Age,” Stager’s blog, and listening to the keynote delivered by Daniel Pink, it is clear to see the differences of opinions. This new shift in ways of thinking (“the conceptual age) is happening right before our eyes. I question why Stager is so critical to the emergence of the Web 2.0/School 2.0 community. How could he say that this has given up the promise of school? When walking into the Library Media Center and seeing all the middle school students using new technologies, tools, and forms of multimedia, I am watching them engage in stimulating education. They are becoming their own creators, however while still using the essential skills learned in school. I do have to admit, it is always in the back of my head if teachers will be phased out by computers and students becoming accountable for their own teachings. Nonetheless, when watching students use their prior skills to engage in something meaningful to them, it is very rewarding. It is this that will prepare them for the future that’s about to come.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Stager’s blog, I do not feel that he gave substantial arguments backing up his oppositions to Pink. He kept referencing that Pink put up a firewall between the two hemispheres of the brain. This is inaccurate. Several times Pink states that the logical, sequential, and linear skills are one hundred percent necessary but are no longer sufficient. He expresses over and over again that both the logical thinking and the artistic, creative, inventive right brain are needed for success. There is no doubt that logical reasoning is very important, according to Pink, but that these skills alone are not going to be satisfactory for success. We need to prepare students for the world and the demands of tomorrow.
Why not use both the left and right side of the brain? Think about someone who has all the rational, analytical, and logical skills, that quite frankly make up peoples’ perspectives of what a brain is. Now take that same person and add in the skills of synthesizing, creating, and inventing; this is a person who will be successful in the future. It is clear to see how necessary it is to have both sides of the brain functioning all at once. Like Pink quotes, “the two hemispheres of our brains don’t operate as on-off switches – one powering down as soon as the other starts lighting up.” Each half of the brain contributes to the daily functions of life and together creates one powerful tool for the human body.
We cannot compete with the power and resourcefulness that comes with emerging technology. And we cannot keep our students away from learning and adapting to the new mindsets. Once again, teachers need to be open to integrating these new learning styles into the way they teach. Nothing is more frustrating than a teacher who is not interesting in learning new technologies and multimedia. Why do they want to struggle against what motivates and intrigues students? Why don’t they show students how to tap into all the strengths that the brain has to offer? It is using these abilities that will prepare our students for the 21st century learning.
Dr. Stager's primary role in education is to get people talking and clearly he has done it here. Yes he is the quintessential devils' advocate. However his concern is that educators tend to take these "nouveau pop culture" trends and profess them as truth. His assertion is that the Pennsylvania Ed Tech Expo squandered an opportunity to introduce powerful ideas, genuine expertise and inspiration to motivate educators to engage in the hard work of improving their practice.
ReplyDeleteI had just finished reading Disrupting Class by Clayton Christensen when Gary posted his blog article. Christensen writes about the business technique of Disruptive Innovation as the only viable means of transforming schools. The book is based on Dewey's Constructivist theories of progressive education as is Stager's Constructivist Consortium. This got me thinking about everything I learned about Dewey in grad school. Not to leave a stone unturned I pulled out my old copy of Dewey's Experience and Education and reread it. For a book that was published 70 years ago and based on research over 100 years old, I believe the theories are stronger today then ever before.
In short, the academically thriving societies of the world are doing so because of motivation, not because of a paradigm shift in pedagogy. They are faced with the realities of poverty and squalor. India and China have not abandoned the practice of rote memorization. Their students however are intrinsically motivated to succeed because of new opportunities available to them. American students growing up in a society of material prosperity and economic abundance just don't have the same intrinsic motivations to rise above the squalor. I have had this conversation with High School seniors and they can to validate this.
Having a clearer understanding of Stager's philosophy, I have to agree with his position here. Though blunt and obnoxious, he is basically saying that educators are losing sight of what really matters in school. He believes that the 7 hours a day spent in the classroom should represent the best 7 hours of our kids' day. He advocates that schools provide a laptop for every child as well as a cello. He believes that technology should be used for kids to construct learning, not for productivity. He feels that kids should have the opportunity to write a novel, build a mathematical model, design a computer program, play an instrument, construct a robot, or make sense of a rapidly changing world. He states in his post that students should enjoy rich, diverse and bountiful arts experiences not for future economic prosperity but because it is what makes up human. That sounds pretty good to me...
I highly recommend reading Part 2: The Six Senses from Daniel Pink's A Whole New Mind as it fully explains the six distinctly different types of thinkers the author believes will be successful in the 21st Century. I also recommend Disrupting Class by Clayton Chritensen, and Experience and Education by John Dewey. These two books provide the theory and a very real approach to providing rich learning experiences for our children today. I also suggest that you follow Gary Stager (@garystager), Will Richardson (@willrich45), and Sylvia Martinez (@smartinez) on twitter. These folks often hold very animated discussions/debates via twitter and this is an excellent opportunity to sit in on their discussions. As ISTE's NECC 2009 approaches he will undoubtledy have something to say about Malcolm Gladwell delivering the Keynote.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said, but perhaps because I have only recently been introduced to Gary Stager, I don't quite understand how is argument that technology "should be used for kids to construct learning, not for productivity" is contrary to Pink's work. Given the realities of the global world doesn't Pink's holistic approach essentially argue for both?
One thing that increasingly frustrates me every year I teach is my 6th grade NYS math test. As I become a better teacher, this test holds me back with its constraints. The mechanical approach to assessment leads me to believe the powers that be want to create workers and not citizens. One of the reasons I want to move from teaching math to educational technology is the latitude I will have in giving a student a rounded education. Using technology as a key to further understanding and not as a tool for productivity is important.
ReplyDeleteGoogle offers workers "20% Time". Workers are to work on a project they are passionate about 20% of their work time (this has led to gMail and other apps). Could this be applied in our schools? What if students could study anything of their choosing every Friday for the whole school year? Could this lessen the apathy in today's students? I think this is something Stager could get behind. I do worry that our students are becoming complacent in this system. A kid in Africa with internet access has a lot more incentive to learn Calculus than some suburban students. I hate the "fear mongering" as Stager describes it but part of school should be exploration and part should be getting down to business and learning skills to serve as a global citizen upon graduation. I don't want my retirement tanking again in 20 years when I want to retire.
I definitely see your point. I also agree my school is full of smart boards (multimedia) but in a students eyes whether someone writes on a chalk board or smart board it is the same (maybe a little quicker taking away erasing time) but how many teachers actually save those documents and post it online for students who are absent or can't read their own handwriting can always go back and reference.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see more creativity from students using technology in doing that we as educators must know how to do that as well. I also as a math teacher feel held back by NYS exams but I try to find some time in which students can do a modeling activity using technology (hopefully at least 2 a year).
I would like to add something to the topic of other students being motivated to do well and learn things in other countries. Another reason why this happens because culturally it is 'shameful' if they do not do well. The 'shame' factor is a real biggy in their countries. Where as in America a totally different culture where students receive a BMW just because they turn 16 but happen to be failing many classes, does not phase me why they do not want to push themselves. There are some students who do; students whose parents actually teach them values and students in which want to see themselves succeed such as being the first in their family to graduate college. This makes it difficult for us a educators. 20% time is a good idea, and hope that would motivate students but I would expect that that would have to start from the beginning K grades and work its way up.
p.s. these are really interesting thoughts and ideas