ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Guest Blog

Guest Blog


Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

The educational value of creative disobedience

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



 

    “The principle goal of education is to create men who are capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done – men who are creative, inventive and discoverers” –Jean Piaget

 

Looking back on my childhood, the times I remember most fondly were spent with my father, learning how to be a scientist. He’s not a scientist himself, though—but an artist. He’s one of those people who knows a little bit about everything, quite a bit about most things, and loves sharing those bits of insight with anyone that will listen. He is a perpetual observer, a noticer of peculiarities, a collector of knowledge. Being a relentlessly curious child, I saw him as my walking encyclopedia. My afternoon routine consisted of perching myself on a stool in his workshop, peppering him with random questions as he worked.

Why do chameleons change color? Can lightning follow a trail of water? Why do we go in the basement during a tornado? How do those guys karate-chop planks of wood without breaking their hand? (Because I had tried this myself and believe me, it wasn’t pretty.)

No matter how silly or trivial the question, he always had a generously detailed answer for me, thick with scientific evidence. I was perfectly content with this symbiosis until one afternoon—I must have been about 7 or 8 years old—when everything changed.

The Irresistible Taste of Color

There was a question that had been plaguing me for days, and I wanted my dad’s full attention. He was working on a new project, so I bided my time, respecting his need for silence during his creative flow. I loved watching his process, trying to imagine what was going on behind his eyes right before his pencil struck surface. His arm moved swiftly across a large sheet of paper, effortlessly laying out a composition in a series of graceful sweeps and snaps of the wrist, a conductor creating life in a symphony of strokes, dancing and multiplying before me. The intensity of his concentration was clear in his grimace. I held my breath. A minute or two of heavy staring at the page, a few more swipes at the paper, and he stepped back, smiling to himself. That was my moment.

“Dad?”

“Mmm hmm.”

“What are black holes ? I mean, how do they work?”

He turned to me and laughed a little. I had managed to shock him with my latest inquiry.

“What specifically do you have a question about?” he asked. He was probably regretting buying that set of World Book Encyclopedias, which I had since claimed as my own.

“Well, where does all the stuff go after it gets sucked inside? I thought matter couldn’t be created or destroyed? It has to go somewhere, right? So—where does it go?” 

“I’m not sure,” he responded “I don’t think it follows the same rules.” 

I was stunned. He didn’t know? How? Why? In my young schema of the world, my father knew everything there was to know. I looked to him to be The Teacher of All Things Important in Life, and I was watching my reality crumble away in one unanswerable question. Realizing for the first time that my father was not a god was life-altering enough, but my world changed in an even more profound and quite unexpected way: in that uncomfortable moment of dissonance, when my thirst for knowledge went unsatisfied—I was exhilarated. There was a scientific mystery, and neither one of us knew the answer. It was ridiculously exciting, and I didn’t quite know why, but I was drunk with wonder. We spent the rest of that afternoon discussing black holes—looking through books, making little diagrams, trying to make some sense of theoretical physics—together.

My mind awakened that day. I fell in love with not just knowing things, but in solving mysteries. No longer content to just get an answer, I went seeking answers, pleased with my newly discovered investigative prowess. And when I came upon something interesting, I shared it with my Dad, and we discussed it like colleagues, sorting out the little pieces of the puzzle together—not always succeeding, but having a splendid time trying.

It was as if a whole new color was added to the world’s palette that my eyes had never noticed before. More and more hues revealed themselves in time. Life became deeper. Things moved slower, had more parts. There was so much I didn’t know, and so much I wanted to find out, layers upon saturated layers of discoveries waiting for me to uncover. I was hooked. I didn’t realize it at the time, but that was when I first became a scientist.  

The pain of withdrawal

I wish I could say that was the happy ending of my childhood story. Instead, it was the beginning of a rather torturous developmental period. My new outlook on life, which could be summarized as “Don’t tell me—I want to figure it out myself!” was not an attitude that went over too well in school. For many years I struggled with wanting to please my teachers—listening to directions and following the rules—but feeling creatively unfulfilled and unchallenged. At times I had an instinct to speak up and offer an alternate explanation, or an urge to try something a different way, but I quickly learned that only ‘undisciplined and obnoxious children’  challenged authority and caused disruption. These were not the kinds of students that teachers favored. I learned to ignore the pangs of my creative spirit, which only seemed to bring me misery when answered.

As much as I loved learning, school was uninspiring and left me hollow. I saw school as a necessary time commitment, but not much else. I ended up doing most of my learning and exploration on my own with whatever tools I had at my disposal—books, observation, watching people, and of course—my imagination.

Obviously my love for science and learning was not completely destroyed by my early school experience, or I wouldn’t be where I am today. But I certainly bear some scars. Now that I know a lot more about neuroscience and psychology, I wonder:

What effects did the discouragement of creativity and independence have on my developing brain, and how much of it was permanent? How much of a role did the inflexible, rule-dependent nature of school play in my cognitive development, versus my own independent or experiential learning?

Even bigger question: Was school helping or hurting my intellectual growth?

Before I answer those questions, let’s take a look at this from the other side first—how creativity and exploratory behavior is diminished by traditional teaching models—then I’ll explain how that relates to intellectual development overall.

We already know that everything we do changes the brain in some way, but to help frame this in a practical context, I’m going to put out a few broad hypotheses to consider as we look at some research and discuss what it means over a child’s lifetime.  

Hypothesis I: Teaching and encouraging kids to learn by rote memorization and imitation shapes their brain and behavior, making them more inclined towards linear thinking, and less prone to original, creative thinking.

Let’s take a look at our typical education paradigm: From the earliest days of school, we hammer specific scholastic values into our students: pay attention, watch the teacher, imitate what the teacher does, stay in your seat, don’t question authority, and receive praise. But instead of teaching children to think, we are teaching them to memorize. Instead of encouraging them to innovate, we expect them to follow the outline and adhere to rules.

There are two very interesting studies recently emerging from the field of developmental psychology that address the issue of early childhood education and teaching methodology. The first one, by Elizabeth Bonawitz and colleagues, has to do with direct instruction and the limits it puts on exploratory behavior. The second , by Daphna Buchsbaum and her team, looks at imitation of action sequences—what situations and specific criteria make a child likely to imitate an act, or to perceive it as a “correct” answer.

Alison Gopnik, a researcher that worked with Buchsbaum on the second study, wrote an article for Slate, Why Preschool Shouldn’t Be Like School: New research shows that teaching kids more and more, at ever-younger ages, may backfire, in which she explains both of these studies and what their results imply for learning. The two studies each took a different approach to assess how teaching style influences learning, but both drew the same conclusions. The type and intensity of direct instruction we give children, from a very young age, has a profound impact on how they approach learning and creative exploration. They found that too much direct instruction—showing a child what to do, rather than letting him figure out the solution himself—can severely affect his ability and/or instinct to independently and creatively solve problems, or to explore multiple potential solutions.

Gopnik explains:

    “Perhaps direct instruction can help children learn specific facts and skills, but what about curiosity and creativity—abilities that are even more important for learning in the long run? Two forthcoming studies in the journal Cognition one from a lab at MIT and one from my lab at UC-Berkeley —suggest that the doubters are on to something. While learning from a teacher may help children get to a specific answer more quickly, it also makes them less likely to discover new information about a problem and to create a new and unexpected solution.”

This “new and unexpected solution”  she is describing is at the core of creativity, and what we should be encouraging in children. However, it seems that by directly instructing children—giving them the answers to problems, then testing them on memory—we are inhibiting creative problem solving, to quite a significant degree.

She goes on to describe one of the methods used in her study on action sequences:

     “…[We] gave another group of 4-year-old children a new toy. This time, though, we demonstrated sequences of three actions on the toy, some of which caused the toy to play music, some of which did not. For example, Daphna might start by squishing the toy, then pressing a pad on its top, then pulling a ring on its side, at which point the toy would play music. Then she might try a different series of three actions, and it would play music again. Not every sequence she demonstrated worked, however: Only the ones that ended with the same two actions made the music play. After showing the children five successful sequences interspersed with four unsuccessful ones, she gave them the toy and told them to “make it go.”

The same nine sequences were used with all the children. The only difference: in one group she acted as if she had no idea how the toy worked—trying out different actions until it made music—and in the other group, she acted like a teacher—telling them to watch her, making it clear she was showing them the correct sequence to get the toy to make music.  The children who were shown the “correct” three-action sequence (the direct instruction scenario) were indeed able to imitate the researcher and get the toy to make music. Good, right?

Well, the “correct” three-action sequence demonstrated by the researcher was not actually the best solution; a two-action sequence worked better. However, the three-action sequence was the one demonstrated, so that’s what the children imitated. No need to explore other possibilities, right? The scientist in me likes to think that I would totally be the type of kid to find my own solution to make the toy work, but then I remember how obliged I felt as a child to follow the teacher’s rules, and it saddens me. I probably would have performed exactly as the children in the study.

Gopnik explains,

    “When she (the researcher) acted clueless, many of the children figured out the most intelligent way of getting the toy to play music (performing just the two key actions, something Daphna had not demonstrated). But when Daphna acted like a teacher, the children imitated her exactly, rather than discovering the more intelligent and more novel two-action solution.”

That last sentence is key. When the teacher instructed the children and gave them a working sequence, they were able to replicate that correct response effectively. Some would say that the children “learned” that information. But what did they learn to do? They learned to imitate. The fact that they generated the less intelligent response immediately, then stopped looking for alternate solutions, is quite troubling to me. Yet this is the type of behavior is expected and encouraged in most schools. Do we want children to learn how a system works, exploring lots of possible solutions—even if some of them fail—or to merely copy one “correct” method of arriving at a solution? What happens if that one solution stops working? Then what?

As a behavior therapist, teaching children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and other learning disorders, this has been one of my hot button issues, and the subject of quite a few battles I’ve had with defenders of the Errorless Learning paradigm. The goal shouldn’t be getting a correct answer; the goal should be learning why that particular answer is correct, and why others are not—as well as knowing when and if there are multiple correct answers to one problem.

What these two studies showed, is that children are very susceptible to adult instruction. We seem to be hard-wired as children to turn to adults for direction, and from an evolutionary perspective, this would make sense. But the inclination to obey and follow adult instruction is both good and bad. On the one hand, if very young children weren’t instinctively driven to listen to adult directions, there would be some major safety concerns. Let’s face it—the world can be a dangerous place. But we’ve come a long way since the days of running from wild beasts in the woods and living in caves.

Creative problem-solving skills are increasingly important in this age, and over-instruction inhibits their development. We shouldn’t be so quick to teach everything to a child in explicit detail and hand him the ‘Instructions for Life’  just because we know things and he’s still naive—that prevents him from developing the urge and the ability to explore and solve problems independently. Also, what if the adult is occasionally (gasp!) wrong?  

Hypothesis II: Teaching kids to ask questions and think about problems before receiving the solution encourages more non-linear, divergent and creative thinking, to produce better innovators, problem-solvers, and problem-finders.

The studies we just discussed looked at how direct instruction and teaching imitation of one solution can inhibit creativity and exploration, so now let’s take it to the next theoretical level, only this time—reverse it. If restricting kids from asking questions and teaching them one solution (or giving them the correct answer) inhibits creativity and encourages less innovative behavior, then what happens if you encourage asking questions and require them to think problems through and come up with their own solutions? Will this tend to result in greater creativity over time? What about learning? Will they learn at the same level as kids who are taught in a more traditional method?

You know what? There’s data on that, too. Short answer: Yes. Also, they’ll learn better.

In previous post I wrote on increasing your intelligence, I mentioned a study done by Dr Robert Sternberg, called The Rainbow Project [PDF]. The goal of this project was to find out if it was possible to develop both teaching and testing methods that were a better measure of the quality and quantity of material learned over a college course. He wanted to see if by teaching creativity—both using creative teaching methods, as well as teaching students to think creatively about a problem—then testing for practical application of the material learned, if more learning took place. Basically, he wanted to show there was a better way to learn rather than sitting in a lecture hall, listening to facts being presented to you.

His results? A huge win. As I summed up in my previous article:

    “On average, the students in the test group (the ones taught using creative methods) received higher final grades in the college course than the control group (taught with traditional methods and assessments). But—just to make things fair— he also gave the test group the very same analytical-type exam that the regular students got (a multiple choice test), and they scored higher on that test as well. That means they were able to transfer the knowledge they gained using creative, multimodal teaching methods, and score higher on a completely different cognitive test of achievement on that same material.”

There are an increasing number of studies on educational methodology that demonstrate the same types of results—they find increased learning and participation in classes that use an integrated approach to teaching, as opposed to the traditional lecture. A recent report in Science showed that a group of students taught by an inexperienced instructor, but one that utilized hands-on demonstrations and student involvement, learned twice as much and was more engaged in a Physics course, even when compared to a similar group taught using traditional methods (lecture) by a highly rated experienced professor.

The quality of the instructor didn’t have nearly the impact on student learning that getting the students actively involved in the learning process did. Just by moving the students from passive observer to active participant, you are lighting a fire in the brain—making more connections across association areas, increasing plasticity, and enhancing learning. Not only that, students that are more actively engaged are more intrinsically motivated to learn—no bribes or artificial rewards needed, just pure enjoyment of learning .

So the good news is, the brain is plastic, and these types of thinking patterns can still be taught, even into adulthood. It may take more work to break habits of behavior the longer you’ve engaged in them, but the brain can still adapt to new ways of thinking.

Here’s something to consider: those last few studies involved college students. Can you imagine how much increased learning could occur over a lifetime if we started utilizing some of these teaching principles in grade school?

The fringe benefits of teaching for creativity

In this age of innovation, even more important than being an effective problem solver, is being a problem finder. It’s one thing to look at a problem and be able to generate a solution; it is another thing to be able to look at an ambiguous situation, and decide if there is a problem that needs to be solved. That’s a skill that isn’t really targeted by traditional teaching methods, and in fact, it is often discouraged. In order to teach problem finding, more creative methods must be utilized. Rule-breaking , to an extent, should be tolerated and encouraged, and yes—even taught.

Teaching how and when to break rules and take creative risks isn’t a neat and clean process—it can get a little messy, and errors will be made. But we should be aware of this from the beginning and reward smart risk-taking, even if it leads to an error.

You need to make mistakes in order to learn. If you never know why an answer is wrong, you will never be able to come across a novel situation and make a good decision about how to act. Making errors and struggling through problems is what increases cognitive ability . Spending time pondering a question, weighing choices, thinking about whether or not an answer fits, and why—this is what drives positive change. That’s what learning is. That’s what our education system should be focusing on.

So how can I put this information to use?

Data and research is interesting to read about, but you may be thinking: How do I use this information? Direct instruction discourages creative thinking, but I want to encourage my child to be an independent problem-solver. Yet I want to provide him/her with a rich learning environment, so completely backing off seems counter-productive. What are some other ways I can teach my child and encourage independent problem-solving, while still providing guidance, without falling into that single-solution-answer-trap?

Glad you asked! It’s really not difficult, just takes a little more time and patience. I’m so used to taking this approach with my young clients, that this has become my baseline response pattern to children’s questions.

When your child asks you a question, rather than immediately delivering the answer, hold back for a moment, and say, “I’m not sure—what do you think?” He may be unbelievably off-track with his answer, but that’s ok. At least he tried. If he gives an obviously incorrect answer, explain why it’s incorrect, or why that method won’t work, maybe a give a general set of rules for that condition. And if it’s a novel response, and there’s the slightest chance it may work, consider that possibility and reward that response like he just won the gold medal. In fact, reward all attempts at novel solutions to problems, even if he makes errors. Provide differential reinforcement, though—more praise for answers closer to the correct one—so he has a benchmark to gauge the worthiness of an acceptable response. This teaches him to make decisions about choosing the best answer, given a selection of multiple correct solutions.

Another method I like to use is purposely making a mistake, such as getting ready to play a game, without having a critical piece there, like the spinner (you can increase the subtlety of the missing piece as he gets better). Act as if you have no idea there is a piece missing, and see if he catches it. If he realizes the piece is missing and brings it to your attention—reward this like crazy. He is on his way to being a problem-finder, which is exactly what you want.

Finally, take a lesson from the research referenced earlier on imitation patterns—don’t always play the role of teacher. When you act like a peer, engaging with a child on his level, he is less likely to imitate you and expect answers. He will probably be more independent and try more things out on his own if he isn’t inclined to turn to you for instructions on what to do.

Time for action

In summary, we’ve looked at quite a bit of information that shows traditional teaching methods:

1. Encourage linear, single-solution thinking, rather than exploratory learning (rewarded for the single correct answer, i.e. standardized tests, conformity is expected)

2. Hinder creativity and discourage innovative thinking (once students have the answer, they aren’t motivated to look for alternate solutions; errors are not rewarded when resulting from a potentially beneficial risk)

3. Don’t measure up to other types of integrated teaching models in regards to the amount of information retained by students (less effective at actually teaching material)

4. Aren’t as motivating or engaging for the students (students report less satisfaction and show poorer attendance)

5. Really aren’t that much fun for the teachers, either

So—why are we still using these out-dated methods in our schools?

The biggest problem I see: once the research is conducted, the data collected, and the conclusions drawn, the researchers move on to the next study and everyone forgets all about that most important part—putting the research to practical use in actual schools with real students, not just subjects in a lab.

I see this as a collaboration problem and a funding problem, especially in regards to the research done with new technology and education. First, when teams collaborate on this type of research, there should be a final leg of the initiative that involves implementation, in the event of a useful outcome. I realize you can’t set up implementation programs ahead of producing a valid result, but there should always be an option of a Part II. That Part II should automatically considered for funding, provided there were significant results from Part I that support it. Nothing more frustrating to me than to read a fantastic study on new educational methodology that really works well, like increased student learning utilizing virtual world technology, only to find out the team went on to the next new problem to solve and the findings were left to collect dust in a journal because there was no money or plan to get those results put to actual use. It makes a few headlines, provides for an exciting read on a few websites, then: nothing. Is that really solving the problem? That’s only the first step.

Once data has been provided that demonstrates the usefulness of a new educational method, as a society, I feel we are obligated to make sure steps are taken to put it to actual use. Otherwise, why are we funding educational research, anyway? Just because it’s cool or fun to see what kinds of positive change is possible? Don’t we actually want those changes implemented in our own kids’  schools so they can benefit as well? I see lots of talk about the government’s new commitment to funding non-traditional research on education, but what about the next step? As well as funding the research behind these studies, we need to think of some funding to get the methods implemented in practice.

Now of course, there are exceptions —schools that have gone the extra mile to implement brain and technology research in actual classrooms, and their efforts should be applauded. I also know of several experimental schools that are doing their best to encourage creativity and fight against the traditional model, but it’s not enough. We need more of this—much more.

Some final comments

I can look back on my childhood and see the transition from passive to active learner, at first asking questions and receiving answers, accepting them as truth, not bothering to contemplate other possibilities. I think as a child, that’s our baseline. But once I crossed that bridge over to the other side—experiencing the pure joy of solving problems and arriving at a completely novel solution—it was painful to try and cross back, just for the sake of conformity and obedience to whatever the status quo stated was appropriate behavior for someone in my position. Once you’ve taken flight with your ideas and experienced all those brilliant colors, is it fair to force a child to live back inside a box, lined with a black and white filter?

I’ve shared my own personal story, but I am not the only one who has lived it. Many children today face a similar fate, and it’s tragic. Whatever curious drive any one student might have entering school, it is pretty much beaten out of you by the time you graduate. The lucky few are the ones who are too stubborn to follow the rules arbitrarily. They suffer the consequences for their rebellion, but might have a supportive other (typically a teacher or non-family adult) that provides just enough encouragement to keep them on their path, even when it proves to be treacherous. Walking that path alone is scary, lonely, and wicked hard.

We say we want children to achieve at the highest level—to be the next generation of great scientists and innovators and artists and world leaders—yet the system we’ve put in place makes it nearly impossible for each child to reach their potential. Those worst off are typically the ones whose unique skills and talents we need the most—the most creative thinkers, the natural innovators, the ones who find comfort in the discomfort of not knowing, fearless in the pursuit of their vision.

What is supposed to be the most critical learning period for shaping children into the leaders of tomorrow has evolved over the years into a stifling of the creative instinct—wasting the age of imagination—which we then spend the rest of our lives trying to reconnect with. The time has never been more ready for systemic change than right now, and we’ve never had better tools to achieve this level of creative disobedience, to successfully prepare our children for the big challenges that lie ahead. It might be uncomfortable and take a bit of work, but our future depends on this radical change in order to survive.

References:

The Double-edged Sword of Pedagogy: Modeling the Effect of Pedagogical Contexts on Preschoolers’ Exploratory Play by Elizabeth Bonawitz, et al.

Why Preschool Shouldn’t Be Like School: New research shows that teaching kids more and more, at ever-younger ages, may backfire by Alison Gopnik, for Slate

Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science 13 May 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6031 pp. 862-864 DOI: 10.1126/science.1201783 by Louis Deslauriers, Ellen Schelew, and Carl Wieman

Evaluating computer-based simulations, multimedia and animations that help integrate blended learning with lectures in first year statistics by David L. Neumann, Michelle M. Neumann and Michelle Hood

Today’s Learners: Applying Gaming Elements to Enhance Student Engagement in a University Visual Communication Course by Hamm, Breanna H.

Brain-Based Research Prompts Innovative Teaching Techniques in the Classroom

You can increase your intelligence: 5 ways to maximize your cognitive potential by Andrea Kuszewski

A Neurologist Makes a Case For a Video Game Model as a Learning Tool. By Judy Willis

Creativity: A Crime Of Passion

 

About The Author: Andrea Kuszewski is a Behavior Therapist and Consultant for children on the autism spectrum, residing in Florida; her expertise is in Asperger’s Syndrome, or high-functioning autism. She teaches social skills, communication, and behavior intervention in home and community settings, training both children as well as parents on methods of therapy. Andrea works as a researcher with METODO Social Sciences Institute, the U.S. branch of METODO Transdisciplinary Research Group on Social Sciences, based in Bogotá, Colombia, investigating the neuro-cognitive factors behind human behavior- this includes topics such as creativity, intelligence, illegal behavior, and disorders on the divergent-convergent thinking spectrum of schizophrenia and autism. As well as being a researcher of creativity, she is also herself a fine artist and has been trained in various visual communication medium, ranging from traditional drawing to digital painting, graphic design, and 3D modeling and animation for the medical and behavioral sciences. She blogs at The Rogue Neuron and tweets as   @AndreaKuszewski .

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Take a look at the complete line-up of bloggers at our brand new blog network.






Comments 23 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. SmartyParts 10:05 am 07/7/2011

    I find this article fascinating, well written, and even inspiring. Sadly I wonder if the basic premise is wrong for us in the United States today. It is my opinion that in most schools the goal of our education system isn’t to create the innovators of tomorrow but instead is to create the workforce of tomorrow. My experiences, from elementary through high-school showed that the vast amount of students received traditional education just like was described in this article, but the upper percentile of students were separated out and given more thorough and progressive education. It makes me wonder if the stucture behind this creates a workforce that can read and follow directions while also building a select creative and free thinking managerial and entrepreneurial class. I certainly don’t think that individual teachers have this goal in mind. I firmly believe they want to provide the best education possible, but are often discouraged from other-than-normal approaches because of the standardized approaches used by our school systems. Talk to any first or second year teacher and you’ll lilkely hear a hint of frustration at how tied their hands are, especially at the middle and high school levels. It is a pesimisitc view, I admit. It is just an honest feeling I have about the public education system in the United States.

    Link to this
  2. 2. starsandspice 10:11 am 07/7/2011

    I largely agree with this article, but I do wonder if imitation and memorization don’t have their place in learning too. The best example is learning language, particularly when it occurs at a later age, like during high school. At the beginning, you really have no choice but to memorize the foreign words and pronunciations. Later, as you use the same words in different situations, you begin to integrate their meanings and "memorize" them in a more complete way. In this context, I don’t think memorization/imitation is all bad.

    Link to this
  3. 3. j9rivergrrrl 12:05 pm 07/7/2011

    Great post. What I notice in the workplace is a profound need for creative problem solvers and problem "noticers" at all levels of the organization. Many repetitive, rote tasks are now automated. There seems to be a huge gap, however, between this need and the competencies most workers have which are to imitate and repeat tasks – exactly as you describe. This leads to the more educated and skilled professionals becoming burnt out. They become solely responsible for everything instead of working effectively as a team with their staff. They end up having to problem solve, digest, and instruct others in an explicit and detailed manner. And the moment a change is introduced, the process must begin anew, since the staff is flummoxed as to how to proceed once again.

    This seems to work for no-one involved and is incredibly inefficient to boot.

    And then, too, there is a generation of supervisors and managers that feel threatened by those who can intelligently and creatively problem solve (who somehow made it through!). They spend time trying to force those who are actively engaged in the work to fall back in line and "do as I say, because I say to do it that way."

    Link to this
  4. 4. stlaura 1:45 pm 07/7/2011

    Brilliant. This piece carefully exposes many of the ways that conventional educational approaches hinder learning. For these and other carefully considered reasons, millions of families choose a different way for their children. Every day our children learn at home and in the community while interacting with role models of all ages. They explore and discover, unfolding ever widening interests. They have time to pursue subjects with passion that doesn’t have to halt when a bell rings. They observe, experiment, make mistakes, try again, and constantly challenge themselves as they work and play. This way of learning has proven beneficial throughout most of human history. School as we know it is the experiment. I give the research as well as accounts from homeschoolers around the world in my new book Free Range Learning: How Homeschooling Changes Everything. We homeschoolers creatively disobey every day, with heartening results.

    Link to this
  5. 5. mariadelpilarag 4:08 pm 07/7/2011

    My father is a lover of knowledge too! If a person is able to create, that person is free!. When I was 16 years old, my father gave me 2 books that reasserted my point of view and the way I used feel about education, those books were: ¨ Summerhill¨ by N.S. Neill and Albert Lamb and The Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. I remember that before high school graduation, I was assigned to write an essay about a topic related to education in order to get the bilingual certificate and after doing it, the teachers called me because they were displeased with my ideas. In that moment I grasped my mind and said to myself ¨ Oh my God I really learned how to displease people in a foreign language¨. !

    Link to this
  6. 6. waynerad 7:15 pm 07/7/2011

    "Even more important than being an effective problem solver, is being a problem finder." — I’ve never heard the term "problem finder" before, but this is exactly what an entrepreneur does — finds a problem, and invents a novel solution to the problem. And being an entrepreneur is a lot harder than it looks. As strange as the concept of a "problem finder" may seem at first glance, not every problem goes looking for *you* — sometimes it pays to go looking for problems.

    Link to this
  7. 7. shorewood 8:48 pm 07/7/2011

    Mostly hogwash!

    When your child wants to learn how to read, would you tell him to figure it out for himself? Basic math? Calculus? Accounting? Engineering?

    Much / most of schooling focuses on learning the tools with which to learn abd create on one’s own.

    There is a kernel of truth in the article, but not much.

    Link to this
  8. 8. SkepticalKen 10:16 am 07/8/2011

    @shorewood — No hogwash at all! There is a great deal of truth in this article.
    As far as reading and basic math go, yes, you are right, these require rote memorization. But, engineering? Direct instruction applies to the tools and the framework, but the bulk of the subject requires innovation.
    Basic science is an even better example. The greatest discoveries and inventions were never produced by people who simply imitated what they had been taught. They were made by people who said, "That can’t be it! There must be more to it, or a different answer entirely!" Scientists tend to become great only after being laughed at and then doggedly continuing until they achieve (at first grudging) acceptance.
    If we continue to teach science as unquestionable, iron clad dogma, what motivation does a young student have to become a scientist?

    Link to this
  9. 9. jacksonj 12:14 pm 07/8/2011

    The author says rightly that research is step 1; implementation is step 2. She points out rightly that the problem lies in lack of implementation.

    I am very concerned at the looming prospect of the situation worsening soon. I speak as long-time Co-Director of the Modeling Instruction Program at Arizona State University, a research-validated teacher-led program of professional development nationwide for science teachers in high school. (See http://modeling.asu.edu.) Modeling Instruction promotes creative thinking.

    The NSF used to fund summer institutes for K-12 science and math teachers, but now they fund only research and development. Thus opportunities for meaningful professional development are reduced.

    The U.S. Department of Education has two teacher professional development programs: state Math-Science Partnerships (MSP) and the Improving Teacher Quality Program (ITQ). ITQ grants go to universities; they implement educational research. ITQ grants are flexible, cost-effective, and serve needy teachers in all economic strata. They are almost the only source of funding for our nationwide professional development Modeling Workshops: see http://modeling.asu.edu/MW_nation.html. State MSP grants go only to high-need school districts and reach mostly K-8 teachers.

    In the impending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), NO role for universities is stated in the DoEd "Blueprint" – so implementation of research-validated professional development for science and math teachers will further die out.

    Evidence: In March 2010, a letter & recommendations were sent by State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to lead members of the House Committee on Education and Labor. I quote from the SHEEO recommendation: "The Obama Administration’s blueprint for ESEA reauthorization and FY 2011 Budget proposal eliminate … ESEA Title II Improving Teacher Quality (ITQ) State Grants, administered by state agencies of higher education and reserved for partnership grants between higher education institutions and local school districts…. the role and responsibilities of institutions of higher education and state higher education agencies are vague and indirect at best. " (http://www.sheeo.org . Click on legislation)

    Science teachers have learned to teach more effectively in ITQ-funded summer professional development. The impending loss of the ITQ program will be a disaster. It should be strengthened, not killed. See http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling/ConvincingDocuments.html .

    Link to this
  10. 10. SmartyGuy 2:22 pm 07/8/2011

    This is a great article, thank you, Andrea. "In this age of innovation, even more important than being an effective problem solver, is being a problem finder." This is one of many gems in your post.

    We should be implementing programs to upend the status quo in education and offering ways for young learners to incorporate creative thinking into their schoolwork and their lives. It’s time to think outside the tests, as it were.

    Shameless plug (but apropos, nonetheless): My wife and I are reaching the home stretch in finishing our book of lesson plans focused exclusively on helping children learn creative thinking skills. (www.jrimagination.com) It’s heartening to find information here that backs up our own points of view and what we’re trying to do.

    Link to this
  11. 11. m0nkeybl1tz 7:25 pm 07/8/2011

    There are some really interesting ideas in this article, but it completely fails to address the other side of the argument. First of all, a lot of it seems highly impractical. The idea that education should be more creative and customized has become an incredibly popular topic, and, on its surface, it’s something everyone can get behind. Who wouldn’t be in favor of more personalized education? But how does that stack up with the reality of overworked, overwhelmed teachers, who are forced to deal with a room full of 30 overactive children? Sadly, institutionalized, rote-based learning is one of the realities of providing an education to every child in America when education funding isn’t a priority.

    In addition, the article fails to address the role of memorized knowledge in the real world. As a self-professed "creative problem solving" type, I’ve come to realize that creative thinking is important in academia and research, but falls short in almost every profession. Let’s say a boss gives a task to two employees, one creative and one a memorizer. The creative type might say "I don’t know how to solve this problem, but I could figure it out in a couple days," while the memorizer would say "I remember this from college, I’ll have it done by end of day." Granted, the creative type might find a similar, or even better solution, but honestly, which of those sounds more professional?

    We have to face the fact that creative thinking, while personally fulfilling and certainly vital in small doses, is completely impractical on a large scale.

    Link to this
  12. 12. mvbemm 10:24 am 07/9/2011

    As stated by Confucius 2500 years ago: "Tell me and I will forget, show me and I may remember, involve me and I will understand."

    Link to this
  13. 13. jcbjr 5:31 pm 07/9/2011

    You didn’t read the piece very carefully. In my terminology, there is always a need for CORE KNOWLEDGE – knowledge that enables one to find and evaluate information and / or that enables a person to ask questions of experts and consider its use. There are also BASIC SKILLS that must be mastered (such as your reading). I strongly believe however the following two items: (1) rarely is there any skill that has only one procedure that works – teachers need to be flexible if a student uses a workable but different procedure; and (2) the types of approaches to learning outlined in this piece will without any doubt motivate the students involved to revisit the core knowledge and basic skills – self-assessing for level of understanding, retention, and use in addressing real situations encountered.

    Link to this
  14. 14. mindfulmimi 7:27 am 07/11/2011

    I, like Ken Robinson, think that schools kill creativity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY).
    I like to give my children complicated problems to solve. For example, the Greek debt crisis (http://www.createandconnect.org/2010/04/how-a-4-year-old-solves-the-greek-debt-crisis/), the Iceland ash cloud (http://www.createandconnect.org/2010/04/how-a-4-year-old-solves-the-iceland-ash-cloud-problem/) or the Dead Birds mystery (http://www.createandconnect.org/2011/01/how-a-4-year-old-solves-the-dead-birds-mystery/)
    Really liked your article.
    Thanks
    Mimi

    Link to this
  15. 15. mindacts 8:02 pm 07/14/2011

    Thank you for this post! As a kid who liked to ask why and constantly felt frustrated when encountering ‘rote learning’ approaches to education at school, I really related to this post.

    Building young minds (and all minds for that matter) to think in non-linear and creative ways is really important. Why do we dumb people down by promoting linear thinking and compliance to the norm?

    Be different, be creative and ask why!

    Link to this
  16. 16. drseide 4:52 pm 07/22/2011

    Loved this article, thanks, Andrea. There seems to be an intrinsic tension between convergent thinking and mastery of rote knowledge and divergent open-ended problem finding.

    The implications for education are profound and we hope this issue gets much more discussion and consideration

    We touched on this educational tension in a TEDx talk – the Turkey and the Crow.

    http://www.youtube.com/drseide#p/a/f/0/OErQa5yIiUk

    <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OErQa5yIiUk&quot; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Link to this
  17. 17. rackerly 9:09 pm 07/28/2011

    Andrea, I am enormously grateful for this beautifully written piece that clearly defines the changes that need to occur in schooling and why. Important that it is research based. I have 34 years of experience running 4 different schools based on your findings and so I have a data base of about 2000 anecdotes that confirm your findings–call it applied science.
    I think you would appreciate several pieces that I have written on my website http://www.geniusinchildren.org. Last week’s lays out 10 myths that parents and teachers seem to believe, but don’t really. Well your research is quite sufficient to put them to rest if any of them are still twitching.
    And yes. the revolution must be now.
    The conclusion with the most leverage could be rephrased: Even if all we cared about were those standardized test, and even if we decided to "hold T, P, S, accountable" for getting them up, the best way to do that is to teach as if students are creators of knowledge.
    Thank you.

    Link to this
  18. 18. mo98 11:59 am 08/2/2011

    Have you ever wondered about those parents who called their young children "terrorists"? I am an adult male that may have at times been suspected of being a terrorist simply because of my creative methods challenging servants of printed doctrine to the brink of wars. No power trip intended: past, present nor future. I once watched a documentary on Summerhill, a radical approach to child rearing in 1976 when I was 17. In 2003 My children were theoretically taken away from me years after a shared custody divorce agreement due to a continued apparent lack of structure being cited when the first adopted child was being broken by a new high school closer to home. The child accused me of not explaining a math problem the way the teacher did and tried to die when I did not stand for abusive language. To this day she still reads and quotes biblical scripture, while my second one is well adjusted and living on the other side of the globe, with yet another half sibling but continues to be symbolically held in ransom for the "damage" "I" purportedly did to the first. Fortunately my second child lived long enough with me to now stand on her own and I need not miss her as much as society would prefer to "teach" me as "correct".

    Link to this
  19. 19. hberkowitz 9:34 pm 10/11/2011

    Excellent post on an important topic. It is truly tragic that the way our educational system is structured can actually inhibit student learning.

    I am currently teaching the gifted program at my school. I am very fortunate that this gives me the opportunity to really stretch the minds of my students and provide them with activities that require them to think critically and problem solve. However, this is always very difficult in the beginning of the year because these students are used to traditional teaching methods. At first they are easily frustrated when an answer does not come to them right away or when they ask me a question and instead of answering them I make them find the answer on their own. It does not take too long though before they get used to these methods and begin to appreciate them.

    The hardest thing is getting them to realize that making mistakes are a critical part of learning. It is so engrained in them that they must give that one correct answer. To them, being wrong is the end of the world. The best thing I can do here is model that even I make mistakes, and the important thing is learning from them.

    Enhancing student creativity and problem solving skills is essential in today’s world, yet our education system is so focused on specific skills that all students must know at a certain time. Teachers are forced to worry about teaching these skills because their jobs are in jeopardy if their students do not preform well on standardized tests. I have the unique ability to teach a class separate from those strict standards and can provide my students with unique learning opportunities. I only wish that these opportunities were awarded to all students.

    Link to this
  20. 20. Right Brain 12:54 am 12/5/2011

    Wonderful article on an important but as yet somewhat unsung issue. The job market and business landscape for highly trained but rinse-and-repeat jobs is shrinking. Intellectual Property is the growth area of the future but I don’t know if the educational mindset is on track to prepare students for this change.

    I don’t read your work as suggesting the abandonment of the foundations of Science and Engineering, but rather the value of applying these skills with a creative mindset.

    Link to this
  21. 21. innovant 10:58 am 12/12/2011

    It seems to me that if you are going to do work (of any kind including art), you need at least four things – information (data,knowledge,insight,foresight,etc), tools and the skills to use them, a value system, and thinking styles (abstract, analogical, analytic, concrete, digital, holistic, intuitive, linear, logical, non-rational, non-temporal, nonverbal, rational, spatial, symbolic,synthetic, temporal, verbal, etc) – together with a body capable of implementing the work. Digital storage is really good for data.

    Education has a role to play in all of these areas including the body.

    Implanted chips can provide humans a great service when they can restore or augment a loss of or weakened function – cochlear implants, pacemakers, defibrillators, insulin pumps, artificial limbs, etc.

    Turning humans into cyborgs is not a future I would wish on humanity, especially since there are other viable alternatives.

    I remember the work of Simon on creativity a number of years ago. he concluded that creativity required the crossing of a threshold of storage of information in the brain for the person to be creative. He called that threshold 50,000 chunks of information (or some such similar expression). With the present day Internet and the availability of mobile devices to access the Internet with its ever growing data base of information, and perhaps 1 billion other humans, all of the information required to be creative does not have to reside in one person’s brain. However, we have an enormous amount of work to do the learn how to use this capability. One of the roles of education has got to be to figure out how to enable and facilitate the use of this tool to advance human progress.

    Link to this
  22. 22. sparkinskyline 9:51 pm 12/25/2011

    Superb Post Andrea :)

    - SPARK

    Link to this
  23. 23. StoneyTheDreamer 7:41 pm 06/13/2012

    (Hope his was ok to pin, if not i will gladly remove. Sharing where possible, good luck with article nomination results at http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/3-quarks-daily-2012-science-prize-vote-here-.html )

    Great to see the adult scientist’s take of the childhood research beginnings! Seems you are uniquely qualified to examine and share such findings. Those encyclopedias, and querying one’s parent, are common elements in many childhoods but not all reacted so favorably. As Stan Lee might say, Excelsior!

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Dinosaurs

Get Total Access to our Digital Anthology

1,200 Articles

Order Now - Just $39! >

X

Email this Article

X