We are experiencing one of the most stressful economic downturns since the Great Depression. To deal with this calamity the Federal Government has initiated a bailout of the banking system in hopes of staving off a collapse of the flow of money in our society. We are also seeing rapid movement of the part of the President-elect to insert new thinking and move past the old conservative political game. What is required is bold and new thinking, and we are beginning to see the first steps in this transformation. New thinking will be required on the part of citizens, and schools need to be at the center of this process, not on the fringe, or a result of the changes that take place in society; it should play a role in creating this change.
Calling for a change in {science} teaching is not new, its bold. We can turn to the thinking and writing of John Dewey to get some clues. As early as 1986, Dewey designed and started the University of Chicago Laboratory School, a school which focused on teachers being involved in new forms of pedagogy and thinking, and indeed fostering inquiry learning, as well as inquiry into teaching at the same time. The tradition of the laboratory school movement is rooted in the concept of change, and it has continued, albeit, as an alternative to the traditional model or paradigm of teaching. Dewey believed that schools should emphasize active learning and inquiry on the part of students, and that teachers should involve their students in community-based (social) projects so that school-learning was integral to the students lived-experiences.
The type of thinking that we need is Paradigm Two that I discussed in my post yesterday. Here are some thoughts on this.
In the late 1980s I started traveling to Russia (then the Soviet Union) with educators and psychologists from the USA and Canada, and for the next twenty years was deeply involved in a form of thinking that we called “global thinking.” We developed a project called the Global Thinking Project (GTP), was developed collaboratively among American and Russian educators who were deeply interested in active thinking and inquiry learning. Yet even more significant was the fact that the project grew out of our earlier work under the banner of humanistic psychology (The AHP Soviet-Exchange Project), and our philosophy was rooted in humanistic science and psychology principles.
Dr. Jenny Springer, who at the time was principal of one of the American high schools involved in the GTP, explored the philosophy and psychology of the Global Thinking Project as her dissertation (A principal’s perspective of the Global Thinking Project at Dunwoody High School: Implications for administrators) of her Ph.D. at Union Institute and University. Her work explored, and described this new form of thinking, that I believe should characterized our work today with students. The table below, based on Dr. Springer’s dissertation research, compares the traditional model of learning with the global thinking model of learning. The traditional model is mechanized, individualistic, dependent on the teacher as a dispenser of information, emphasizes literacy of facts, and skills, is based on a body of content knowledge, and emphasizes recall and linear thinking. The global thinking model is innovative and flexible, based cooperative learning, interdependent, involves students in the “right-to-choose”, stresses literacy in relation to human needs, encourages creative and holistic thinking.
|
The Traditional Model |
The Global Thinking Model |
|
• Traditional, mechanized thinking • Individualistic–although students may at times work together in groups, interdependence typically is not a goal. • Dependence–teacher-directed instructional model establishes a dependent social system. • Hierarchical—choice-made-for-you. Rarely do students choose content or methodology for their investigations • Emphasis on literacy: knowing facts, skills, concepts • Emphasis on content; acquiring the right body of knowledge • Learning encourages recall, and is analytical and linear |
• Innovative, flexible thinking • Cooperative–students work collaboratively in small teams to think and take action together • Interdependence–a synergic system is established in groups within a classroom, and within global communities of practice. • Right-to-choose—students are involved in choice-making including problem and topic selection, as well as solutions; reflects the action processes of grassroots organizations • A new literacy insofar as “knowledge” relates to human needs, the needs of the environment and the social needs of the earth’s population and other living species • Emphasis on anticipation and participation; on inquiry, learning how to learn, and how to ask questions • Learning encourages creative thinking, and is holistic and intuitive |
The new economy will require innovative and flexible thinking on our part. It will ask us to move away from the very familiar and entertain ideas that are less familiar. Educators can help lead the way.
For Further Reading:
Impact of Global School/University Partnerships on Science Teacher Enhancement
AHP-Soviet Exchange Project, 1983 – 1990 and Beyond
Teaching Students to Thinking Globally
Aikenhead, Glen. (2006). Science Education for Everyday Life: Evidence-Based Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Holt, R. R., Can psychology meet einstein’s challenge, Political Psychology, Vol. 5, No.2, 1984, p. 199.
Springer, J. L. (1993). A principal’s perspective of the global thinking project at dunwoody high school: Implications for adminstrators. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Union Institute & University, Cincinnati, Ohio
0 Comments