Mind The Gap
Can bridging gaps give rise to innovative learning?
At the prospect of another mind-numbingly tedious day rendering the gaps of a crumbling wall in the middle of a British winter, my pretence as a civil engineer ceased and motivated to put my university education to good use I brushed up and suited. In the heart of the financial district in the City of London, an elite member of bright sparks armed with a mathematics degree, I believed the world to be my oyster. I had arrived and was owed a great and illustrious future.
The truth was swifter than a bullet to the head. Inside the grinding engine room of a US merchant banks data centre, managing real-data in real-time and in a real context, my perception of the real world hurriedly turned to custard. “The difference between school and life? In school, you're taught a lesson and then given a test. In life, you're given a test that teaches you a lesson.” (Tom Bodett – American Author and Broadcaster)
Bits and bytes translated to gigantic volumes of wealth and when the systems and networks processing digital-wealth unpredictably crashed it meant something significant to more than a significant few. I was sharply encouraged by colleagues to read tedious manuals with the polite acronym “GoRTFM” when I dared ask questions that required a shift in mindsets from “having to know all” to “knowing where to find all”. Management stressed their high expectations, “you are paid to provide solutions not problems!” But the most disturbing coffin fastener was gently woven into my director’s advice - “Learn passionately, learn something relevant, stay up to date, learn something new, learn every day, start immediately and never stop learning”. My bachelor’s meal ticket was not legal tender and worth diddlysquat in this fast paced and high pressured problem solving space.
How is it that this gap between passive formal education and active learning in the real-world exists? How is it that this newly acquired insight infinitely more practical than eighteen years of formal education sparked a transformation from passive learner to passionate, engaged innovative problem solving, independent, life-long learner overnight? Clearly this issue is not new. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” Socrates (Ancient Greek Philosopher, 470 BC-399 BC)
I believe that a dormant desire and ability exists in every individual to learn what is perceived important, most effectively, when the opportunity and environment is aligned to a passion or intrinsically relevant concept in which ownership and control of the learning process is shared, expectations are challenging and rewarded with respect, trust and recognition.
As an educator I am duty bound to facilitate and innovate new learning in new ways and my objective is to bridge two fundamental gaps that I consider critical to “Best Practice” in education.
1. Develop student-centered learning spaces where creative and democratic learning partnerships draw and build as much upon “digital-native” knowledge and experiences as my own. “I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.” Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921. 1879-1955)
2. Develop generic problem solving skills relevant to the dynamic and uncertain future our “net-generation” will inherit through realistic Problem Based Learning. “The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.” Robert M. Hutchins (American Educator and Writer 1899-1977)
Much has been written on the issue of divisions between digital natives and immigrants and the demands that the 21st Century will impose on them.
Gap 1: Digital Native – Digital Immigrant divide.
Idea – Regardless of gap existence, positive outcomes are expected from (i) analysing a perceived gap and (ii) Developing shared student-centered learning space in which student and teacher are partners accountable for developing new learning in new ways.
The Net Generation (Don Tapscott, 1998) or Digital Natives (Marc Prensky, 2001) are terms coined to represent kids born after 1980 and thus grown up immersed in technology. It is suggested that this immersion has contributed to the development of new skills and learning styles that are brought about and facilitated by the oceans of technology in which students are immersed.
The gap between digital natives and digital immigrants (Pre 1980’s, a term normally assigned to the teaching fraternity) has been attributed to physiological brain change in response to the digital interactions brought about by growing up in the digital age. Prensky holds the view that different kinds of experiences lead to different brain structures and Marilee Sprenger suggests the brain is evolving as the brains filter function regulates the increasing influx of digital stimuli kids’ experience. The nature of increased but bite-sized digital stimuli in turn contributes to reduced attention spans. Garry Small speculates that as the brain evolves, new brain proficiencies develop and will redefine our current understanding and definition of intelligence at the cost of increased social isolation and diminished spontaneity in interpersonal relationships. Tapscott confirms this view in part by pointing to evidence that indicates intelligence by standard measure is in fact increasing.
The idea that a gap exists between digital natives and immigrants learning and teaching preferences is a driver for education reform. It is believed that traditional teaching methods fail our digital natives who demand “new learning in new ways” to embrace technology freely and exploit access to information, creativity and communication tools for enhanced learning and productivity. However; there are powerful calls for empirical and theoretical evidence to support such claims. Sue Bennett, Karl Maton and Lisa Kervin question such claims and equates these ideas to creating a “moral panic” that label educators unwilling to comply as ‘lazy, ineffective and in denial of the inevitable sweeping changes’ (Prensky). Bennett argues that the divide created by commentators erodes the platform for debate and allows the unsubstantiated claims to proliferate while McKenzie writes off such claims, particularly Prensky’s, as “Arcade scholarship - Hip, Clever, Glib and Wrong.”
While the debate continues, I consider the concept of a digital native-immigrant divided to be a powerful metaphorical platform on which to explore methods for partnered learning environments where student owned learning space are safely integrated into a class where learning partnerships are accountable for innovating new learning in new ways. After all what remains undeniable is “both digital natives and immigrants must together survive and thrive in this connected world” (Sprenger, 2010) where “all Digital Immigrants will eventually become technologically savvy” (Small, 2008). Don Tapscott in his New York Times response to criticisms points out that “perhaps the real issue is the gap between how Net Geners think and how most teachers teach.” A more level playing field is thus required.
Gap 2: School and Real-world divide.
Idea - Problem based (Constructivist), collaborative real-world, student-centered, teacher-partnered learning challenges give rise to passionate and 21st Century ready Digital Natives.
We are charged with preparing digital natives within a rapidly changing technological environment for a future that we are ill-equipped to comprehend. At best we predict that digital-natives will inherit a world where global problems will need global solutions derived from global collaborations in a rapidly evolving flat world. Thomas Friedman describes the “flat” world as one where technology and collaborative economies form a wholly new playing field that adjusts our way of life. Increased global competition requires new mind-sets with emphasis on new skills, self-reliance, creativity and innovation. Daniel Pink backs up this vision “we are shifting to a right-brain Conceptual Age where creativity, innovation, empathy and big picture thinking is essential for 21st Century survival.”
These claims seem to have valid and wide reaching demands on the educator’s role. Ruth Raynard advises that educators must embrace the circumstances by becoming constructive partners in the learning process as the ”field” levels further in order that the net-generation survive the demands flung upon them. Sir Ken Robinson indicates higher order implications and actively calls for a complete paradigm shift to reform education from its industrial roots to one that aligns with the technological revolution and more closely correlates with the 21st Century.
Regardless of the validity of such claims; are the calls for a mind-set and paradigm shift any more critical to “Best Practice” today than before? Michael Gelb’s trait analysis of two giants, Leonardo da Vinci and Thomas Edison, identifies a persistent passion for life-long learning, balanced whole brain kaleidoscopic big-picture thinking, solution-centered mindset, Full-spectrum Engagement, Master-mind Collaboration and Super-value Creation that employs available technology in conventional and unconventional ways at the root of creative and problem solving endeavor that goes far beyond illuminating the masses. Traits of this nature are clearly not confined to individual efforts or the 21st Century. Eisenhower’s wake-up call to America to regain dominance in the Space race “The Sputnik moment” and the collaborative efforts of the allied code breakers at Bletchley Park in World War II demonstrate the extent to which engagement and innovation sparked by a sense of ownership and social meaning molded an equally unpredictable future then that we perceive as the present today.
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) reflects this culture of innovation through its ‘NETS’ standards and without exception all of Bloom’s hierarchy of cognitive skills are addressed by default in any problem-based solution-centered endeavor where learners have choices and thus a sense of ownership. Gary Stager points out that “without choice there is no ownership, without ownership no engagement and without engagement there is no learning”.
I concur with Stager and educators like Denis Littky whose constructivist Big-Picture approach to learning aim to provide a problem based learning environment which mirrors active learning in the real world and where learners are progressively given more responsibility for their own education to become increasingly independent in their quest to learn independently in life and in their chosen careers. My role is to facilitate active learning that is relevant, engaging, innovative and of a constructivist student-centred nature.