Trivia, Information and Meaningful Learning

I find it interesting the degree of consensus apparent in America's education discourse today. Much is said about how 21st century learning is all about creativity, critical thinking, curiosity and character. Everyone's growing interest, from Barack Obama on down, is in "STEM" (science, technology, engineering, math). While many private sector people are still excited about using data to personalize instruction, few people anywhere endorse the current regime of standardized testing. Finally, with the availability of flipped classroom software, iPads, Kindle, google and video games, everyone seems to want to do away with the textbook. 

Yet it seems we still have a fundamentally unresolved issue. That is, what information do students need to learn, and how should they learn it? 

It's easy to say (as Tony Wagner does in Thomas Friedman's op-ed this weekend), that most of the information we teach students in school they will "never use" or they can easily look up online if/when they need it. But when you look more closely at the discrete nuggets of information we teach, it starts to look less trivial. Do we really think students should not learn basic information about American history or biology?

Indeed, the original decision to include information in the curriculum was independent from the core objectives of the oft cursed industrial model of education. In fact, teaching information is based on a fundamental understanding about learning: information provides the schema for analyzing claims, creating ideas, and expressing oneself. Students don't need to learn all the information out there, but there is a minimal level of knowledge necessary for intellectual reasoning and core skill competency. 

We should think twice before we launch a crusade to eliminate all the content from the curriculum. In fact, it may not matter so much what content we teach, so long we (a) teach facts (b) teach enough of them (c) teach them effectively and (d) don't let the information instruction overwhelm teaching critical thinking, literacy and creativity. 

Enter new concept: multi-layered learning. In multi-layered learning, student experiences draw from content and skill instruction simultaneously. Good teachers have been doing this forever, but intentionally structuring pedagogy to couple skills and information together offers greater promise for driving achievement in both. Multi-layered learning takes what would otherwise be trivia, and makes it information relevant for application. 

Two models are particularly effective in delivering multi-layered learning: game-based and project-based learning.  Both models provide some level of structure with elements of choice. Both models have a fundamental orientation to information, while calling upon the learner to do something. Both of these models are highly interactive, involve individual and group learning, and connect discrete skills and knowledge to larger learning objectives. Even mini-games that emphasize drill and practice are an important part of preparing students for 21st century challenges--these games can be a fun and effective way to teach foundational information without using class time, therefore making learning in school all the more rigorous and meaningful. 

Let's forget the idea that education will ever be easy. It won't. There is no panacea, short-cut or simple answer. Information, skills, and understandings all matter. If we can do more to build our instructional practice around multi-layered learning, we will have a better chance of engaging students in their learning and providing them all they need to succeed in the future. 

Radio Lab and On Point

I'm a big fan of podcasting, in particular NPR, especially two shows: On Point with Tom Ashbrook, and Radio Lab. I listen regularly, almost daily, to On Point. Less often--but with great enjoyment--I download and escape with Radio Lab.

As an education tool, I've sometimes sent links to my students for particular shows that I believe would be of interest to them. Since they can be downloaded for free directly onto an iPhone or iTouch within a wifi zone, they are easy to get and have immediately on a device. The On Point shows are always forty-five minutes, which is the exact time of my commute, so I typically listen to one on the way to work, and another on the way home. They are based on the lively talk show format, with reasoned and thoughtful discussion, expert guests and lots of listener calls taken to enrich, deepen or broaden the discussion. Even more remarkable is the breadth of topics covered. For instance, just in the past five days, here are some of the shows' titles:

The American Civil War 150 Years On
Are College Campuses A Hostile Environment For Women?
Ai Weiwei And Dissent In China
The Budget Fallout
Reimagining Malcolm X

Ultimately I am able to rest my eyes for a spell and gain deep insight and wide exposure into our world through this show.

In addition to On Point, I sometimes mix it up with RadioLab, a show that has short and long versions. The long shows are typically an hour, while shorter ones are about twenty minutes. The innovative feature of this show is the way that it uses sound effects to bring the listener into a story, and the way that it mixes stories to provide new and creative spin on a big idea. The most memorable show, perhaps with the best educational potential given what I do everyday, is the show on race. The teaser for the show reads "When the human genome was first fully mapped in 2000, Bill Clinton, Craig Venter, and Francis Collins took the stage and pronounced that "The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis." Great words spoken with great intentions. But what do they really mean, and where do they leave us? Our genes are nearly all the same, but that hasn't made race meaningless, or wiped out our evolving conversation about it." I remember first hearing the way that urban students responded to their questions on race, and how they frequently answered with their nationality, for instance "Dominican" or "Jamaican." 


Radio opens on all kinds of possibility, if only we could use it more! I am glad as a professional and private citizen that I can podcast and stream, and gain access to both enjoyment and insight while on the move, doing chores, or just closing my eyes. These shows in particular, if listened to by students could truly supplement their education, but they have to be trained to access them and taught how to discern what is worth listening to--perhaps this is a perfect method of teaching them how to exercise the power and responsibility of choice. 


Finally, radio serves as another important conduit for the dissemination of ideas about education itself. We should look at how this medium processes information about education reform and understand how it is used, or not used, to advance a deep understanding. Perhaps we can advocate the wider podcasting of these two shows as a way to educate, and educate on education?


Below, just one example of a book who's author was featured on On Point, and that I now have on my wish list!