Imagination is Better than Knowledge
A week ago I read an article in the Rocky Mountain News that addressed some of the issues we discussed in our last 21st century class. In his column, "Imagination's Better Than Knowledge," Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, discusses China's ability to become as innovative and competitive as America in the 21st century. Friedman quotes from a new biography by Walter Issacson called Einstein: His Life and Universe, and Friedman suggests that the very factors which stimulated Einstein's genius might prevent China from achieving its technological potential. Specifically, Isaacson's book describes Einstein as a man who "fled oppression. . . to think and express [himself] creatively." Einstein believed that "the only way to have creativity and imagination is to nuture free thought--rebellious free thought." Isaacson also says, "Einstein thought that the freest society with the most rebellious thinking would be the most creative. If we are going to have any advantage over China, it is because we nurture rebellious, imaginative free thinkers, rather than try to control expression." So Friedman wonders if "China [will] hit a ceiling on innovation because of its political authoritarianism."
Rebelliousness and authoritarianism. We certainly sounded like rebels a week ago Thursday as we discussed how to alter conventional attitudes toward education and actually change teaching strategies that stifle imagination rather than ignite it. I thought our comments about hours of meaningless homework, "easy vs. hard teachers," and traditional classes for non-traditional students were especially insightful. But I also sensed some nervousness about challenging a system that works--challenging those in authority-- even if a new system might work better. And yet, Friedman's article reminds us that institutions can only improve if they are challenged regularly. Complacency surely breeds mediocrity and boredom, even within ourselves. Or perhaps I should say especially within ourselves.
Our last session was invigorating for me. When Missy described her creative introductions to chemistry labs and Andrea validated their motivational power, I applauded the determination of these young teachers to use creative techniques that make their subject matter relevant. Friedman's article reminds us how Einstein "found sheer beauty and creative joy in science and equations." I've said it before, but I'll say it again: "Education is not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire."
We must not go gentle into the 21st century. Friedman believes "a society that restricts imagination is unlikely to produce many Einsteins--no matter how many educated people it has." Imagination requires rebellious thinking because we dare to try what has not been tried before. Thank you, to all of you twenty-first century learners who have challenged me to try innovative teaching strategies. It has not been easy for me, and I don't think I've had a particularly stellar year in teaching; but I have definitely left my comfort zone and hope I can encourage young teachers to do the very "thing [they] think [they] cannot do" (Eleanor Roosevelt).
Rebelliousness and authoritarianism. We certainly sounded like rebels a week ago Thursday as we discussed how to alter conventional attitudes toward education and actually change teaching strategies that stifle imagination rather than ignite it. I thought our comments about hours of meaningless homework, "easy vs. hard teachers," and traditional classes for non-traditional students were especially insightful. But I also sensed some nervousness about challenging a system that works--challenging those in authority-- even if a new system might work better. And yet, Friedman's article reminds us that institutions can only improve if they are challenged regularly. Complacency surely breeds mediocrity and boredom, even within ourselves. Or perhaps I should say especially within ourselves.
Our last session was invigorating for me. When Missy described her creative introductions to chemistry labs and Andrea validated their motivational power, I applauded the determination of these young teachers to use creative techniques that make their subject matter relevant. Friedman's article reminds us how Einstein "found sheer beauty and creative joy in science and equations." I've said it before, but I'll say it again: "Education is not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire."
We must not go gentle into the 21st century. Friedman believes "a society that restricts imagination is unlikely to produce many Einsteins--no matter how many educated people it has." Imagination requires rebellious thinking because we dare to try what has not been tried before. Thank you, to all of you twenty-first century learners who have challenged me to try innovative teaching strategies. It has not been easy for me, and I don't think I've had a particularly stellar year in teaching; but I have definitely left my comfort zone and hope I can encourage young teachers to do the very "thing [they] think [they] cannot do" (Eleanor Roosevelt).
posted by mferrill at 7:52 PM
3 Comments:
I agree that it's very difficult to "challenge the system," especially when the system has appeared to work fairly well over the years. But I'm not sure it's ever worked as well as we thought it did, and I think the 21st century is going to require a whole new set of skills and abilities and habits of mind. I think challenging the system is the only way we can improve and meet the needs of our kids.
My guess is that your teaching this year was just as good as it always has been (which is pretty darn good), you're just questioning yourself more. One of the byproducts of challenging the system is challenging ourselves, since we do indeed make up the system.
It's true that it's hard to change the system, but sometimes it feels as if things are a certain way just because they always have been. One example I thought of while lugging my massive backpack to my car was all the books. A new book for AP Chemistry is $150. So if one book is 150, and I have 6 large books and 5 small books, that's about 1000 dollars worth of books. And then once I'm done with them, they're just waste paper if they aren't used again. Plus, all those books take up a huge amount of space, not to mention all my notebooks of notes and handouts. Considering current technology, it hardly seems logical to carry home a thousand page book to do a homework assignment on one of those pages.
What if we just used laptops in class? Put books on CD's and handouts online. We can take notes in Word documents. Not only would everyone be more organized, have straighter backs and have all our tools at our fingertips, but we just saved the rainforests too. Books work fine, but this could work so much better. We have to stop thinking that things work fine, we have to think about how things can be better.
Actually, Molly, we are starting to use laptops in class. This year two of our English teachers started sharing a room with laptops, and we have recently spent more money to equip another room with computers.
I can certainly share your frustration in lugging around heavy books, and I already know I kill too many trees to create handouts. It's funny, though. Something in me loves hard copies--I love the feel and smell of books--and my back hurts when I have to sit in front of a computer screen for too long.
But I would love greater access to computers--and I think the time is near when students will be required to bring laptops to school instead of books. In fact, many colleges now require them. And next year I'll bet you are in several classes where computers will be the rule, not the exception!
Post a Comment
<< Home