Little Rock Immersion

[googleMap name=”Lake Catherine State Park” description=”Lake Catherine State Park” width=”490″ height=”490″ mapzoom=”12″ directions_to=”false”]1200 Catherine Park Rd, AR 71913-8716[/googleMap]

Just got back from an immersion trip to Arkansas. Every sixth week we get out of the classroom for the week and try to integrate what we’ve learned in the previous five. We’re out there, sometimes visiting somewhere history happened, sometimes hiking in the woods, and I wonder why we don’t spend all of our time outside the classroom. The kids get so much out of just exploring, and there is just so much that sparks the imagination.

Anyway, we hit Central High School, the Clinton Library and stayed and hiked at Lake Catherine State Park (see the map above). We also had a lesson on cameras that tied into our discussion of waves last cycle. I expect to post about each of these, they were all quite good.

Abstract thinking and brain development

CT scan from the Visible Human Project.

Different parts of the brain mature at different rates. By early adolescence the parts of the brain responsible for social interaction are pretty well developed, but the parts responsible for critical thinking and impulse control (the frontal cortex) are not.

We visited the Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital today. And after a tour, a couple of people from the neurological division gave us a nice little presentation about the human brain. They used Rita Carter’s DVD, “The Human Brain“, which has a great animation of electrical signals pulsing from neuron to neuron through the neural network. I’m considering getting it for the class because the animations and the interactive slicing of the human brain are pretty neat. You can, however, find some, free applications for looking at the whole human body from the Visible Human Project.

Anyway, the fact that impulse control and critical thinking abilities are late to develop did not require fancy brain imaging to discover. Jean Paiget’s research on cognitive developmental stages found evidence that abstract thinking did not develop until the early teens. In fact, he found that abstract thinking (or formal operations as he called it) did not necessarily develop at all. As the frontal cortex matures, the ability to do abstract thinking also develops, but that does not necessarily mean that everyone learns how to do it. (At this point I make an unbiased pitch for the Montessori approach opposed to traditional schooling).

It’s very nice, or perhaps a better word is “elegant”, when very different types of research, using fundamentally different methods come to the same conclusions. In this case, neuroscience (brain imaging), which is ultimately based on physics and biology corroborates the psychological research into cognitive development, which is primarily based on observation and survey.

The importance of thinking about thinking

Know thyself - Socrates (and others) from Wikimedia Commons.

Personal World is the time for introspection. Every day students get a chance to think about themselves and, hopefully, about how they think. Thinking about your own thinking is called meta-cognition, and there is growing scientific evidence that it is an important life skill that leads to better decision making.

According to Jean Paiget’s theory of cognitive development students only begin to develop the capacity for abstract and meta-cognitive thinking in the middle school years. However, further research has shown that only about 30-35% of high schoolers actually develop the skill (it’s called “formal thinking” or “formal operations“). The brain develops the capacity for formal thinking in early adolescence, but people do not naturally move into that stage; school and the right environment are important.

For formal operations, it appears that maturation establishes the basis, but a special environment is required for most adolescents and adults to attain this stage. – Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003)

The requirement that students spend some time in introspection is one key way that Montessori adolescent programs try to promote formal thinking.

Finally, Jonah Lehrer, a journalist who writes a lot about how people think and makes decisions, points out the importance of metacognition in the qualities that make for a good president.

some studies suggest that when confronted with a complex decision – and the decisions of the president are as complex as it gets – people often do best when they rely on their gut feelings …
However, it has also become clear that listening to your instincts is just a part of making good decisions. The crucial skill, scientists are now saying, is the ability to think about your own thinking, or metacognition, as it is known. Unless people vigilantly reflect on how they are making an important decision, they won’t be able to properly use their instincts, or know when their gut should be ignored. Indeed, according to this emerging new vision of decision-making, the best predictor of good judgment isn’t intuition or experience or intelligence. Rather, it’s the willingness to engage in introspection” – (Lehrer, 2008; emphasis mine)

Other sites linking to this post

    Good teachers …

    How do you know if you’re a good teacher is a question we all ask ourselves as we go through the Montessori teacher training and when we reflect on our time in the classroom. Most of us do not come from traditional educational backgrounds. Angeline Stoll Lillard (2007; p. 379), who literally wrote the book on the cognitive and pedagogic research that supports the Montessori approach, writes that in 1946 Maria Montessori “advised that Montessori teachers not take traditional education courses, because such courses would deepen their adherence to traditional methods and ideas.”

    Lillard’s own belief is that although educational training programs have improved since the 1940’s (they teach more constructivist methods similar to Montessori) new teachers going into traditional schools today get pounded down by the institutional structure of these schools (the traditional classroom layout, the testing etc.) so that they are rarely able to apply those approaches and end up falling back into the traditional methods. Interestingly, according to an article by Amanda Ripley in the Atlantic, “a master’s degree in education seems to have no impact on classroom effectiveness.” (at least within the Teach for America program). The Teach for America research found that the key traits that predicted a teacher would be good are contentedness with their own life and perseverance.

    Of course you have to ask yourself, how do they determine if a teacher is a good teacher? Unfortunately, they do it through standardized test scores. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing, because evaluating good teaching is important and difficult to put into numbers. Even crude measures of the quality of teaching can be useful if there is no other available evidence. But increasing the uses of standardized tests has a tendency to shape the entire educational system toward the test itself. In addition, there is a lot of evidence that a focus on testing is not a good way to get students to learn. It devalues the learning to the student, and focuses the attention of the teacher on the test, and, “The very structure of such tests, breaking learning into components that are tested in a disjointed manner, discourages integrated learning” (Lillard, 2005; p 344).

    Yet the focus on testing intensifies. In Washington D.C., teachers are now being scored and potentially fired based on test scores. According to Ripley, teaching quality will now be numerically scored, and for “teachers whose students take standardized tests, half their score will be based on how much their students improved.” At the federal level, there is a new educational initiative where:

    states must first remove any legal barriers to linking student test scores to teachers—something California and Wisconsin are already doing. To win money, states must also begin distinguishing between effective and ineffective teachers—and consider that information when deciding whether to grant tenure, give raises, or fire a teacher or principal

    The two sentences above are separated by a period into two different ideas, but their confluence appears to be inexorable. While testing should be a component of evaluation, test scores are easy to use and come in the form of easy to understand numbers, so the over-reliance on them seems inevitable.

    While there is a clear need to identify good teaching and teachers, I do not believe that standardized tests are the answer.

    C.O.D.: Call of “Duty”

    The Call of Duty video games are pretty popular among the boys in my class (the gender stereotypes hold up very well with this one). Last week they tried to convince me that there was enough educational value in the games to allow them to bring it in for their overnight at school. They even created a PowerPoint presentation to convince me. Unfortunately, for them, it was not particularly effective. While there was a lot of information about the missions and the types of weapons there was not so much in the way of facts or concepts they learned (Subsequently, however, one student mentioned that he learned about favellas in the game. Though I don’t want to think about what they were doing in the flavellas).

    I would really have liked to have had them talk about “Duty”, as in the title, and moral responsibility. I dropped a lot of hints but too no avail. They were not successful in their petition, but we did have a good discussion about the purpose of warfare (if any), and how to make a convincing presentation (consider your audience). I may let them try again next time.

    As a side note, The Onion, has a great video on the next version of the game which will be even more realistic (you spend most of the time in the game sitting around and then you get shot in the back unexpectedly and the game is over.) The video may not be appropriate for middle schoolers however, because there is a scene where the soldiers are sitting around bored and talking about what soldiers often talk about.

    A sense of justice as a key to moral development

    On an personal level, I’ve always felt that the sense of justice shapes the way people react to the world on a fundamental level. In the language of Montessori, justice is a fundamental need of humanity. As we mature we begin to see justice from different perspectives, and after going over the history of human rights, I wonder if this applies to societies as well.

    Lawrence Kohlberg’s famous theory about the stages of moral development center around the idea of how people see and react to justice and injustice. His first level (pre-conventional) is based on how moral actions affect oneself; if I do this then they will do that right back to me (and I won’t like it). In the second level (conventional) the main concern is how actions affect and are perceived by society; it’s not right to do this because everyone will talk about it (and I don’t like that). The final level (post-conventional), moral judgments are made based on some underlying principles; I should not do this because it will violate someone’s universal human rights (and I would have violated my own principles).

    When we talk about the history of human rights, we are discussing how society has gone through these different stages. The first rule of justice, no matter the culture, is some variant of the Golden Rule, an eye for an eye. Eventually we discover the rights of the citizen, then finally the rights of humans. In humans, this moral evolution is innate in potential but not necessarily realized. Similarly is societies, after all, the Greek democracies eventually failed. But there seems to be a general trajectory of history toward post-conventional morality. Robert Wright, in his book “Nonzero” sees this path as the almost inevitable outcome of the beneficial nature of cooperation to human societies.

    Of course Nonzero was written in the post-Cold War and pre 9/11 period, when the world was breathing a sigh of relief when the potential for global thermonuclear war seemed to disappear (I also remember David Rudder’s 1990 had a similar theme).

    Auto-Tune and the trajectory of fads

    This intelligently done history of Auto-Tune is wonderful for several reasons. First, it has a simple, elegantly executed story arc, where it describes the trajectory of a fad from introduction to over-exposure to parody/remix and finally to a new equilibrium. And it discusses these concepts in a clear and entertaining way.

    Know Your Meme: Auto Tune (featuring “Weird Al” Yankovic) from Rocketboom on Vimeo.

    Second, Auto-Tune is a great example of something that was created for one purpose but finds a new life in a completely different discipline. The technology was created for analyzing seismic signals in petroleum exploration before being applied to music. It is amazing what can come from working with people of diverse backgrounds, and having a broad appreciation of the world. Group work is important.

    Third, in touching on parody, it brings up an issue that adolescents, in particular need to understand; parody is not just a cheap joke, it has something important to say. It uses humor to address significant issues:

    While making fun of something is easy [mockery], parody requires a study of both technique and form, before creating its own recontextualization.

    Third, the overexposure stage of fads and memes is something everyone should be aware of. The meme infiltrates so many aspects of the culture that it becomes irritating. As a Middle School teacher I see it primarily in the language my students use. By introducing this concept to my student, we now have a common language for talking about at least one type issues in the classroom.

    Finally, equilibrium. An important concept in natural and social science, the concept is neatly encapsulated in how the fad starts off small, overshoots and gets smaller but does not disappear as there remains some lower level of use.

    Where does morality come from?

    “Do to others as you would have them do to you”. The golden rule (in some form or the other) is almost universal. And because it is found throughout different cultures and belief systems suggests that much of what we view as morality and ethics are innate to the human mind. But what are we born with, and what do we learn from culture? Is the golden rule necessary for successful social groups, so that cultures with the golden rule are more successful that ones that don’t have it? These two questions are fundamental to how we educate, particularly in a method such as Montessori’s that has such a strong moral dimension.

    Maria Montessori herself came from a strong catholic background, but the success of her approach in so many different cultures does argue that, at least for the younger kids, the innate aspects of morality and needs of the child are most important. By the time students get to the Middle School, however, the influence of the local culture has become much more important.

    Morality and culture affect students’ motivations and behavior, yet much of what is considered acceptable in many cultures conflict with the core Montessori principles of respect for oneself and for others. Much of popular American culture for example, is driven by television where moral messages can be decidedly mixed. How often is it appropriate to use violence (or even torture)? Television shows give decidedly different answers from Montessori. But there are many other, more subtle differences. As Montessori educators we will be faced with the question of what to do when Montessori philosophy differs from the beliefs of the student, their family and the larger culture.

    My thoughts are that the “cosmic education” that is a part of the Montessori method should be based on the “universal” aspects of morality that can be shown to make for successful individuals and societies. Some interesting work by Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia looks at how certain systems of morality have contributed to the success of societies. As Nicholas Wade summarizes:

    … natural selection and the survival of the fittest may seem to reward only the most selfish values. But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no advantage to social living. Could the behaviors evolved by social animals to make societies work be the foundation from which human morality evolved?

    Haidt suggests there are “five innate and universally available psychological systems” of ethics, and different cultures add stories, virtues and ways of policing these ethics. The Moral Foundations Theory website has a good summary of the five systems, harm/care, fairness, loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity.  In a beautiful example of adding transparency and technology to scientific research, he even has a page for challenges to the theory. Each of the moral foundations these deserves separate consideration of how they evolved, how they benefit society, and how they mesh with Montessori philosophy.

    Nicholas Wade has a good article on the subject and on Haidt’s work in the New York Times.