Home About Us Media Kit Subscriptions Links Forum
EDUCATION UPDATE BLOGS
Vicki Cobb: February 2011 Archives

February 2011 Archives

Mass Production of Problem Solvers: An Oxymoron?

  |   Comments   |   Bookmark and Share
It seems that there’s a lot of jargon out there in educational circles. I feel really dumb when I’m sitting in a group and I don’t understand the terminology. One of the concepts I recently heard bandied about is “scaling up” as it applies to best practices. It took me a while to figure out what that means. I think it means looking at research to find out what works in a study and then somehow mass-producing it so that everyone benefits.

The innovator of “scaling up” in American history was Henry Ford. He figured that mass-producing cars would lower the price, so he invented the assembly line. Not only was this an efficient method for building cars, but also the price was low enough to create a market for them. Each of his workers did one job and collectively they constructed a complicated machine that even they could afford to buy. 

cobbFord workers.jpg

Factories for building all sorts of things were ubiquitous and the industrial revolution took another giant leap forward. In addition to creating a consumer society, the industrial revolution transformed public education to produce factory workers — people who could read and follow directions and knew how to get along with others. The rising standard of living produced a middle class who derived pleasure and fulfillment from after-work leisure activities that they could now afford; fun was not something they expected during the workday. No one seemed to question the fact that factory work was tedious and dull. 

cobbClassroom.jpg

Fast-forward to the present. Inventive as we are, we began building machines to take over the tedious, repetitive jobs of the factory worker. Robots are far more compliant than workers in unions. This led to fewer factory workers but opened up opportunities for more highly trained individuals to keep the robots in working order. (The tedious factory jobs are also being shipped overseas.) Now the President has said that jobs of the future require innovators, creative types; we need problem solvers to move our society forward (and maintain the robots). 

cobbrobots.jpg

I’m an outsider, belonging to no institution or school (although I visit lots of schools as an author). I’m trying to make sense of what I see happening among the powers-that-be who are determining the course of American education, particularly at the elementary school level. 

Here’s a parable on how I see it: The clarion call goes out from on high that our schools need to mass-produce “problem solvers.” Education professors go to work deconstructing “problem solving” to figure out the steps needed to teach it. Naturally, several diverse approaches are identified. Books are written and studies are published about the best practices so that “how to teach problem solving” can be “scaled up” for teachers. Competing publishers claim that their books are the best ones to teach this skill to kids. Tests are devised to measure “problem-solving ability” in students, putting teachers in a panic that they’re not effectively following the guidelines on how to teach problem solving. We now have an industry employing lots of people working on the problem of how to scale up teaching problem solving, yet the tests show that our kids are falling short. 

I think you can see where I’m going with this: If we want to teach problem solving, why not give kids real problems to solve? You might be surprised at how inventive and creative kids can be, especially in kindergarten before they’re taught conformity and a factory mentality has taken over. Perhaps producing problem solvers has to be handcrafted, one child at a time. Perhaps we’re being sold the idea that a single source is the formula for teaching how to produce problem solvers by the people who are mass-producing that source. (They l$ve the idea of scaling up.) 

The same thing is true for the teaching of “critical thinking.” Why not give kids two reading assignments on the same subject? Then ask them which one they liked better and why. We’d now be teaching critical thinking while teaching content. And while we’re at it, shouldn’t teachers be allowed to think critically? Shouldn’t they be allowed to challenge the methods being imposed on them by administrators? In “scaling up” instruction methods in the classroom are we are turning teachers into robots? What behaviors are these teachers modeling for the future scientists, engineers and innovators in their class? 

So far, we haven’t invented a machine to replace higher order intellectual skills. But in the interim it seems to me that our efforts to “scale up” are beating these very qualities out of our classrooms for both teachers and students. Isn’t “individualism” one of our bedrock American cultural values? 

In this post I’m simply asking questions that just might pose a problem to be solved. 


Think about how children learn how to speak. Long before they are able to make meaningful sounds, they are thrust into an environment rich with language. They acquire the ability to communicate over time, by people speaking lovingly to them. They learn from the context of the messages and by doing it themselves and getting feedback on their output. This kind of learning is called "contingency-shaped" behavior or, more informally, learning by doing. Once a human being learns the mother tongue, the struggle to acquire it is long forgotten. It's as easy as breathing. Scientists have discovered that there is a window of time, during childhood, when language acquisition is most effortless. Teachers have noted the transformation of a foreign child who knows no English into a fluent, accent-free-English-speaker can be a matter of months.

InkThink Tank Logo.jpgLearning a foreign language in school is approached differently. The student is given rules of grammar and syntax. The purpose of the rules is to create a link between the foreign language and the native tongue. Students are given exceptions to the rules -- idioms and idiosyncrasies -- and long lists of words to develop a vocabulary. This method of learning is "rule-shaped" behavior. But rules are not enough. Mastery can only occur when the rules are internalized and the learner is immersed in a contingency-rich environment. Rules are a short cut to get you to the point where contingencies can take over.

The job of education is to impart the skills and knowledge deemed necessary to thrive in society. So educators have put their heads together to come up with lists of behaviors that educated students are expected to exhibit. These are the Core Educational Standards that are supposed to serve as guidelines for curricula. They are not intended to be curricula and this is stated quite clearly ".... these standards will establish what students need to learn, but they will not dictate how teachers should teach. Instead, schools and teachers will decide how best to help students reach the standard." It is now time for fear to set in. Instead of focusing on teaching skills and content to students, teachers now direct their concerns to meeting the standards as written in these documents.

Enter the textbook publishers. They say to teachers and administrators: "Never fear. We've got those standards covered in our books. Use our books as scripts and you've done your job." Years ago a textbook company came to me and asked me to write for them. Naturally I was interested because they paid so well. They sent me an outline and asked me to write to the outline putting my "witty spin" on the language. Where did they get the outline from? The standards, of course. I took one look at the sequence of ideas that required me to fill in the blanks and told them I had to pass on the project. "But why?" they asked. "Because I don't think that way," I responded. I tried to explain how it worked. They could give their outline to Shakespeare and he might write something that they might want to publish but they wouldn't get Shakespeare. I don't think they got it. 

Merrily I wrote along, book after book, ignoring the standards. I never had to refer to them to make certain my books met them. Why? Because I long ago internalized the science standards when I learned the science content that made me a certified secondary school teacher of biology, chemistry and physics. Because, in the process of writing for trade book publishers and winning awards, I internalized the English language standards. My books are exemplars of the standards at their highest and that's why they've been excerpted on the assessment tests. (I have a file of permissions to prove this.) I live immersed in the contingencies that have made me a fluent master of language. My books are not written from a laundry list of skills listed in the Core Education Standards documents (my fun titles -- Science Experiment You Can Eat, What's the Big Idea?, We Dare You! -- belie the richness of science content) so educators are fearful that they don't fulfill them. Yet they are precisely what the authors of the standards intended. 

I addressed this problem with my fellow award-winning nonfiction authors who contribute to the group blog "Interesting Nonfiction for Kids" (I.N.K.). If you think our books look so enticing that they can't possibly be meeting the standards, we'll do you the service of analyzing them ourselves and let you know exactly what standards they satisfy. In many ways it's a lot easier for us to read the standards, boring as they are, and use them to analyze our books long after they were written than it is for us to write boring books. (I long ago figured that if I was bored when I wrote something, my readers would be equally bored when reading it. I'm driven by fear of boredom.) We put this analysis in our database, which you can access free on our Web site www.inkthinktank.com. It will introduce you to an interdisciplinary feast of extraordinary writing that students will want to read on subjects you're required to teach.

Twentieth century standards were designed to produce factory workers, who were compliant, got along with others, could follow simple directions, and expected work to be dull. Student reading material and practices in the classroom followed suit. But the game has changed. My colleague, literacy expert Angela Maiers told me: "Twenty-first century skills need to produce confident, bold, disciplined, creative writers who convey information across the disciplines with competence and flare! That is what you do every day"


Education Update, Inc. All material is copyrighted and may not be printed without express consent of the publisher. © 2011.