When I was twelve years old, I read Origins Reconsidered by Richard Leakey. Richard Leakey is a paleoanthropologist, most notable for his discovery of a nearly complete juvenile Homo ergaster skeleton near Lake Turkana, Kenya. The book was about his fossil hunting in East Africa, human evolution, and, to a lesser extent, religion. His description of the scientific mindset, the mystery of life, the richness of hominid evolution, and the myopic worldview of the majority, was the most consequential moment in my formative years. I've been an enthusiastic student of science ever since. In my mind, nothing even comes close to offering such a substantial, interesting, complex, and nuanced worldview.
I view my goal in education is generate this interest and enthusiasm for science in my students. There are several obstacles to overcome if I am to be successful. One is, how do offer a compelling answer to the ubiquitous student (and adult) question: when will I use this? I could offer a myriad of examples as to how science has increased humanity's well being: vaccines, engines, computers, etc. But not everything we teach and learn has this explicit practical value, and for every answer we give to that question we are implicitly stating that certain other things are not important. "Ok," the student may reply, "I can see why computer science is important because they have become omnipresent in our lives, but what about learning the micro-architecture of a moon snail's radula?"
Giving this type of answer buys into the premise that knowledge is only important if it has utility. A part of me wants to answer the question the way a former editor for the New Scientist Magazine did, "I think science is interesting, if you don't agree then fuck off." Of course, that wouldn't be very prudent or productive, but it is true that if we keep trying to justify what we teach based on what we can do with that knowledge, we will be doing a disservice towards our students. The best answer I can think of is: Would you rather look at the world through blurry eyes or clear eyes? Learning is giving you a better eyeglass prescription, allowing you to increase the resolution of the world you experience.
This attitudinal obstacle may be the biggest obstacle of all. I don't believe our educational system is fundamentally flawed. Sure, increase student-centered activities if it increases achievement 3% compared to a control group in a few methodologically flawed research studies. This debate of traditional vs progressive education is interesting, but I don't believe its going to fundamentally change the downward trajectory of education. It's like debating a change of course on a sinking ship. Compared to generations past and other countries, our students have access to one the best educational systems that has ever existed.
There is a fundamental lack of interest in learning academic subjects. Our society values entertainment more than education, and this is why our students are not succeeding at the rates we wish. How many adults read science books, watch documentaries, visit art museums, and go to symposiums more than they watch football and reality TV contests? It's been said every generation laments the new generation's focus on entertainment compared to education and work ethic, but has any generation before now had access to the variety and quality of entertainment we have 24 hours a day? It's absolutely corrosive to the academic mind, the mind we as educators are in charge of fostering.
Zooming out further, there is no doubt that historical and economic inequalities are at the hearts of much of the academic achievement gaps found in this country. Paradoxically, I don't think educational efforts are going to fix this educational problem. If students live impoverished lives where the only vibrant economy in their area is the drug trade, then it's going to be hard to convince them to buckle down and focus on their studies. These are vestiges of racism and runaway capitalism, and how to fix these problems is not so clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment