Joanne --
What a rich response. Thank you. What you are saying has many
implications for how and why we educate the way we do. I can't help but
respond with many questions which you can shed further light on.
It is important to note that as a system our society influences strongly
certain components within the system. And it is important that we think
of education and learning as parts of a very large system encompassing all
of our culture.
So, for example, as a society that dislikes ambiguity -- I hope that is
not too strong a word -- we will tend to drive it out of milieux where
ever we can. Think about education. I live in New England where local
control is a big issue, but education everywhere in the US is subject to
strong local pressures. These pressures are in part driving the
educational system to abhor ambiguity in the same sense that nature abhors
a vacuum.
So, for example, who goes into teaching? People who are comfortable with
ambiguity? perhaps not. I distinctly remember Meyers-Briggs profiles of
various professions, but I cannot say with any certainty what they were
for teaching professionals. Does anyone know?
As a sidelight, there is an interesting book called "They're not dumb,
they're different" in which someone describes qualitative research on
people who drop out of science and math programs even though they had
demonstrated a strong ability. There were a number of themes that were
similar, but there was one in particular that really struck me. A woman
described disliking Chemistry because it was so well-defined, so
recipe-like. As she took more advanced courses, however, she discovered
that it was not like that at all. In fact, in the practice of the
sciences -- even Math -- they are highly ambiguous, and certainly not cut
and dried. However, we teach them as if they are. One has to persevere
to the higher levels to discover what they are really like. This woman
implied that perhaps in our educational process we were driving out
exactly those who would thrive in the more ambiguous environment.
You are right about collaborative learning. In Math and science at least,
the results achieved from well-constructed team-oriented learning
environments has been exactly as you describe -- staggering. However, how
do we teach Math and science? Clear through to the graduate level,
learning is an isolated, highly competitive experience. The norm in real
science is more and more becoming teams -- frequently cross-disciplinary
teams -- and yet we still teach science in an ineffective, isolating,
competitive, non-team environment.
You refer to the current environment leading eventually to a higher level
of tolerance of ambiguity. In another post, I described what I
'affectionately' refer to as constructive tension in which generally 2-4
people are put together to work on a specific task or project in which
each person has goals which at least on the surface appear to conflict
with the other peoples' goals. We recognize this process as a powerful
tool to help people live with ambiguity.
Joanne, thanks for a thought-provoking post.
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc. 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>