How tall isn’t the Eiffel Tower?
Dan Meyer posed this question in a recent online discussion. I haven’t been able to get this simple question out of my head since. This technique is probably introduced in day 2 of Teaching Inquiry 101 across every undergraduate teaching program in the world. I must have been absent that day.
Think about it. The right answer rarely interesting. Most can figure that out in a few seconds and move on. Equally uninteresting are the incorrect answers 10 feet and 10,000 feet. The beauty is all in the process of getting closer to what the correct answer probably is. Why do you think that is the right answer? How did you reach that conclusion? Where will you check to see if you are close?
This little exercise has helped me tremendously in rethinking the topic of online learning. Interestingly, my professional life is now affording me the opportunity to explore “online learning” in a completely new way. The boundaries of this new endeavor are more defined by what the right answers “aren’t” than what the right answer “is”. In a world of accountability where things are often times measured against the “right” answer, I have the chance to help the community explore online learning with few “right” answers to get in our way.
Example: “Blended learning!” The concept of blended learning isn’t a “right” answer that makes online learning effective. Even if we managed to get everybody on the same page regarding the effectiveness of a blended learning strategy, we’d probably only make an incremental step towards being where it is we need to be. It’s the same “Define technology!” and “Technology is just a tool!” conversations from the 1990’s and the “Students need 21st Century Skills™” drumbeat of the current decade.
I have the chance to lead people beyond “the big frickn’ wall” and advance thinking around online learning. “Blended learning!”, “Define technology!”, “Technology is just a tool!”, and “21st Century Skills™” are all places we end up with incremental improvements. We need to stretch further. The “big frickin’ wall” of having to nail the right answer isn’t an issue.
To borrow again from Dan Meyer, “WCYDWT?” What could you do with this? I’m looking for a bit of input here. What does “Where we need to be?” look like?
Eiffel Tower Photo Credit: Flickr Creative Commons
Incremental vs. Revolutionary Imrpovements Photo Credit: Kathy Sierra
Off the top of my head…
We need to help students (and ourselves, along the way) discover how to learn, what their innate talents are (music? arts? seeing connections? verbal explanations? written expression?), what their interests are, and where they can feel useful in the world (right now, in the classroom; someday – sooner or later – in the world)
How we accomplish this? Through the tools of technology, of course, because it connects us to information and is so often the means of dissemination. But also through interpersonal skills: face-to-face teaching and collaboration and (technology helps again here) collaboration at a distance. I think that in many situations (art, cooking, crafts…) that a great deal of time needs to be hands-on and messy.
This post reminds me of the question: If a question can be answered by doing a Google search, is it really worth asking? When I posed that question in my district, many said “yes”, there are basic things students need to know.
I agree with Ann V, that helping students “discover how to learn” should be our focus.
In order for us to get where we “need to be”, we have to all be on the same page as to where that is! And yes, that is REALLY messy! I think the “Networked Student” is close to my definition of where we need to be, but that may not be the same definition as Arne Duncan or (Insert the name of your Education Commissioner/Superintendent/principal Here).
Maybe we need to just go around the wall instead of trying to go over the top of it!