Leadership and Change

Having just completed a creativity course last semester in the MLS program, I have great admiration for those who "think wild"...one of the components of creativity. I would however, as an aged hygienist like to offer this to consider.

I have seen much change in the field of dentistry in the 40 years since graduation. Technology is taking over and a few offices now are completely paperless...the patient's charts are now on the computer. This is a facinating concept. In the 30+ years chairside there have been times when a patient's chart could not be located, but usually it had been missed filed...not lost in cyber space and unable to be retrieved until the tech person arrived. Digital x-rays, likewise, are fabulous to read, big and bold on the screen. I don't ever recall the x-ray machine ever breaking down and we were unable to take films in all these years without delay. I worked in an office for the last 2 years with digital films and it is a monthly occurance for computer error and films have to wait.

My second reflection is my work I do at the State Fair. We do use a calculator to add up sales, and we always count change for the customer. The patrons often comment on our ability to do this...something that isn't common at the big stores these days.

As a coach I look at all this and ask, "where is the balance in this increasingly technological world?" Balance is a good thing. I am hoping to find the answers to my question in this course.

One of the things I enjoy most about Prof. Harkins is that his opinions and beliefs challenge the reader or listener to re-examine personal perspectives and explore possibilities. This approach instigates group discussion and passionate opinions.

I don’t agree with everything Prof. Harkins says. However, making a claim and providing reasonable outcomes (positive and negative) to his own argument lays a solid foundation for further collective discussion.

As an educator myself, I’ve discovered that it is easier to collectively sculpt a student’s (seemingly) overly ambitious idea than it is to encourage a student’s idea to be more “outside-the-box.” Convergent thinking has been rewarded in the educational system. Divergent thinking is often ‘corrected’ or dismissed by educators or the system itself. This begs the question: What kind of students are we striving to produce? Are they prepared to thrive in this incessantly changing society? In this, I agree with Prof. Harkins. The system is not adequately preparing students. I also agree that the current educational system (in general) does not allow for enough creative thinking.

On the flip side, Prof. Harkins claims that “S.E.L. could theoretically become a productive scientist…with little knowledge of multiplication or higher math” (p38). What am I missing? Wouldn’t it be the understanding of higher math that would enable a potential scientist to make higher cognitive connections that could lead to a unique and novel contribution in the field? Granted, not all scientific inventions/innovations are produced by well educated scientists. But, c’mon, a productive scientist with little knowledge of multiplication or higher math? Explain!

Also, Prof. Harkins suggested potential arguments educators might have to S.E.L. (38-39). The question I didn’t see was: Will S.E.L. use devices to only obtain answers and not care how the answer was arrived at? If the student never ‘fails,’ what’s preventing the student from leaning on software enabled learning to get through high school? The joy of heuristic learning? Is this a bit utopian or am I a bit cynical? Yes, I understand why grading systems are, in part, looked on as ‘bribes’ and offer no guarantee that a student has learned anything. But are we moving from an insufficient assessment system to a potentially worse system with no guarantee that information has been learned?

Motivation is an important aspect to address here. Motivation and perspectives shift from learning period to learning period as a child progresses from primary to secondary school (Piaget). Prof. Harkins might respond that software devices would intuit these ‘developmental’ stages and offer age-specific prompts. Still, I would need more convincing that a good number of students wouldn’t take advantage of the S.E.L. system.

Let’s look at a potential application. “The Millennial” student would function well with this system, they are computer and information savvy. Now let me offer a personal and politically incorrect bias: I have some concerns with the Millennial ego. I love that many of my students are confident and very bright, but I’ve witnessed a price that accompanies some of these perceptive students and that is a is a defiance toward critical thinking. (Of course, this applies only to a percentage of students I’ve had. But, more than a few.) Maybe this was because Millennials were praised so much as children that they truly believe anything they produce really is golden, with no need for revision. (Mom and Dad always told them how brilliant they were.) Or more aptly, this is a reflection of my inability to adapt to this new kind of student. Either way, I have noticed a marked change in student attitude in the past 5-10 years. So, would this new student succeed or fail with S.E.L.? This seems like a pretty risky venture.

Thank you, Liz! I'm glad I'm not the only one who is convinced that innovation stems from the ability to do at least basic math.

Someone else commented that they wonder what Harkins would say about the teaching of Reading and English. Having met with 200 foreign language teachers over the weekend who's mission is to help our students become global citizens, what comes to mind for me is foreign language. Would Harkins argue that everyone who wanted to communicate between languages should be connected to a translator so that everything the person said came out already translated into English (or whatever the listener's native language is)? No need for foreign language would certainly free up a student's time for innovation. However, along with language acquisition, foreign language teachers also incorporate cultural competency as a desired outcome of their lessons. Can this country afford to put even littler emphasis on language, cross cultural communication and cultural competency than it already does?

Right on, Kristi! Absolutely! I see the 'convenience' an instant electronic translator, but what would happen over time if none of us took the effort to actually learn each others' languages? Just think of how much would 'get lost' in translation!

What would happen if a large part of our learning, in general, took place with hand-held devices that gathered information in 'real-time?' What would happen to our ability to utilize our long-term memory cognitive functions? Would we eventually 'evolve' out of our capacity to store information as well as before all the convenient devices? Anyway, there has to be a good deal of innovation that is only possible from 'expert performance.' I know Harkins is making a case for performance, but expert performance takes, on the average, ten years of focused repetitive practice. (That's old fashioned routine memorization AND creative/critical processes.) (Expert Performance: It's Structure and Acquisition. Ericsson and Charness. American Psychologist. 1994.)

Liz -
your comment made me think about the many language classes I have taken and how hard it sometimes is to speak up in a language that you are just learning and are not at all comfortable with. Many language learners are discouraged by these feelings and chose not to speak and abandon their attempts to learn. Learning a language, just like any other subject, is about practice and repetition. If the learner can be helped out and prompted by DC, it might lead her to a bit more confidence which will lead to more speaking practice and eventually to mastering the language.
Claudia

As I mentioned in my original posting on Harkins' article before our first class, a balance of both educational paradigms might make a huge difference in successfully preparing our youth for their future as independent and collaborative innovators.