|
Deep Roots
Posted by Chad Green on 12/27/2010
In Reply To:Deep Roots Posted by Scott Guthrie on 12/27/2010
Scott et al.,
The current model of learning must change, and indeed it will given the use of appropriate high leverage points as Jack and Tim pointed out earlier. Incidentally, if you click on the link that Jack provided (http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/LeveragePoint.htm), the image at the top is posted prominently on my cube wall for daily reflection. Is anybody else inspired by this image of hope?
What it means to me is this: resistance to change is futile because somebody somewhere is going to figure out how to make the desired change happen. That person could be you, me, or somebody that we both least expected.
The funny thing is, we all naturally intuit this need for change, but we resist it. Why? Is it because we are afraid to admit that our models don't always work under all circumstances? I'm sorry, but I thought only virtues met that high standard. Could models and virtues be one and the same? Now that would be the day, wouldn't it? Instead, why can't we grasp the limitations of modeling in general like statistician George Box when he stated famously: "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." Physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow adopt a similar line of reasoning in their latest book The Grand Design: http://physics.about.com/od/stephenhawking/f/ModelDependentRealism.htm .
So perhaps all we really need is a less wrong and more useful learning model for the 21st century? Now that doesn't sound all that difficult, does it?
As others on this list have suggested, perhaps we could begin the process by understanding the prevailing paradigm and its historical context before deconstructing and transforming it in the Heideggerian tradition. For example, with respect to Scott's root cause answer, I'd like to know your thoughts on the following animated talk by Sir Ken Robinson entitled "Changing Education Paradigms": http://www.youtube.com/user/theRSAorg#p/u/6/zDZFcDGpL4U
Does this perspective capture everything we need to know about the situation at hand? Of course not, but it is compelling storytelling. I have other useful resources to share with you all, but first there is something very important that I need to resolve with your assistance. It relates to a recent post by Gene on Clemson's (1984) Systems Laws (http://bit.ly/c6qNZS), more specifically, Law #2 which reads as follows:
"Feedback. The output of a complex system is dominated by the feedback, and within wide variations the input is irrelevant. All attempts to develop the system from outside are really inputs to the system, which law two indicates, are to a large extent, irrelevant."
For now, let's assume that the complex system above refers to our human brain. Given this specific context, does anybody see anything illogical about this law given the current challenges of the 21st century (e.g., need for creativity, global understanding, and sustainability), perhaps from the perspective of a second- or third-order cyberneticist?
Best,
Chad
|
