One of the surprising benefits of working with social science educators (history and economics) has been new perspectives on my own teaching. I’ve studied education for several years, and have worked with science and mathematics education researchers in the past. It hadn’t occurred to me that history education is so different that it would give me a new way of looking at my own teaching.
Last week, I was in a research meeting with Bob Bain, a history and education professor here at U. Michigan. He was describing how historians understand knowledge and what historian’s practice looks like, and how that should be reflected in the history classroom.
He said that all learning in history starts from a problem. That gave me pause. What’s a “problem” in history?
Bob explained that he defines problem as John Dewey did, as something that disturbs the equilibrium. “Activities at the Dewey School arose from the child’s own interests and from the need to solve problems that aroused the child’s curiosity and that led to creative solutions.” We don’t think until our environment is disturbed, but that environment may just be in your own head.
We each have our own stories that we use to explain the world, and these make up our own personal equilibria. Maybe students have always been told that the American Civil War was about states’ rights, and then they read the Georgia Declaration of Secession. Maybe they’ve thought of Columbus as the explorer who discovered America, and then note that he wasn’t celebrated until 1792, 300 years after his arrival. Why wasn’t he celebrated earlier, and why him and at that time? A good history teacher sets up these conflicts, disequilibria, or problems. Bob says it can be easy enough to create, simply by showing two contrasting accounts of the same historical event.
Research in the learning sciences supports this definition of learning. Roger Schank talked about the importance of learning through “expectation failure.” You learn when you realize that you don’t know something:
The understanding cycle – expectation failure – explanation – reminding – generalization – is a natural one. No one teaches it to us. We are not taught to have goals, nor to attempt to develop plans to achieve those goals by adapting old plans from similar situations. We need not be taught this because the process is so basic to what comprises intelligence. Learning is a natural act.
In progressive education, we’re told that the teacher should be a “Guide on the Side, not the Sage on the Stage.” When Janet Kolodner was developing Learning By Design, she talked about the role of teacher as coach and orchestrator. Those were roles I was familiar with. Bob was describing a different role.
I challenged him explicitly, “You’re a provocateur. You create the problems in the students’ minds.” He agreed.
Bob got me thinking about the role of the teacher in the computer science class. We can sometimes be a guide, a coach, and orchestrator — when students are working away on some problem or project. But sometimes, we have to be the provocateur.
We should always start from a problem. In science education, this is easy. Kids naturally do wonder why the sky is blue, why sunsets are more red, why heat travels along metal but not wood, and why stars twinkle. In more advanced computer science, we can also start from questions that students’ already have. I’m taking a MOOC right now because it explains things I’ve wondered about.
But in introductory classes, students already use a computer without problems. They may not see enough of real computing to wonder about how it works. The teacher has to generate a problem, inculcate curiosity — be a provocateur.
We should only teach something when it solves a problem for the student. A lecture on variables and types should be motivated by a problem that the variables and types solve. A lecture on loops should happen when students need to do something so often that copy-pasting the code repeatedly won’t work. Saying “You’re going to need this later” is not motivation enough — that doesn’t match the cycle that Schank described as natural. Nobody remembers things they will need in the future. Learning results when you need new knowledge to resolve the current problem, disequilibria, or conflict.
Note: Computer science doesn’t teach problem-solving. Dewey’s and Schank’s point is that problem-solving is a natural way in which people learn. Learning to program still doesn’t teach problem-solving skills.