One thing that is apparent to me is helping to set up HUMI-Suva is the expectation of what is important in terms or actually doing the project. I think I have a comment to make on this because although I am involved in this as the ‘education’ component of the venture, I am really trained as a genuine ‘rats’n’stats’ scientist who worked in a laboratory and our income was based on the grants we could pull in. The grants were of course dependent on the data that we gathered – or more importantly – the papers that we published from the data that we gathered.
In this regard the ‘destination’ is the most important thing when your longevity in the lab (even if it’s a field lab) depends on the publications to justify the next grant application.
I believe that when I was first approached it was a kind of ‘pitch’, and the expectation went something like this:
- If you feel, maybe, possibly, perhaps there is a place to do some science kind of stuff with the senior students at school, we think we have one possible solution.
- Don’t worry we will come along and explain what it is that you would need to do for us.
- We will have a support group that will hold your hand and we will empower the teachings staff along the way.
- Incidentally, the stuff about microbiomes is really fascinating, and your students might, perhaps, maybe, possibly, probably learn some really fascinating stuff about this much understudied areas.
- And yes it’s true we also get to use the data you collect for us.
And after this the question “So are you interested?”
I think because I have been science trained this makes perfect sense to me and under normal circumstances there is, in my opinion, loads of positives and very little negatives.
One small aside: both in practice and in the readings that I did in my ‘science’ guise, I always new that longitudinal studies were the golden mean that most ‘softer’ sciences such as biology and the humanities strives for.
But now that I’ve been involved in the more progressive side of education for over 2 decades (both at tertiary and now primary and secondary levels), I grasped immediately that this was in fact a golden opportunity for us as the education establishment to be the real winners out of this. My task I felt (other than to say an enthusiastic ‘YES WE ARE INTERESTED!!!!!’), was to make sure that we were attractive enough to the core HUMI group to keep considering us at the viable alternative.
I think this is because in progressive ( – it should be every kind of) education, it’s the journey that counts even more than the destination.
There are many streams that one could consider to back up this point but I’ll make four of them.
- Role modelling
- Community of Practice
- Pathways to use Multiple Intelligence Theory
- Systematic Thinking or Naturalistic Intelligence or Synergistic thinking.
Role Modelling
What is time and again shown to be one of the best, if not the best way of teaching a student? It’s role modelling. Just doing what they are supposed to be learning. Practice the principles that are being taught. Less ‘talking’ and more ‘walking’.
If you want to learn about science and how to think scientifically, then rub shoulders with scientists doing science. Watch how she or he goes about doing the actual scientific enquiry. Watch your teachers learn from the scientists too, ie watch how they are interacting with the scientists. Teachers who are learning about the science are perhaps even better role models for the students to look at because they can see how the teachers are asking questions, interpreting what they hear and see. Of course this means that the teachers have to ‘acknowledge’ or ‘show’ or ‘own up’ to their lack of expertise in an area.
The contrast to a more mainstream education is having teachers, who don’t ‘do’ science they just recite facts and figures. These teachers don’t demonstrate any weak points or ‘I don’t knows’ to the students. In fact most of these teachers don’t know about science because they’ve never done it (three hour lab practicals at university don’t count – sorry!).
HUMI in a school setting provides a perfect environment to show case ‘role modelling’ about ‘doing science’.
Community of Practice (aka ‘apprenticeships’)
This is pretty much the same as above but it’s been highlighted as separate because of nuances that are not apparent unless specifically highlighted.
A ‘community of practice’ essentially means that there is normally a community of practitioners who do whatever the area of expertise is. Bear in mind something like an athlete such as a surfer:
- The experts: these are the ‘10,000 hour’ practitioners who have genuine high level expertise. They are the ones that are breaking new ground, and discovering new ways of doing things. These are the world champion surfers, or the surfers doing absolutely boundary and ‘out there’ new moves, new surf breaks etc.
- The practitioners: these are the competent people who follow the experts. They are entirely capable and know the mechanics of an operation. They are not versed enough in the arena to create new versions of the operation. These are the majority of the surfers. They can surf to a high level of competency. They are ‘keen amateurs’. Some of them who are young or keen enough migrate onto become the ‘experts’. Most of the rest stay as being proficient. They talk to the experts to get tips, or follow the social media channels because they love the activity.
- The novices: brand new people to the activity who are starting from scratch. Often they start off in a very crude way, or perhaps by themselves. They are the surfers who buy the surf board and then look at a few YouTube channels, or just try and emulate others that they see on the beach. Most of them will interact though with practitioners at some point. Either surfing instructors, or keen friends who are already proficient practitioners. Either the novice drops out quite quickly, or they migrate to eventually become ‘Practitioners’.
HUMI-Suva could look like this:
- HUMI core group – the experts. They are the champion surfers.
- The teaching staff at the school – the practitioners. Big ‘gotcha’ though, this ONLY happens after a few years of the teachers being involved in this HUMI project(s). The teachers could take on this role only in that they migrate from being ‘novices’ in the first few years, because the data collection is conceptually the same. The teachers become proficient amateurs.
- The students – the novices. They are the ones interacting with the ‘practitioners’ but, especially the older students, they also reach through from time to time to talk to the experts. As they go through the school they can also ‘mentor’ younger children coming into a particular phase of HUMI-Suva.
Real World Projects in Pathway to use Multiple Intelligence Theory in the Learning Environment
The Harvard developmental psychologist Howard Gardner developed a theory (The Multiple Intelligence Theory) that explains how different individuals can be differently ‘intelligent’ even if they do not succeed in formal education. It also can explain how people that do succeed in formal education can still have different ways of being ‘intelligent’. With about eight intelligences listed such as people skills, logical skills, body movement skills, musical skills, language skills etc; some education experts have suggested that schooling should try to teach these skill sets.
This is not the opinion of either Howard Gardner, or indeed our school which follows this theory. Instead the approach to use ‘pathways’ that acknowledge the different suite of intelligences that students have and design around this knowledge. For instance one of the pathways is to acknowledge that different people have different suites of intelligence strengths. Some of us are more logical, others are better communicators and yet others have a great sense of spatial awareness. In real life of course, if we are working in an arena that requires more than one person (the vast majority of work done) then we gather a team of people around us that play to those strengths and weaknesses.
If we want to teach how to work in real life, then our education should emulate ‘real life’. This is an acknowledged and significant part of the Multiple Intelligence Theory used in education. HUMI-Suva emulates the team work component of real life.
Synergy, Systems, Naturalistic Intelligence thinking or Integrated Curriculums
This also relates to the last point but again there is a nuance that is not immediately obvious and that is the often the ‘whole’ is greater than the sum of the parts. Systems theory acknowledges this in that one has to remember to consider individual components of a system, as operating in that system. We might artificially study the individual component to get a more precise handle on how it works, but to divorce it from the whole system is to not recognise a crucial, critical or even fundamental component of the whole system.
Progressive education like the Waldorf-Steiner educational approach, recognise this by offering integrated curriculums where maths is not relevant only in the maths classroom but in history, geography and literature too (and visa versa).
There is even an ‘intelligence’ in Multiple Intelligence Theory that relates to this and it is called ‘naturalistic intelligence’.
Essentially, I think this approach is the capacity to keep multiple parallel thoughts happening at the same time so that when there are interactions, one is mindful of the ripple effects that can occur when one part of the system is perturbed or altered.
HUMI-Suva has the huge potential to be an arena that allows us to learn about, and teach on synergy and systems theory. Holding parallel thoughts going simultaneously so that one can see the interactions.
This is not an easy task BUT it is one that can be taught progressively. HUMI-Suva has the capacity to progressively introduce the ‘parallel’ or ‘systems’ thinking to students because the programme can take place over different years of instruction for the students. Say they first start in Year 6 and finish in Year 12 or 13, ie 6 or 7 years of working on/in/around a familiar context.
Are We Interested?
??????
Are we ever!
As a school our ‘fear’ is that the experts will eventually tire of us. We don’t think that is actually true but we pretty much ‘jumped’ at the chance of being involved in this. I think our expectation of this project went (and still goes in some parts) like this when asked if we were interested:
- Wow! We are flattered. Did you make a mistake? Surely you meant another school?
- Are you sure that the experts will want to engage with a school?
- There are many reasons that we can gain from this project. We can rattle four of the top of our head.
- What do we have to do or pay to prove that we are worthy of being part of this venture?
- Can we start yesterday?
HUMI Suva 