Category: Caring Teacher

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Child psychologist Jean Piaget is famous for his theory of cognitive development. Among others, he espoused that cognitive functioning greatly depends on life experiences. In other words, the more experienced one is, the better his or her thinking. However, mere exposure to experiences is not what Piaget was talking about.

Cognition improves significantly only when one’s accumulation of experiences is qualitative, rather than quantitative. Hence, an individual with excellent thinking does not necessarily have to be the most experienced. A truly “smart” person is one who constantly uses whatever limited experiences he has to his own benefit. He does it by ingeniously connecting elements of different experiences to form meaningful understanding of events, situations, and concepts.

“Hands-on” movement

People who misunderstood Piaget’s theory of cognitive development over-emphasized the importance of exposing students to activities through hands-on learning. This was prevalent in the 90s, a time when educators became passionate about promoting experiential learning – learning by doing. At that time, a lot of teaching focused around providing students with direct experiences with concepts being learned. Teachers were pre-occupied with demonstrating how to do something, and students were equally busy with replicating what was demonstrated to them. This was a typical happening in a science class, with a laboratory component. It also became the instructional modus operandi for subjects like social studies, math, and language arts. Teachers tried to integrate activities in possibly every lesson so that students could learn by doing.

The missing component

There is nothing wrong with hands-on learning where emphasis is placed on having students learn by doing. “Doing” connotes gaining rich experiences by coming into direct contact and interacting with physical and social realities around us. This contact and interaction help shape our understanding about everything in life. In fact, abstract thinking develops as a result of us doing concrete things that eventually lead to insight into abstract ideas.

However, it was the way “learning by doing” was implemented that caused problems in academic learning. I still remember “doing” a lot of things, in science, geography, and history classes because schools back then were required to engage students in projects and long-term mini research. However, none of those activities helped me to think or engage in meta-cognition (thinking about thinking). Teachers as well as students were doing things to produce products (that would demonstrate fulfillment of leaning objectives) without being concerned about the process of learning. We were told what to “do,” but never how to think.

Hence, the missing element was “heads-on” learning. For a long time in education, this component was overlooked because we became pre-occupied with hands-on learning. This is still evident in many schools, especially for younger children, where pure activities-based teaching defines their learning experiences. Most of these schools presume that when a child is provided with a lot of activities that relate directly or indirectly to learning, concepts are attained and formed, almost automatically, by some unexplainable cognitive process that takes place in the his mind as a result of his interaction with the host activities. This sounds almost like the hit and miss strategy.

Hands-on plus heads-on

While the hands-on learning era was a huge leap from the traditional “memorize and regurgitate” era of industrial revolution, it is not sufficient for the 21st century minds. There is a dire need for sound and comprehensive educational approaches that would enable students to prepare to face a world that “thinks.” This implies the need for an education that focuses on both hands-on and heads-on learning. Students must learn by doing. But they should also be taught how to think – before, during, and after performing a series of tasks that relate to their learning.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The popular notion that children from high socio-economic status (SES) are more intelligent and perform better at school is outdated. The relationship between socio-economic background, as measured by monthly or annual income of parents, value of total wealth, location of residence, etc. and academic achievement is not as simple as it has been talked about in the past. In fact, the simplistic view about the relationship between SES and academic achievement leads to difficulties in explaining why some children of poor families excel and succeed in life.

The twist

When parents are asked, “What are some of the factors that determine students’ academic success?” one could expect answers like, “good breakfast, exposure to education early in life, parents’ education, birth order, physical and emotional health, etc.” Unfortunately, there is a more important factor that skips our attention. This factor trumps all other factors because of the inherent impact it has on children’s psyche, their learning, and consequently, their academic achievement.

It is the parental involvement factor!

While it is true that there is a direct, strong relationship between SES and academic achievement, the relationship is mediated by parental involvement. In other words, it does not really matter whether a student comes from a high or low socio-economic background. What really matters is the sustained existence of active and visible parental involvement in children’s education. This explains why some children from poor families are academically successful while some children from wealthy families become academic failures.

Powerful example

The internationally acclaimed neurosurgeon, author, and inspirational speaker, Dr. Ben Carson, who at the young age of 33 became the director of pediatric neurosurgery at John Hopkins Hospital (18 times winner of the best hospital of the year award in the US), owes his success to his single mother. Dr. Carson is a specialist in the separation of Siamese twins and has pioneered work in radical hemispherectomies, which is the removal of half the brain to help seizure patients. Dr. Carson came from poor and broken home. His mother, although illiterate with only third grade education, worked multiple jobs to sustain the family. As they were growing up, Dr. Carson and his brother were strictly told that they would do more reading than watching TV. In fact, they were only allowed two to three TV programs every week. The rest of the day and night were spent in reading and studying. Dr. Carson’s mother was actively involved in his education, constantly reminding him about the value of schooling, and inspiring him to believe in impossibilities.

Expressing care

Have you wondered why a student’s behavior, motivation level and engagement in learning change for the better when his father or mother visits the teacher at school to talk about his education? Our natural tendency is to think that the student is “sorted out” because somehow his parents’ presence has instilled fear in him. However, I would like to think of it as stemming from something more positive. Students become genuinely interested in education when their parents get involved and pay attention to their school work, talk about their relationships with other students, teachers, etc., and motivate them to set high but realistic academic goals.

Talking to children about education, about schooling, about the future – all these serve as a springboard to enhance students’ learning that would subsequently improve academic achievement. In essence, parental involvement and participation are invariably appreciated and valued by students. Academic success of students is not the responsibility of teachers alone. Academic achievement is as big a responsibility of parents as it is of teachers.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

It is difficult to believe that a low-cost and “unsophisticated” movie like Slumdog Millionaire could win eight Oscars. However, there is one thing about this particular movie that made an indelible impact in the lives of its viewers, and millions of others who heard about it. The central message communicated in the movie was optimism. By virtue of being unpretentious about life and its challenges, the movie allows people to face difficulties with courage and confront the future with a positive attitude.

Optimism syndrome

This corresponds to another interesting phenomenon that takes place at Harvard University. The most famous class at Harvard University, attended by some 900 students twice a week, is a class on Positive Psychology taught by a young professor named Taal Ben Shahar. This class focuses on providing insight that leads students to the path of happiness, optimism, and hope. There are more students enrolled in this class than classes that teach them how to make more money and become rich, i.e., Economics. This goes on to show that people value virtues and positive life experiences, even more than money and success in career.

Why do we need it?

Research indicates that optimistic people are generally healthier as a result of the harmony experienced between the mind, body, and spirit. On the other hand, being pessimistic significantly reduces longevity, increases stress, and deters achievement as well as productivity.

At school, the difference between an optimistic and pessimistic child is invariably noticeable. A pessimistic child engages in persistent negative self-talks to the extent that he believes that he is not “good enough.” This feeling discourages him from even trying to experience success. His abilities remain dormant because he refuses to let go of his incarcerating negative thoughts and their corresponding behaviors.

Surprisingly, this is the state of majority of students in schools. Pessimism does not care about nationality, race, socio-economic status, and gender. It plagues everyone equally, especially children and teenagers as their negative thoughts often go unchecked, hence uncorrected.

Good news

Optimism can be taught! Teachers have the opportunity to plan and deliver lessons on optimism, or they could creatively integrate optimism into all other subjects. Some educators believe that this kind of teaching is more important and effective compared to merely teaching of academic subjects. In the future, success will not determined by mastery of knowledge and/or skills alone. The increasingly complicated nature of our world and its requirements will severely punish and drain people’s sense of hope and meaning, unless they are prepared to see things positively. Only an optimistic person would succeed because he would consistently re-frame crises into opportunities through creative solution finding.

Optimism in action

Regardless of a child’s current level of performance, it is the moral duty of every teacher to design learning opportunities to enable him to experience success. Without the experience of success, students are not motivated to achieve. Without achievement it is impossible to become positive about present and future responses. Even the lowest achieving student could be helped to experience success by deliberately observing and acknowledging his progress over time. Praising and reinforcing the slightest improvement in such a case would help the child a great deal to strive to do better next time.

In the face of failure, it is more constructive to recall past successes and use them as a frame of reference to move into a more optimistic future. Teachers should avoid labeling and liberate students from limiting terms such as “high or low performers.” Rather, it is healthier to help an individual student to become engrossed in developing himself by comparing qualitative differences in his own performances across subjects, tasks, and cognitive engagements.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]To test out how difficult it is to engage in an act of listening, try sitting with someone and letting that individual talk for five minutes, without any interruption on any topic of his or her interest. Chances are, you will not even go beyond the one-minute mark without being tempted to interrupt, ask for clarification, suggest your own opinion, and in some instance, change the topic altogether because of disinterest.

I try demonstrating this to my students taking education and/or psychology to expose the challenges and importance of the art of listening to enhance human relationship. After doing the activity, students often admit that it is a difficult feat. However, they also add that once they start to genuinely listen to the other person, a greater sense of connectedness and appreciation is experienced, by both speaker and listener.

Why is it difficult?

It is easier to speak than to listen because from the time we were infants, we felt the pressure to use a “spoken” language to indicate normal development. Parents become anxious when their infants take too long to utter the first word. In retrospect, you would realize that major portions of your childhood were spent in trying to acquire more words to string them together to make phrases and sentences.

Although listening played a significant role in the development of our spoken language skill(s), it was directly aimed at acquiring the language. We didn’t listen so that we could understand someone else’s message(s). We listened solely because we wanted to imitate and use the words or phrases or sentences in our own speech. Hence, while we got a lot of training in correctly speaking a language, we were not necessarily taught how to listen with the intention to understand a speaker’s message(s).

Importance of listening

Inability to listen effectively causes individuals, groups, and institutions great losses. Subsequently, ineffective listening leads to relationship break down – between parents and their children, teachers and their students, administrators and their teachers. When people don’t listen to each other, their responses seem insensitive to the needs and aspiration of others. This is misunderstood for selfishness, leading to one or both parties feeling offended and becoming defensive. Naturally, a fight or flight response pattern is triggered in this situation and no decent conversation can transpire thereafter.

In the classroom setting, teachers who listen to students not only assure them of their attention, but also allow themselves opportunities to truly understand what students are experiencing. School administrators who listen to their teachers motivate the staff to be initiative, creative, and committed. In both cases, the ones who are listened to feel appreciated, valued, and become willing to perform better.

Listening skills

Teachers and school administrators who seek to forge a positive relationship with their constituencies must learn to listen. They should listen to understand, and not just to respond to what is being told. Listening to understand requires that teachers, first and foremost, do more listening than talking. Secondly, they need to decode the feelings contained in what is said, along with deciphering facts or ideas. Thirdly, a good listener would do his best to view the contents of the messages from a speaker’s frame of reference. For this to happen successfully, one must listen to the whole story without disrupting the speaker. Fourthly, listening to understand entails restating and clarifying what the other has said. This is not the same as asking questions or telling what the listener feels, believes, or wants. Last but not the least, a good listener responds to the speaker with acceptance and empathy, not with indifference, cold objectivity, or fake concern.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Every now and then, we all experience a “delay” in understanding something, usually a new concept. This delay is just a temporary blockage that inhibits a complete grasp of a new idea. The delay is invariably short-lived and we soon find ourselves experiencing a sudden surge of understanding about the same idea that just a few days ago, or a few weeks ago, we had little clue about.

The thinking chimpanzee

Psychologists call this the “aha!” phenomenon. It was experimentally discovered by a German-American psychologist named Wolfgang Kohler during the early 20th century. In his experiment with a chimpanzee called Sultan, Kohler observed and deduced that animals do not learn everything through mere trial-and-error processes, or stimulus-response associations, as suggested by behavioral psychologists. He argued that animals do solve problems by understanding.

When Sultan was placed in a cage outside of which lay a few bananas, he tried to reach out and grab the fruit. Since the experimenter deliberately placed the bananas out of Sultan’s reach, the chimp had a difficult time getting his meal. The experimenter had purposely placed a few tools in and around the cage; things that do not have obvious connection to each other. After trying a variety of failed stunts, Sultan suddenly picks up a little stick, goes to the bars outside of which lay a long stick; scratches the long stick with the little one until the long stick pushes the fruit closer toward the cage. Yes, Sultan was successful in obtaining his bananas because he solved the problem by understanding the complete nature of the situation.

Ever since, humans have discovered tons of other things that chimpanzees do that require understanding instead of mere random trial-and-error moves.

Decoding the “aha!” effect

Perhaps knowing the true nature of learning as the brain does it will help us gain a better picture of why the “aha!” experience is common in humans and great apes. First and foremost, we all know that the brain is a complex organ. It contains millions of neurons that extend themselves through dendrites and axon terminals that are constantly connecting or disconnecting from each other; growing or shrinking; and at all times, transmitting electrical signals in the form of neurotransmitters, making up the most fascinating signals-relay system in the entire universe.

However, the quality of memory, the speed of sensory and perceptual input-output processing, and the understanding that comes as a result of a host of super-fast-highly sophisticated-neural operations do not necessarily end in the production of an insight about a particular experience, recollection, or idea. Sometimes, the outcome of the whole process is but a partial, very insignificant understanding of something really huge and complex. When such an experiences is encountered, we naturally put it aside and go about our daily activities.

The coming together of the bits and pieces occur at a time and place, and under circumstances that we can never plan or pre-decide. It happens when it happens and we have no control whatsoever as to how it happens. The brain does it all by itself. The neurons, instead of putting aside the bits and pieces of information that we previously couldn’t make sense of, actually work steadily, linking them to the parts of the brain cells that logically connect (though earlier seem impossible to connect), and eventually build a foundation for understanding the idea. This is the “aha!” experience in concrete terms.

Implication for education

At school, students who do not understand a concept or idea the first time they learn it always stand a chance to completely get it in the near future. However, our education system rushes the brain to work unnaturally and causes it to break down, if not under-perform. True education is when students are allowed the privilege of harnessing the natural tendency of the brain to find connections and make sense of things around them.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

It is relatively easy to get an answer to the question, “How are you today?” Teachers often start their classes with this question expecting the most obvious answer, all the time – “Fine, thank you! And you?” However, being a psychology graduate, I tend to view humans beyond their obvious utterance of words and bodily-facial expressions. Hence, I always accompany the question, “How are you today?” with another, in my opinion, more important question, “How do you feel?” For me, this question yields the kind of information that I need as an instructional designer, who deliberately creates positive environments that facilitate effective learning experiences.

It’s not easy

My observation of how students respond to the question, “How do you feel?” have led me to discovering two things about them:
1.  Most of the time, they find it very difficult to answer the question
2.  Even if they did, the answer does not reveal their feelings. Some of the common answers students give while attempting to respond to this question are like, “Fine!” “Okay,” “Tired,” “Not bad,” etc. (somehow they are not aware of and/or are unable to appropriately use adjectives that describe their feelings).
All of these responses do not really answer the question. Over and over again, I find that students face difficulty responding to this simple question. Why is this so?

Exploring the phenomenon

Although the sense of belonging (to love and be loved by others) is one of our fundamental needs, society have often discouraged the free expression of feelings. This phenomenon is seen across cultures and gender – in both western and eastern societies, and in both men and women (although there may be slight difference in the level of expression encouraged and allowed in different groups).

The industrial-knowledge (transition) society expects individuals to be emotionally sturdy. The new world order requires that we conceal deep-seated feelings. There is no reward in revealing emotions. It is important to do so as a competitive edge over others who are constantly competing for the same resources. Children learn early in life to be “emotionless” and are rewarded for the same. Parents and teachers do not spend time exploring children’s feelings. They simply don’t talk about them enough.

Hence, when suddenly asked, “How do you feel?” students find it very difficult to explore their own subjective-inner experiences and express them freely.

Does it matter?

Is there a valid reason to be pre-occupied with getting an answer for the question, “How do you feel?” from students in the classroom? Yes there is! In fact, it is imperative that we teach students how to answer the question. An example would help us to understand the reason more clearly.

When I was admitted in the hospital to be treated for food poisoning, the doctor on duty kept asking me “How do you feel (physically) now?” Although doctors have concrete ways of finding out how a patient’s body is doing, he or she does not undermine the importance of collecting a richer form of data to augment the existing medical report(s). They look at medical reports in the context of self-reported subjective-experiences of patients. In fact doctors rely on how patients say they feel (physically) to proceed with their final diagnosis and prognosis. This helps them to reduce the possibilities of making erroneous judgment about a particular medical condition.

Teachers who collect additional data about students’ feelings would be in a better position to design effective instructional environments that are highly conducive for learning. However, to make this a possibility, they will first need to encourage their students to engage in free expression of feelings. They could do this by asking, “How do you feel today?”

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In a workshop for a group of Thai teachers in Saraburi last year, I was asked the question, “What do we do to deal with students who are more interested in playing computer/TV games than coming to school, opening their books, and studying?” Do bear in mind that this question was posed by teachers whose educational approaches are still traditional in many ways. Their classes are big, their teaching is textbook-directed, and their instruction is mostly didactic, i.e., telling students things rather than letting them discover things for themselves. Because of the complexity of the context of the question, my answer had to address the question, and at the same time, inspire these teachers to move into adopting a more progressive attitude toward education.

Underlying problem

When faced with a difficult situation involving students, it is a natural tendency for a teacher to ask, “What is wrong with so and so (student)?” As a matter of fact, most educational reforms come about as a result of educators wanting to solve a perceived problem experienced by students. An example of this is the dramatic changes in the publication and use of textbooks; from text-only-black-and-white books a few decades ago, we now have books filled with colorful text and pictures. However, reforms in textbook publication were directed at increasing students’ interest to interact with the material (by luring them to like the books), and not necessarily to address the question, “What would make learning more meaningful and effective.”

In essence, the question posed by teachers at the workshop reflected this same tendency – they asked, “What’s wrong with our students?” rather than “What is it that we need to do or change to help them learn better?”

Additional suggestion

To handle this question more constructively, it is important to realize that playing computer/TV games is not bad. Many people make a decent living out of playing computer/TV games. Additionally, it also enhances one’s eye-motor coordination and improves creativity. Understanding and accepting this allow us to approach the question more optimistically. Instead of viewing playing computer/TV games as a problem, teachers (and parents) could use it to boost students’ learning. Instead of demanding students to stop doing what they love doing, teachers could transform the love for playing games into the love of learning.

Reframing the question

It was obvious that students were deliberately choosing computer/TV game shops over school. And it doesn’t take rocket scientists to reckon that students feel more excited to be in game shops rather than school. But how do we make school as fun and exciting as a game shop?

Creative solution

My suggestion to teachers at the workshop is narrated as follows:

1. Plan a month long project/problem-based-learning on “solving the mystery of why students love playing computer/TV games more than coming to school.”
2. Divide students into heterogeneous groups – a mixture of girls and boys; those who play computer/TV games and those who do not.
3. Assign different investigative tasks to groups. Possible questions to investigate: a) How often do students visit game shops? b) How much money is spent at the game shops? c) What do parents think about their children sneaking out to play games? d) What is the relationship between the time spent in game shops and the time spent in studying? etc.
4. Teach and encourage students to use the scientific method – define the question (problem), hypothesize, collect and analyze data, and make conclusions and recommendations. This allows for the learning of a variety of knowledge and skills all at one time, on their own.
5. Spend a period or two every week to update each other about the progress of investigation. Provide help and support to groups.
6. Bring the project to a closure by pulling together the findings of every group – have them plan and prepare for a presentation of the same (encourage the use of both low- and high-tech presentation aids; e.g. posters, PowerPoint slides, and other exhibit materials).
7. Showcase the final outcome by inviting members of the school and the community to take part in the presentation of student investigation. The school-wide exhibition/presentation could be effectively used to initiate a collaborative discussion about the issue at hand.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]While we are familiar with and to some extent believe in the idiom, “two heads are better than one,” we rarely put it to practice. Our long-held belief about efficiency is that “like-mindedness is time-, energy-, and cost-effective.” Hence we rarely seek second opinions or different perspectives on a given issue. Our decisions about educational policies and practices reflect limited, partial, and hasty sentiment of a poorly represented school constituency.

When faced with a challenge, a few select members of the school are appointed to address it, conveniently leaving out many others who may directly or indirectly affect and be affected by the action plans devised to handle the challenge. We feel that calling in many others to the discussion table causes more trouble. We have wrongly learned and fear that bringing many heads together (representing the different constituencies of the school) to handle an issue will further complicate it without a positive outcome.

Power of Diversity

Dr. Scott E. Page, a professor of complex systems, political science, and economics, and an advocate of systems thinking at the University of Michigan sheds new light about diversity. In his recently published book, “The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies,” he uses mathematically modeling and case studies to show how variety in staffing produces organizational strengths, rather than chaos and inefficiency. He argues that “like-mindedness” produces singularity of thoughts and actions that curbs creative problem-solving and minimizes opportunities for innovative thinking and planning.

Dr. Page suggests that significant productivity is achieved when a seemingly messy, creative organizational environment accommodates individuals from vastly different backgrounds and life experiences who possess different perceptions. We live in an unprecedented era and the challenges that we face as educators, students, and parents are very complicated in nature. As time has proven, it would be ineffective to continue to rely on a few select members of the school to solve school-related problems. These individuals have the same kind of training, shaped in the same mold, and think in almost identical ways – if any one member gets stuck, all of them get stuck – in the end, the problem remains unresolved.

Empirical evidence

In an experiment conducted by Dr. Page and his associates, repeated trials revealed that diverse groups of problem-solvers outperformed the groups of the best individuals at solving problems. The accompanying reason for this is that the diverse groups got stuck less often than the smart individuals, who tend to think similarly. The findings of this experiment led Dr. Scott to conclude that “a group’s errors depend in equal parts on the ability of its members to predict outcomes and their diversity.”

Capitalizing on diversity

Diversity is an identifying mark of the 21st century. Diversity fills up every crevice of our social realities. Research in diversity and complex systems yield enough empirical evidence to show that diverse cities are more productive, diverse boards of directors make better decisions, and the most innovative companies are diverse. Breakthroughs in science increasingly come from teams of bright, diverse people. This explains why interdisciplinary work is the biggest trend in scientific research (a good example is depicted in the movie, “Armageddon” where a team with diverse expertise tries to save the earth from a cataclysmic danger).

Implication for education

The value of a school could be significantly maximized if the diversity of its constituencies is effectively used. Progressive schools have realized this and are moving in the direction of making collaborative decisions about major educational policies and practices – students, parents, professionals from the community, teachers, and administrators put their heads together – elicit, listen to, and consider various perspectives – before deciding on the best action/solution.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Working in a relatively small and new school, I ask myself this question quite often: “What really makes a school, a school?”

Parents choose big and well-established schools because they trust in them. They trust big schools because almost always, big schools promise to be everything that a school, in its most traditional sense should be (in terms of physical structures, infrastructures, pedagogical approaches, view on students and how they learn, exam-centrism, etc.). Unfortunately, these do not service students for maximum and meaningful learning. Research over a period of 30 years or so in the area of learning and cognitive sciences reveal that the traditional school setup is the least conducive to learning.

What makes a school then?

A school is not necessarily a concept that connotes a systematically-run physical structure, governed by tenets proposed by a few educated “geniuses” anymore. Like so many things in this ever-evolving world, “schooling” has undergone tremendous changes. It goes beyond physical-structural limits and extends to all that the human mind could imagine doing. In other words, schooling is equated to living itself.

In my opinion, the following makes a school, a school, in this changing times:

1. progressiveness – ability to constantly change and re-invent ways of doing things and how learning is viewed.
2. data driven practices – decision-making that is anchored solidly in hard evidences rather than “we do this because so and so feels it is good and/or said so!”
3. collaborative actions among teachers, students, parents, administrators, community, businesses, industries, etc. – the school is not perceived and run in isolation by any one of its constituencies – schooling is living life itself – and life is lived in connection with all of its community/societal components.
4. shared decision-making – big schools are famous for the detachment within their systems – most decisions are made by top authorities and others are expected to “follow” the leader without questioning the appropriateness and effectiveness of decisions made – communication to the power of ten thousand among the various constituencies of the school is the key to success in progressive educational institutions!
5. vision-driven (focus on the big picture) – big schools strive to keep status quo in-tact “if something is good and functional, we keep it” – this is common in well-established schools – but when asked where the school is headed, most staff and faculty will not be able to answer the question because they live, almost completely, in the “now and here” – the “future” does not guide the present, the past does. While the past and present is important, progressive schools focus on the “future” and the big picture, which is PROVIDING MEANINGFUL LEARNING EXPERIENCES TO STUDENTS.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]It is impossible to imagine a situation where a teacher instructs students in her class to keep away school work, take some time off, and let their minds wander around – thinking about anything, everything, or nothing. The reality is quite the contrary. Teachers and school administrators often experience panic attacks when students get extra free time in their hands. Adults usually view this as a potential threat to their comfortable daily routine. Most adults believe that students become trouble-makers when allowed too much time for themselves, hence the conceptualization of the popular adage, “An empty mind is the devil’s workshop.”

Because of this belief, schools insist on tightly filling in every time slot and space that student may have to “wander around” in their minds. A typical school schedule is packed with subjects, activities, meetings, and supervised play. A careful examination of school schedule and calendar would reveal that there is little or no room for students to play the role of lighthearted-children (being who they really are) whose minds are the wellspring of creative ideas when provided with sufficient time and opportunity to engage in the natural process and act of wonderment, a quality that most individuals lose by the end of schooling.

Understanding daydreaming

The definition given by Oxford dictionary for the word daydreaming is, “pleasant thoughts that make you forget about the present.” This traditional characterization of the term limits our understanding about significant scientific facts about daydreaming. These facts have convinced scholars to view daydreaming differently.

According to Jonathan Schooler, a psychologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, an individual’s mind is uninhibited when he or she daydreams allowing the brain to make new associations and connections – physically at neurological level and conceptually at the level of ideas creation). In other words, when people daydream and engage in abstract-make-believe thinking and imaginative wandering, there is a great potential that the act may give birth to creative ideas.

Schooler further explains that “if our minds do not wander, we would be greatly obstructed by whatever we are doing right now.” This implies the pre-occupation with mundane activities and the accompanying inability to stretch one’s creativity to the limits. Schooler’s research show that people who engage in more daydreaming score higher on experimental measures of creativity, which require people to make a set of unusual connections.

Daydreaming also yields numerous social benefits. The “what if” scenarios that we project in our minds help us to anticipate and prepare for the future and allow us to plan the course of our social-emotional actions. This is particularly important in making sound ethical and moral choices – a quality that differentiates humans from animals.

Myths about daydreaming

The following beliefs about daydreaming are not scientific and may further hinder us from harnessing its value to boosts creativity among students:
1. Daydreaming is the leading cause of traffic accidents
2. Daydreaming is a sign of laziness
3. Daydreamers lack discipline
4. Daydreamers don’t think
5. Daydreaming is a sign of procrastination
6. Daydreamers are counter-productive
7. Daydreamers are underperformers

The milkmaid

The old but much remembered Aesop fable about the milkmaid who tossed her head, dropped the pail, and spilled the milk when she attempted to animate her daydream brings to us the moral lesson: “Do not count your chickens before they are hatched.” However, experience tells us that without such creative insights, innovation and problem-solving are impossible. Quantum Physics calls this the Law of Attraction – we draw to ourselves what we think about.

Daydreaming that results in a creative action idea surfaces when the brain makes natural connections among mental frameworks that are seemingly unrelated. Schooler’s work reveals this phenomenon to be true about daydreaming. He further adds that “daydreams involve more relaxed style of thinking, with people more willing to contemplate ideas that seem silly or far fetched.”

Implication for teaching

Deliberately providing sufficient “empty time” to engage students in daydreaming that boosts creativity is useful. In addition, students could share their daydreams through free drawing, open-ended writing, unguided reading, unprompted choreography, etc. Allocating a special period everyday for such an experience is definitely a practice in schools that are progressive and desire to produce individuals who can creatively handle the challenges of the new millennia.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]