Curiosity Factor #10: Open-Endedness
by Mike Horton
Imagine that there are two tables in front of you. One table has a billion dollars on it. The other table is piled high with scientific research and has the best scientists in the world seated around it. You get to choose. You can either donate the billion dollars to diabetes charities or you can lead the group of scientists in analyzing the research to search for a cure for diabetes with a billion dollar budget. Which do you choose?
Your choice is an indication of your “Need for Cognition,” a near synonym for curiosity in psychology research. NFC is a measure of an individual’s craving to deeply understand concepts and their connections to other concepts. Researchers have shown a moderate correlation with verbal and fluid intelligence (reasoning ability) and a smaller but significant correlation to crystallized intelligence (knowledge).* These are exactly what schools hope to develop in our students, so one of our main goals should be to amplify Need for Cognition in students.
Although I was unable to find direct evidence that NFC can be developed, it is certainly suggestive since we know that intelligence is not fixed and that NFC is closely correlated with intelligence. It makes sense that if one has been proven to not be fixed, then the other closely-related factor must not be fixed either. Twin studies have shown that about 60% of intelligence is genetic and the other 40% is environmental. This suggests that not only can we develop NFC, but that developing NFC may also augment intelligence.
Susan Land defined “Open-Ended Learning Environments'' as those in which students engage in “authentic problem solving; generate, test, and revise hypotheses; explore and manipulate concepts; and reflect on what they know.” Then, the goal should be to increase opportunities in these areas as students mature. It is clear that a kindergartener is not as capable of OELE activities as 11th graders are, so these techniques should not be initiated suddenly or at too early of an age, but gradually introduced and increased in frequency.
Many of the techniques described by Dr. Land have already been discussed previously. For example, generating, testing, and revising hypotheses is exactly what we described in the Inquiry blog. I was at a technology conference once where the presenter asked a question that distilled the essence of Open-Endedness very well. The presenter asked “What did you teach yesterday that the students cannot just Google?” She then went on to explain that in the 21st century, teaching shouldn’t be about facts, it should be about the application of those facts, the importance of the facts, how these facts fit together with previous facts to contribute to the bigger picture, and how we have come to know these facts. That is how I see open-endedness, discussing and debating google-able (is that a word?) information.
In my career as a teacher, all of the most memorable lessons that I taught were either incredible science demonstrations, magnificent projects, or debates. I have used debates many times in my science classes and they are among the most powerful and memorable techniques of all. Students came back to my class many years later, still wanting to debate whether we should be harvesting kelp, whether recycling newspapers is good for the environment, or whether centrifugal force really exists. I once sat in an AVID class that was debating whether General Sherman was a good leader or a bad one. His “scorched Earth” methodologies were barbaric, but his victories paved the way for the freeing of the slaves. Near the end of the period, students asked the teacher if they could stay in at lunch and finish this very productive activity. This lesson was 9 years ago and I assure you that every student in that class remembers who General Sherman was. My son was in that class and he still remembers.
It must be acknowledged that I’m not saying that everything lends itself to debate or that all topics can be taught in an open-ended manner. What I do endorse is selecting the most essential topics that you teach, the ones with Leverage, Readiness, and Endurance, those that you hope students will remember for a long time, and infuse some open-endedness into them.
I hope that your need for cognition has been sparked and you’ll investigate open-endedness even more and collaborate with your colleagues on bumping up the levels, frequency, and depth of your OELE experiences.
*Fleischhauer, M.; Enge, S.; Brocke, B.; Ullrich, J.; Strobel, A.; Strobel, A. (2009). "Same or Different? Clarifying the Relationship of Need for Cognition to Personality and Intelligence". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36 (1): 82–96.
Land, S.M. Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. ETR&D 48, 61–78 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319858
No comments:
Post a Comment