I’ve succeed in finding something that does not exist in some computer coding languages – the “does not equal” sign. ≠ needs to be found somewhere, then pasted in as a character. There are suggestions in several coding forums regarding what can be used, such as -=, which is the negation of the equal sign, != , or even no=. But all those “workarounds” are simply attempts at taking what already exists and trying to improve upon it.
We’ve seen such things happen in technology throughout the 20th century. The typewriter was created in the 1860’s, but the concept was imagined as early as the 1700’s. The concept was refined and continuously improved upon until the characters were placed in the arrangement we’re so familiar with for 3 reasons. First, most of the most common letters are used by the left hand, so that the carriage return (the manual one) could be the main function of the right hand. Second, the arrangement of the letters were done so that the key mechanism that carried the print head to the roller wouldn’t get stuck to each other if the user became sufficiently expert at typing quickly. Third, the letters of the word “typewriter” were all placed on the top row of keys so that sales people demonstrating the device would have an easy time remembering the locations of the letters. Then came the IBM Selectrics (R), with interchangeable spinning steel font balls and an electronic carriage return…making all those reasons obsolete.
Of course we all know that the computer revolutionized how we create correspondence…but notice that we still have the keyboard in the same layout so that the utilization learning curve would not be as steep for those learning to use the technology.
Therefore, even though alternate keyboard configurations exist today, the QWERTY is still the standard, from typewriters (which are, believe it or not, still used in parts of the world today) to iPads and tablet computers.
The learning: Transformational innovation will be accepted if there’s still an element of familiarity contained within it.
So let’s apply that to learning today, and our attempts at improving our educational system. School districts want to improve student achievement. However, if students are learning at a particular level sub-standard to what is the average year progress (AYP) expectation, and slightly move the achievement scores to a point that’s a little higher, but still sub-standard, is that usually considered acceptable?
If you said yes, then continuous improvement is going to take a VERY long time to have a positive effect that is newsworthy. What seems to be demanded today is significant improvement in a very short period of time, with the short-term goal of moving from below the standard to either at or above the standard.
Consider today’s most recent enthusiasm with STEM/STEAM programs. While schools have implemented program and have constructed buildings to house new and innovative educational programs, they’re finding that reading scores have dropped! Why? Show me where “Reading” is within the STEM/STEAM acronym to include Language Arts curriculum. That’s right – it’s not in there! Focus your attention on one thing, or several things, but leave one element out of the system, and the machine will fall apart. Now we’re looking at STREAM (and faith-based schools are using the “R” to indicate “Religion”). But, you know, if we add Social Studies, as a S, we get STREAMS! I’m sure we could continue to add letters until we get to all those courses a school has.
Over the next 5 weeks, five articles will be published that present suggestions as to how we can begin to transform education with innovation rather than continuously improve upon what we have. The really cool thing is all of these elements do not require sophisticated technology to accomplish. They could also be implemented “linearly,” but would have the most impact if they were done all at once, since all elements work together as a system. The bad news is that it could take some time to get to the levels we’re expected to get to. It’s not because we don’t have the ability; it’s because the brain of the 21st century student is wired differently than the brain of the 20th century student, and we need to have the infrastructure to capitalize not simply on the mindsets which currently exist in our classrooms, but, if we make changes, the infrastructure also needs to be able to accommodate the modifications we make.
Where do we make those changes? As Julie Andrews sang, “Let’s start at the very beginning. That’s a very good place to start.”
Next week, part one, which has to do with the sound of music.