Four Alternative Lenses

2 downloads 109 Views 222KB Size Report
the Georgia Museum of Art. Her research interests include systems thinking, interdisciplinary ...... Lexington, KY: Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown. Tough ...
Four Alternative Theoretical Lenses to Change the Educational Paradigm: Systems Thinking, Informal Learning, Play Theories, and Culturally Responsive Education

Yuha Jung, Victoria Eudy, Gloria Wilson, and Garrett Jaeger The University of Georgia

Contact information of the authors: Yuha Jung: [email protected] / 270 River Road, Athens, GA, 30602 Yuha Jung is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Georgia. Jung is an art educator, museum scholar, and qualitative researcher. She holds an MA in Museum Studies from Syracuse University, and a PhD in Art Education from Penn State. Jung’s research interests center around the incorporation of cultural diversity, ecological-mindedness, and systems theory in museum and informal educational settings. Victoria Eudy: [email protected] / 270 River Road, Athens, GA 30602 Victoria Eudy (Fr. Weaver) is a PhD student in Art Education at the University of Georgia. She received her BFA in Visual Communications and BA in English Literature from Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri. In 2013 she graduated with an MA in Art Education at the University of Georgia where her applied project focused on engaging undergraduate audiences at the Georgia Museum of Art. Her research interests include systems thinking, interdisciplinary studies, and museum education.

2  

 

Gloria Wilson: [email protected] / 270 River Road, Athens, GA, 30602 Gloria Wilson is a PhD candidate in Art Education and an instructor at the Lamar Dodd School of Art at The University of Georgia. She received her BS and MEd degrees in Art Education from the University of South Alabama and has taught middle and high school art for 13 years in both inner city and rural environments in Alabama and Virginia. Her research interests are committed to addressing the social and political role of visual culture in order to affect social transformation and the incorporation of culturally responsive research and pedagogy in educational settings. Garrett Jaeger: [email protected] / 534 Pulaski Street, Athens, GA 30601 Garrett Jaeger is a doctoral student in Educational Psychology, with a concentration in Gifted and Creative Education, at the University of Georgia. His current research investigates the development of creativity assessments and their discriminant validity with the parallel constructs of play, beginner’s mind, meditation, and flow experiences. Jaeger’s prior education and experiences with meditation practices and shamanic rituals lead to research in developmental psychology. He combines these understandings to hone his inquiries of consciousness in play from the perspectives of both phenomenology and scientific empiricism.

 

2  

3  

 

Title Four Alternative Theoretical Lenses to Change the Educational Paradigm: Systems Thinking, Informal Learning, Play Theories, and Culturally Responsive Education

Abstract We question the existing formal education paradigm and suggest alternative perspectives on curriculum and pedagogy. The current educational system in the United States is a product of the industrial revolution: it values efficiency, scientific management, formal settings, and compartmentalized subjects. This scientific management system approach to education still resonates in the contemporary curriculum and pedagogy—resulting in learning that is not creative, intrinsically motivated, playful, or inclusive. We propose four useful, alternative theoretical lenses for rethinking the dominant educational paradigm: systems thinking, informal learning, play theories, and culturally responsive education. By doing so, we propose a holistic understanding of education and how we can develop an educational paradigm that is more flexible, just, unknowable, and innovative.

 

3  

4  

 

Introduction In the United States and other parts of the world, the meaning of education has become narrower and more confined to an understanding that is closely associated with degrees, universities, and fixed classroom spaces (Jung, 2011). According to this constricted definition of education, about five billion people in the world are uneducated, miseducated, or undereducated (Prakash & Esteva, 2008). Predominate Western worldview reinforces the simple notion that some people are not educated or intelligent because they do not hold degrees from credible institutions. Perhaps, this view colonizes different forms of education based on the supposedly better Western educational system (Marlens et al., 2010). It also ignores the complex and diverse cultural, racial, and political fabric of the pluralism existing in contemporary United States society. Education is not some kind of treatment that everyone needs; rather, it can have many different forms and approaches (Illich, 2002). In this article, we question the existing paradigm in K-12 as well as higher education and suggest alternative perspectives on curriculum and pedagogy. We believe that having different approaches and pedagogical perspectives can help make changes to the current paradigm to transform it into a more holistic, flexible, playful, and diverse approach. In order to do this, we must first address the existing educational paradigm. The Predominant Educational Paradigm of Efficiency and Scientific Management The current educational system in the United States is a product of the industrial revolution; it values efficiency, scientific management, formal settings, and compartmentalized subjects (Robinson, 2010). According to Robinson (2010, n.p.), the Western educational system is “modeled on the interests of industrialism and the image of it.” Schools function like factories—they are organized using the concepts of assembly lines, ringing bells, and separate facilities (Robinson, 2010). We continue to educate our children in batches based on their ages.

 

4  

5  

 

This scientific management system still resonates in contemporary classrooms. As Leland and Kasten (2002, p. 8) observes, during the industrial revolution “educators were impressed with the order and efficiency of the new technology and forms of organization they saw about them . . . these aroused a sense of wonder and excitement in men and women seeking to systematize the schools.” By the turn of the 20th century, the excitement and language of industrialization had permeated into educational institutions. Educators began referring to and envisioning their schools as “factories” and “called themselves superintendents, as in industry” (Leland & Kasten, 2002, p. 8). It was problematic to think that what worked in industries like textiles and railroads would work for education. People are not products of factories, and cannot be nurtured through a one-size-fits-all educational model because all people are unique in their learning styles, values, and sociocultural backgrounds. This assembly-line educational system can numb the human mind into devaluing the different ways of knowing, learning, and living. Therefore, students in the system lack creativity, an understanding of the interconnection among people and environments, and a healthy respect towards our differences. This industrial system also created “the illusion that the world is created of separate, unrelated forces” (Senge, 2006, p.3). However, when we give up this illusion, we can create a learning organization or society where people work together to achieve results that truly matter to them, nurture new patterns of thinking, and continually learn how to learn together (Senge, 2006). Even those industries that adopted the scientific and mechanistic model have moved away from this model and have adopted more organic learning organizational approach that values creativity, innovation, and learning (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Handy, 1993; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Senge. 2006). The mechanistic management model was criticized for dehumanizing its workers and ignoring the changing environment of industries (Handy, 1993; Mintzberg, 1979).

 

5  

6  

 

The shift is even more obvious in our contemporary technology- and information-based society, and can be seen clearly in the closely associated industries. Google is a good example. It operates under the supposition that people are reliable, innovative, trustworthy, and collaborative (Jackson, 2013). It encourages its employees to take risks and give feedback to each other, valuing collaboration and unique individual perspectives (Jackson, 2013). Especially with the rise of a creative class (Florida, 2002) and drastic change in racial and ethnic composition of United States population, this old educational paradigm cannot adequately prepare our children for a successful future. In the post-industrial society, creativity, innovation, and the ability to deal with uncertainty and cultural differences are invaluable skills that the current American society desperately needs—skills and attitudes that the current school system simply does not deliver (Robinson, 2005; Tuomi 2007). Alternative Educational Paradigms In this article, we propose four alternative theoretical lenses: (1) systems thinking, (2) informal learning, (3) play theories, and (4) culturally responsive education in order to expand our conventional understanding of education. Through these lenses, we can change our current educational paradigm into something that values interconnection, flexibility, diverse epistemologies, creativity, playfulness, unknowability, and sociocultural pluralism. Ecological Systems Thinking: A Transdisciplinary Approach Systems thinking is a transdisciplinary framework for understanding phenomena as open systems that are connected to many parts of their surroundings (Senge, 2006). It is a way of problem solving that focuses on the whole rather than on the parts. Systems thinking provides a transdisciplinary counter-approach to the current practice of disciplinary separatism within education, and strives to create the holistic educational experience necessary for the promotion of

 

6  

7  

 

innovation and pluralism. Systems thinking entails an understanding and taming of the world without reductionism because it is inclusive of different perspectives and values. It is applicable to a broad variety of circumstances, including—but not limited to—research, teaching, and learning (Hodgson, 2012). Therefore, systems thinking assumes that when people are genuinely aware of the interconnectivity of the world they are able to legitimately value diverse perspectives. This approach ultimately lends itself to divergent thinking, creativity, innovation, and transformation. In order to disturb the current educational paradigm that is based on disciplinary separatism, we discuss four different concepts in this section: 1) ecological systems thinking, 2) transdisciplinarity, 3) creativity, and 4) innovation. Ecological systems thinking. Systems thinking can be ecological while it can be mechanistic. Based on a positivist perspective, systems thinking or theory often refers to a feedback loop that can be controlled. In a feedback loop, inputs go through a system or mechanism that emerge as outputs, giving results (Kettl, 2011). The results can generate feedback that impacts the inputs during next round, and this loop continues (Kettl, 2011). While this feedback loop can be open or closed, interacting or not interacting with the environment, it paints the world as something that is controllable and understood entirely through human rationality. For example, Lindblom (1959) rejects the root method, an influential framework in Public Administration, which assumes that human beings are rational; recourses are not limited (ignoring the complexity and unknowability of many institutions and systems); decision making processes are mechanical (based on limited theory, research, and mathematical analysis); and consequences are predictable. The root method is based on positivist systems theory that assumes the world is something that exists under human rationality. This is precisely the kind of systems thinking that we reject.

 

7  

8  

 

Our approach to systems thinking can be more closely related to an ecologically-based epistemology, which promotes inquiry that goes beyond, and defies the boundaries set forth by positivism. To continue with the decision making example in the previous paragraph, the branch method is based on ecological systems thinking, which acknowledges that human beings have a bounded and subjective rationality; recourses are limited; decision making processes are organic and based on previous experiences; and consequences are unpredictable and unknowable (Lindblom, 1959). Ecological systems thinking embraces these postmodern qualities of flexibility, subjectivity, and unknowability. Therefore it values experimentation, creativity, and pluralism. Transdisciplinarity. The most important step in the transformation of the mechanical education model is to adopt ecological systems thinking in order to encourage teachers and students to take a more holistic approach toward their teaching and learning, instead of a departmentalized, discipline-based outlook. We will call this a transdisciplinary approach. To better understand the meaning of transdisciplinarity, it is important to examine its two associated terms—multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. A multidisciplinary approach to inquiry involves two or more disciplines working to solve a problem with minimal epistemological integration. This may be viewed as each individual discipline writing separate chapters of a book aimed at solving one particular problem. Further epistemological integration occurs within the realm of interdisciplinarity. The term interdisciplinary is controversial, and it is often used interchangeably with transdisciplinary. However, this is not the case. Amey and Brown (2005, p. 27) characterize an interdisciplinary approach to learning as one in which, “competing disciplinary perspectives existed in parallel, allowing tasks to be done independently and brought back to the group for coordination and

 

8  

9  

 

compilation.” In doing so, interdisciplinary activities begin the process of acknowledging and comparing other paradigms. The furthest level of epistemological inquiry is a transdisciplinary practice. At this level, discipline boundaries have disintegrated. Angelstam et al. (2013, p. 256) characterize transdisciplinary collaboration as research that embodies a paradigm of “active inclusion and participation of stakeholders representing different societal sectors in the processes of problem formulation, knowledge production, and learning.” A transdisciplinary practice embodies the same holistic thought and collaborative paradigm, and requires a total integration of what were once separate modes of inquiry. In order to practice transdisciplinary curriculum and pedagogy, all participating members and stakeholders should embrace a paradigm shift into ecological systems thinking that values the processes of learning that integrates seemingly disparate approaches to inquiry. The processes are as motivating, exciting, and important as the product of that inquiry (Amey & Brown, 2005). Creativity and innovation. The concepts of creativity and innovation, two very pertinent issues in education, are closely related to ecological systems thinking and transdisciplinarity. Creativity involves the processes (e.g., cognitive and emotional) that result in innovative products and processes. Creativity is often defined as a product or concept that is both novel and useful, but like systems thinking, it is also a habit of mind. Components of creative habits of mind include flexibility of thought and divergent thinking, which are inherently necessary for the paradigm shift to systems thinking. Innovation shares some criteria with creativity: they both need to be original and useful (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). The common implicit theory of innovation is that it requires the person or group of people to create something that moves the field or industry forward. Others have

 

9  

10  

 

defined ‘team innovation’ (West & Wallace, 1991, p. 303) as “the intentional introduction and application within a team, of ideas, processes, products or procedures new to the team, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the team, the organization, or wider society.” It is the practice of creativity that generates new ideas, which leads to innovation (Im, Montoya, & Workman, 2013). Thus, we can achieve educational innovation by engaging in the creative practice of systems thinking while using transdisciplinary perspectives. By reevaluating the outdated current educational paradigm through a systems thinking and transdisciplinary lens, it is possible for the contemporary educational system to meet the needs of the post-industrialized 21st century. As Tuomi (2007, p. 236) states, “The post-industrial world is characterized by fluid social roles, unpredictable life paths, and increasing mismatches between traditional professional careers and labor market demands,” thus logically demanding a change in the stagnation of the ever-industrial educational system. Instead of the industrialized efficiency model, the focus should lie in how to most effectively foster innovation, creativity, and new moves. Thus, the 21st century desperately calls for a transdisciplinary approach to education (Florida, 2002; Lytoard, 1984; Robinson, 2005; Welch, 1998). Informal Learning: Intrinsically Motivated and Sustainable When we apply ecological systems thinking and the transdisciplinary approach to education, teaching, and learning, we cannot think of education as being confined to schooling, degrees, and compartmentalized disciplines. In the same vein, the theory of informal learning does not see education as something that is separate from our daily lives, or something that only happens in schools. Within this ecological and informal framework, education involves making daily connections in the form of a ubiquitous learning web in our environment (Jung, 2011). Therefore, learning can happen through many diverse interactions—between people, with books,

 

10  

11  

 

browsing the Internet, consuming popular media, and more. This perspective is influenced by Illich’s (2002, p. 77) notion of the educational web, a network characterized by mutual access that is “designed to spread equal opportunity for learning and teaching” beyond obligatory school education. Thomas and Brown (2011, p. 19) call this web “a massive information network.” Through this framework, we can understand education, teaching, and learning in a more holistic and broad sense. According to Coffield (2000), formal learning only represents a tip of the iceberg. Although informal learning is everywhere—both in formal and non-formal educational environments—policy makers, researchers, and workplaces have not paid much attention to the importance and necessity of informal learning and often have failed to address it. In this section, we define informal learning in a broad sense and emphasize its importance in formal educational settings. There has been much discussion about the definition of informal learning, and many scholars use different terms to describe the various overarching characteristics of informal learning. While they may be describing similar phenomenon, scholars like to coin their own phrases to designate the contextual, self-motivated, and community-oriented nature of informal learning. For example, Falk and Dierking (2000, p. xii) use “free-choice learning” to describe flexible and choice-driven learning in museums and other cultural institutions. More recently Kuznetsov and Paulos (2010) use “do-it-yourself” (DIY) learning in describing self-directed and self-motivated learning (Tough, 1967). Lave and Wenger (1991) talk about situated learning in communities through a form of apprenticeship. Definitions of informal learning. Other scholars define informal learning through organizational and administrative differences. McGiveney (1999) defines informal learning as

 

11  

12  

 

non-formal education happening outside of dedicated learning environment such as schools and universities. According to Coombs and Ahmed (1974), it is flexible, unorganized, unsystematic, unintentional—and not based on structured courses or curriculum—nonetheless a great deal of our lifetime learning consists of non-formal education. From an administrative perspective, Smith (2008) defines formal education as associated with schools and training institutions, and non-formal as linked to community groups and organizations. Informal learning covers the remainder, often happening through interactions with friends, family members, and colleagues in homes and workplaces (Smith, 2008). While these different terms and administrative separation of informal learning capture divergent characteristics of informal learning, we argue that informal learning is not the opposite concept of schooling or formal education, but rather something that happens everywhere and in all kinds of environments. Therefore, informal learning is not limited to non-formal educational settings but includes schools, universities, colleges, workplaces, homes, and community organizations. Difference between formal and informal education. However, the largest difference between formal and informal education is that the former is extrinsically motivated and therefore has a clear beginning and end, while the latter is intrinsically motivated and therefore forms a culture of learning that is sustainable and grows organically (Thomas & Brown, 2011). When we apply this distinction into education, informal learning happens everywhere. It is concerned less with formality or administrative structure and more with the mode of motivation and mindset toward learning. Therefore, informal learning values personal experiences and surrounding environments that will have an influence on how people learn (Thomas & Brown, 2011). Informal learning occurs when individuals feel internally motivated to learn certain subject matters and pursue further understanding of it inside and outside the school settings and if they

 

12  

13  

 

learn things that are not required by the meta-curricular intentions of their teachers and educational institutions. Toward flexible curriculum. This way of defining informal learning leads us to the discussion of organic, flexible curriculum that is alive—or currere. Currere is the Latin origin for the world curriculum, and the difference between these two words is that the former is a verb and the latter is a noun. Therefore, the alive, contextual, and organic concept of currere critiques the contemporary meaning of curriculum as being text-based, fixed, and mechanical (Irwin, 2006). The premise of currere is that teachers and schools cannot—and should not—control students’ learning and their internalization of knowledge. Rather, educators can design curriculum based on their students’ personal cultures, interests, needs, and ways of learning and knowing. As a result, students learning can be more relevant, meaningful, intrinsic, and enjoyable. It is often said that too much schooling or control can kill off the desire to learn (Leadbeater, 2000). Through incorporating the concept of informal learning and adopting its strategies, we educators and students can reconceptualize and rethink education, curricula, teaching methods, and pedagogies—fundamentals that are so often used without critical examination. By doing so, schools and universities can act like hubs of learning within the community, make learning relevant to people in the community where the knowledge is deployed, extend into the community, and value creativity and collaboration (Leadbeater, 2000). When we adopt the framework of informal learning, we can value education as ongoing learning and living processes. We can view it as a platform for living with others, respecting other cultures and perspectives, and solving pressing social issues that affect everyone on earth. Informal learning contrasts with the current dominant paradigm that considers education as a tool to get ahead of

 

13  

14  

 

others, make more money, and gain political and social power (Prakash & Esteva, 2008). This limited way of thinking realizes only a tiny fraction of the full potential of education. Current educational paradigm can be described as formal education that lacks informal learning aspects and therefore is top-down, extrinsically motivated, mechanistically organized, packaged based on set curriculum, and happening in designated educational spaces created by others (Illich, 2002). Informal learning recommends formal learning to include its qualities that are bottom-up, intrinsically motivated, choice-driven, organically organized, and situated in context. It can loosen up the designated educational places to help us expand this notion of the “classroom” into playgrounds, nature, community centers, and street corners. This approach can humanize schools, allowing playful and effective learning to occur. Play Theories: Not-knowing as a Strategy for Learning It is far too easy to compartmentalize play as something that is only for children. There are many instances where we find ourselves looking back romantically upon our younger years when life was less burdensome and more magical. However, we often end such reflections and take issue with lacking such perspective in adulthood. What has happened in the years and days that have passed since the time when we were young? While responsibilities and experiences accrue, and technology increases in its sophistication and ubiquity, how we interact with and make sense of the world can remain—interaction that is playful, creative, and unknowable. We may find play in adulthood during our vacations, our creative endeavors, and vicariously through the eyes of children. Those are most certainly some common avenues that are frequently associated with play, yet the opportunities remain omnipresent throughout the lifespan. When decoupling the term play from its association with commonly observed activities of children, we actually get a more essential perspective on what is play. Through the convincing,

 

14  

15  

 

yet esoteric words of Gadamer, “The players are not the subjects of play; instead the play merely reaches representation through the player” (as cited in Sutton-Smith, 1997, p. 182). In a similar insight from a dissimilar culture, the Sanskrit term and Hindu concept Lîla, describes how reality and the cosmos came to be through divine play (Capra, 1977), and if we wish to align with the nature of the cosmos, we mimic the Gods, who play. To be clear, contributions such as the well-established typology provided by Parten (1933), or from leisure studies (e.g., Kerr & Apter, 1991) and creativity research (McMillan, Kaufman, & Singer, 2013; Pellegrini, 1992) are influential theoretical contributions. However, they are not essential for our more inclusive and ubiquitous discourse on play. Definition of play. With further respect for play scholars that came before (see Caillois, 1961; Huizinga, 1938; & Sutton-Smith, 1997), we would like to propose a definition of play that is nuanced yet practical, esoteric yet generalizable: A freedom transcendent of conventional parameters, allowing an individual to vacate the product of Self; to merge with an already interconnected, supratemporal process. There are components of such a definition that some find arguable and provoke further explanation. The supratemporal is akin to our understanding of Csikszentmihalyi’s (1997) work on flow, which explains how we lose track of time when we are fully engaged in play. The pursuit of freedom along with a transcendence of parameters is common rhetoric in play theory (Sutton-Smith, 1997), yet some may disagree that having a personal preference for environmental pressures (e.g., time constraints) stimulates creativity (Rhodes, 1961). Discussion of Self. What may be the most important and valuable contribution of play is the reduction of Self. The capitalization of Self in this context has its roots in William James’ (1890) Dialogical Self, and how we feel the need to portray a narrative of “me” to others in

 

15  

16  

 

anticipation of their perceptions, rather than the momentary consciousness of an objective “I.” In many ways, such efforts are taken in hope that we will gain benefit from others seeing us the way that we want them to. For example, a product of Self could be displayed as moral paragons, or we produce a Self when we make great appeals to be acknowledged as intelligent or creative. The suggested reduction of Self—to be who we are, regardless of others’ views—is not an indictment of such pursuits, but rather an encouragement to be more critical of how we express ourselves based on the social norms and dominant culture. We encourage you to be courageous and playful with your inner self, and to understand the world and others with the same lively and honest manner. The pursuit of dominant knowledge, or the narrative Self, can often overlook common day-to-day encounters containing new, alternative information. Sometimes, dominant and already established academic knowledge, assumptions, and biases obscure our ability to notknow something. Quite often, our preconceived notions shape our perceptions and limit the influence of what is to come. In fact, even with voluminous age, intellect, and experiences, a majority of our daily lives contain novel instances. Consider the exponential combinations of people, places, things, with an overlay of time and development, and a claim that we know anything is less believable than admittance of our naiveté. Educational benefits and implementation of not-knowing. How can education benefit from accommodating such an admission of perpetual novelty? First, there is undoubtedly a benefit from history and science providing accumulated knowledge about our world. Therefore, the result of education should help both students and teachers acquire useful insights. This proposal of play as not-knowing, or uncertainty, is not an attempt to discredit such pursuits, but it is a request to look closer at how we experience learning. While there are many examples, the

 

16  

17  

 

broader fields of both history and science depend upon a scaled and unceasing change in our understanding and—as alluded in the opening section on systems thinking—result in our curious seeking of emergent properties that afford us some sense of personal connection or orientation (i.e., history repeating itself). The perceptual awareness of events repeating over time, not unlike the required reproducibility of the scientific method, provides us with a sense of scale and relativity. Such awareness liberates us from the redundancy of habits or passing trends, and supports us as we dig deeper, with the guidance of our individual whims, into more unique and authentic insights. More simply put, becoming aware of herd behavior is a large step towards critical thinking and authenticity. Secondly, being an authentic and critical consumer of information is based upon a simple foundation: that in order to listen objectively, or to receive maximal input of information, noise must be reduced. In many cases, this noise is the overabundance of associations we make as we interact with phenomena. Our contemporary lives are stimulated by ever-increasing sources of information, which offer answers to every momentary dilemma (e.g., the mobility of Google searches and social media crowd-sourcing). While such access to answers provides obvious benefits, it is also a large source of noise that limits our abilities to simply be with an event and hold on to the not-knowing of an answer, not seeking to control what is logically the next causal event, or in many cases, to listen to the person in front of you instead of waiting for your turn to talk. This not-knowing is a strategy, a skill, and dare we say consciousness, that reifies the exchange and our own agency, increasing the potency of communication required for education and what should be the development of educational pedagogy and curricula. Thirdly, much of our education provides skills and knowledge that may not translate outside the walls of our schools. Of course, our aims are to develop curricula that address such

 

17  

18  

 

needs of the outside world, including, but not limited to, citizenship and workplace prerequisites. It is with sincere trust that those who are responsible for the development of education curricula are afforded liberties to conduct collaborative research (Anderson & Herr, 1999) and to identify relevant content based on the students’ needs and interests. What play provides is a strategy, and at times a consciousness, that allows for the dynamism of life to seep into a dialogue that should not be isolated through laboratory controls. As outlined through informal learning and to be discussed via culturally responsive education below, there are alternatives that address many of the needs for appropriateness, accessibility, and authenticities of education. Furthermore, both our curricula and pedagogy would benefit from the integration and support of not-knowing when the environment and context is consistently changing—often beyond our rational control. Finally, if our organizations, educational content, and curricula are to reflect the everchanging needs of our students and the world, being tied to the results of applying what worked before is neither effective nor appropriate. Change occurs slowly when affixed within a web of concrete understandings and protocol. Such a pace of change happens at an organizational level, yet more importantly, occurs similarly within the education and development of the individual. Therefore much of the valuable time of our educators and administrators is spent fighting the glacial fixedness of a large entity: its school, its district, its state, and especially its national oversight. Addressing such a scale of influence is not the intent of this manuscript; rather the focus is the overarching need for a person to play within the conventional parameters. We encourage you to envision what education would look like if play was not merely a categorical observation of children’s behavior, but as an essential property of how the universe operates. As a not-so-ironic naming of a university as a place in which one can learn about the universe, then maybe we should pay more credence to the role of play and how it not only

 

18  

19  

 

provides insight into the essence of that around us but also an opportunity for us to participate in the universe rather than just being a grossly assuming, passive narrative. Culturally Responsive Education Our last theoretical approach to education is culturally responsive education. Systems thinking implies that there are many ways to understand the world, and different cultural and intellectual perspectives are relative and equally valuable and should not be taught in an hierarchical manner (e.g., European culture being superior to African culture). However, the current educational system emphasizes the dominant culture, norms, ways of knowing, and intellectual forms while neglecting perspectives from the socioeconomically, culturally, and racially diverse students and teachers. In a society with as much sociocultural and racial diversity as the United States, lack of alternative approaches to teaching and learning results in unequal educational practices and social injustice (Gay, 2010). While we assume that most teachers want to do the best for their students, some believe that to treat students differently because of their cultural orientations is a form of discrimination. In fact, decontextualizing teaching and learning from the ethnicities, cultures, and experiences of students minimizes the chances that their achievement potential will ever be fully realized. Our society’s predominant worldview and cultural norms are so deeply ingrained in how we educate children (Gay, 2010). Therefore, we very seldom think about the possibility that there may be other different but equally legitimate approaches to teaching and learning that can benefit more students (Gay, 2010). Over the last 20 years, scholars have proposed that a very different pedagogical paradigm is needed to improve the performance of underserved students—the paradigm that teaches to and through students’ personal cultural strengths, intellectual

 

19  

20  

 

capabilities, and prior accomplishments (Abrahams & Trioke, 1972; Delpit, 2006; Gay, 2010; Sleeter, 2011; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Culturally responsive teaching embodies this paradigm. Antecedents of culturally responsive education. During the 1970s, schools across the United States underwent desegregation, and school districts experimented with approaches that worked productively with more diverse student populations. It was during this time that multicultural education originated, out of concerns for the racial and ethnic inequities apparent in educational opportunities and outcomes—which continue to prevail in contemporary United States society (Sleeter, 2011). The concept of culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) has gained increased attention over the past decade as a way to rethink instructional practices in an effort to improve the educational performances of underserved students, including Black, Latino, Native American, and Asian. This merging of culture and pedagogy requires a comprehensive and informed set of knowledge and skills that many practitioners fail to possess in their attempts to engage diverse students in the teaching and learning processes. Scholars suggest that this is one of the contributing factors to the widespread academic disparities between many students of color and their White counterparts. (Delpit, 2006; Gay, 2010; Sleeter, 2011). Definition of culturally responsive pedagogy. CRP is a conceptual idea and a practical way of rethinking ideology, content, and pedagogy in a more racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse educational environment. Ladson-Billings (1992, p. 312), among the first scholars to define the concept of CRP, suggests that “it is a pedagogy that empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes.” Therefore, CRP is more than just a way of teaching or a simple set of practices embedded within curriculum lessons and units. Rather, it is a constant effort that is embodied within a larger framework to reform education such as educational policies and

 

20  

21  

 

standards. By imposing national common core standards and dominant epistemology on students' minds, we are depriving them of their intellectual freedom and cultural differences. Many educators have good intentions about not being academically unjust and discriminatory toward ethnically and racially different students. However, good intentions and awareness are not enough to bring about the changes needed in current educational policy to prevent academic inequities among diverse students. An actively responsive pedagogy embodies a professional, political, cultural, ethical, and ideological disposition that supersedes mundane teaching acts. It is centered in diverse beliefs about pedagogy and curriculum, students’ backgrounds—including their family and community cultures—and an unyielding commitment to see student success become less rhetoric and more of a reality. Furthermore, CRP critically examines the curriculum, instructional approaches, and assessment mechanisms that are steeped in mainstream Western ideology, language, and norms. Students whose cultural knowledge is most congruent with mainstream ways of knowing and being are more likely to experience cognitive comfort and better educational outcomes in schools. Institutional, personal, and instructional dimensions. In order to offer sources for greater understanding of CRP and to effectively incorporate it in the current educational practices, we briefly address the institutional, personal, and instructional dimensions of this pedagogy (Richards, Brown & Forde, 2007; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The institutional dimension of CRP emphasizes the need for reform of the environmental factors affecting the organization of schools, educational policies and procedures (including allocation of funds and resources), and community involvement (Richards, Brown & Forde, 2007). Systemic reforms must be undertaken in order to address multiple aspects of achievement (academic, social, psychological, emotional, etc.) within different subject areas across school

 

21  

22  

 

levels. Just as in health care where treating symptoms does not cure diseases, simply pointing out achievement problems does not lead to their resolution. Teacher self-reflection is an important part of the personal dimension of the CRP. Scholars explain that teachers’ conception of students of color in deficit terms—which has inevitable negative consequences for their longer-term academic success—is a product of longstanding racialized and institutional policies and practices that consistently disadvantage these students (Shields, Bishop, & Mazawi, 2005). Deficit-based explanations usually focus on poor students and students of color lacking or being devoid of culture; coming from a culture of poverty, which is not suited for academic success; possessing an oppositional culture; having a disdain for academic achievement; and/or having parents who lack concern for their children’s academic aspirations (Gay, 2010). Culturally responsive teaching rejects the deficit-based beliefs that some teachers may hold about underserved students. It operates from a standpoint of recognizing student strengths, affirming them, and seeking to build on them (Gay, 2002, 2010; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). In order to promote this standpoint, teachers should avoid deficit syndrome and strive toward bias reduction. Culturally responsive teaching rejects deficit-based beliefs and builds on student knowledge in an informed and caring manner. To do this, educators need to analyze their own cultural attitudes, assumptions, and pedagogies that have made it difficult to teach diverse students successfully. As Abrahams and Trioke (1972, p. 6) suggest, “there is no other way of educating…[racial minority] students than to provide them with a sense of dignity in the selves that they bring with them to school and to build on this by demonstrating the social and linguistic and cultural alternatives around them.”

 

22  

23  

 

The instructional dimension of CRP refers to practices associated with implementing cultural responsiveness in classroom. This idea suggests that teaching is a rich and complex endeavor that is built on a wide range of knowledge and skills about students, pedagogies, cultures, and the intersections of each of these domains into a unique approach for engaging students in content creation and critical thinking. Teachers might do this by validating students’ cultural identity in classroom practices and instructional materials, providing multiple means of assessment, encouraging students to think critically, and motivating students to become active in their learning. Sustaining a philosophical and critical view of teaching that is dedicated to nurturing diverse students’ academic, social, emotional, cultural, psychological, and physiological well-being is essential to this dimension. If the potential of CRP is to be realized, then widespread instructional reform and paradigm shifts are needed as well as major changes in the professional development, accountability, and assessment of teaching and educational institutions. Conclusion In order to shift the current oppressive educational paradigm into more diverse, playful, and inclusive one, we suggested four alternative theoretical lenses. Ecological systems thinking promotes interdependence and interconnectivity among people and environments as well as disciplines, therefore calling for more holistic, transdisciplinary, and innovative educational opportunities. Informal learning values intrinsically-motivated, flexible, and life-long education that can happen anywhere not just in schools and other formal educational settings. Play theories emphasize the value of incorporating unknowability of our environment and be humble to learn novel encounters that we experience on a daily basis. Lastly, culturally responsive education challenges the Western educational curriculum and pedagogy and call for more inclusive and

 

23  

24  

 

student-centered educational system both on individual and policy levels. When we apply these lenses, education is no longer compartmentalized, abused as a tool to get ahead of other people or to stultify our senses and playfulness, nor distorted to promote monocultural ideology and epistemology. Rather, it becomes a way of living and celebration of different cultural values, ideologies, and epistemologies. Paradigm shift requires both top-down and bottom up approaches as we discussed in each distinctive but interconnected theoretical lenses. However, as teachers and students within the system we can do only so much. On a policy level when we apply these alternative theoretical and practical lenses, there could be policies that are more flexible and inclusive than No Child Left Behind, which depends on standardization and categorization of our students and the dominant Western culture and social norms, therefore excluding so many children from the dominant school system (e.g., Meier & Woods, 2004). Is it paradoxical for national educational policies and curriculum to embody a transdisciplinary approach, flexibility, playfulness, and culturally responsive pedagogies? Or is it up to individual teachers, students, and administrators to appropriate national policy and curriculum to meet their diverse needs and interests? This line of inquiry is our ongoing journey. References Abrahams, R. D., & Troike, R.C. (Eds.). (1972). Language and cultural diversity in American education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Amey, M. J., & Brown, D. F. (2005). Interdisciplinary collaboration and academic work: A case study of a University-Community partnership. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 102, 23-35. Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm war: Is there room for rigorous

 

24  

25  

 

practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12-21. Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Annerstedt, M., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Garrido, P., et al. (2013). Solving problems in social–ecological systems: Definition, practice and barriers of transdisciplinary research. Ambio, 42(2), 254-265. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications Limited. Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play and games. New York: Free Press. Capra, F. (1977). The Tao of physics: An exploration of the parallels between modern physics and Еastern mysticism. Boston: Shambhala. Coffield, F. (2000). The necessity of informal learning. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Coombs, P. H., & Ahmed, M. (1974). Attacking rural poverty: How nonformal education can help. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: BasicBooks. Delpit, L. (2006 ). Teaching other people’s children. New York: The New Press Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

 

25  

26  

 

Handy, C. (1993). Understanding organizations: How understanding the ways organizations actually work can be used to manage them better. New York: Oxford University Press. Hodgson, A. (2012). A transdisciplinary world model. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29, 517-526. Huizinga, J. (1938). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture. London: Paladin. Illich, I. (2002). Deschooling society. London: Marion Boyars Publication BTD. Im, S., Montoya, M. M., & Workman, J. P. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of creativity in product innovation teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 170185. Irwin, R. L. (2006). Walking to create an aesthetic and spiritual currere. Visual Arts Research, 32(1), 75-82. Jackson, L. (2013). The real secret of Google’s corporate culture. Retrieved from http://www.corporateculturepros.com/2013/07/the-real-secret-of-googles-corporateculture/ James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt. Jung, Y. (2011). Education as a ubiquitous learning web immersed in living. The Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 5(9), 38-56. Kettl, D. F. (2011). The politics of the administrative process. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Kerr, J. H., & Apter, M. J. (Eds.). (1991). Adult play: A reversal theory approach. Berwyn, PA: Swets & Zeitlinger. Kuznetsov, S., & Paulos, E. (2010). Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. Paper presented at the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Reykjavik, Iceland. Retrieved from http://www.staceyk.org/publications.php

 

26  

27  

 

Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory Into Practice, 31(4), 312-320. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: University of Cambridge Press. Leadbeater, C. (2000). Living on thin air: The new economy. London, UK: Penguin. Leland, C. H., & Kasten, W. C. (2002). Literacy education for the 21st century: It’s time to close the factory. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18(1), 5-15. Lytoard. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19, 79-99. Marlens, N. (Producer), Hurst, J. (Producer), Grossan, M. (Producer), & Black, C. (Director). (2010). Schooling the world: The White man’s last burden [Motion picture]. United States: Lost People Films. McGiveney, V. (1999). Informal learning in the community: A trigger for change and development. Leicester, UK: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. McMillan, R. L., Kaufman, S. B., & Singer, J. L. (2013). Ode to positive constructive daydreaming. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-9. Meier, D., & Woods, G. (Eds.). (2004). Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is Damaging our Children and our Schools. Boston: Beacon Press. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Parten, M. B. (1933). Social play among preschool children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28(2), 136-147.

 

27  

28  

 

Pellegrini, A. D. (1992). Rough-and-tumble play and social problem solving flexibility. Creativity Research Journal, 5(1), 13-26. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from American’s bestrun companies. New York: Warner Books. Prakash, S. M. & Esteva, G. (2008). Escaping education: Living as learning within grassroots culture. New York: Peter Lang. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310. Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2007). Addressing diversity in schools. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64-68. Robinson, K. (2010). Ken Robinson: Changing educational paradigms [Video]. Robinson, K. (2005). How creativity, education and the arts shape a modern economy. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/60/51/6051.pdf Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity, Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Shields, C., Bishop, R., & Mazawi, A. (2005). Pathologizing practices: The impact of deficit thinking on education. New York: Peter Lang. Sleeter, C. E. (2011). An agenda to strengthen culturally responsive pedagogy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2), 7-23. Smith, M. K. (2008). Informal learning: Theory, practice and experience. Retrieved from http://infed.org/mobi/informal-learning-theory-practice-and-experience/

 

28  

29  

 

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown. Tough, A. M. (1967). Leaning without a teacher: A study of tasks and assistance during adult self-teaching projects. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Tuomi, I. (2007). Learning in the Age of Networked Intelligence. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 235-254. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(13), 20-32. Welch, A. R. (1998). The cult of efficiency in education: Comparative reflections on the reality and the rhetoric. Comparative Education, 34(2), 157. West, M. A., & Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in health care teams. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21(4), 303-315.

 

29