Cameras, Kids & Hybrid Thinking

When I decided to experiment with connecting young students to nature via photography I was following a gut instinct that predicted combining their intrinsic interests in the outdoors and technology would result in sure-fire learning situation. While still early in the experiment, my initial hypothesis is looking good. Therefore, I was especially interested to read about the experiences of David FitsSimmons a freelance writer, nature photographer and a professor at Ashland University who helps children and young people learn about digital nature photography. A summary of his ideas follow and are based on a recent article about his work in the Children & Nature Network newsletter;  http://bit.ly/RSfGos

1)      Cameras Encourage Experiences in Nature

·        Children taking cameras into nature catalyzes visual creativity

·        As they find fascinating objects to photograph-they want to return to the site again and again

2)      Focus on Nature

·        View finder focuses attention on a small area allowing examination of details rarely observed when playing or walking in natural environments

·        Children physically move into small spaces to better frame their pictures seeing well known areas from a new viewpoint

3)      Hybrid Experiences

·        Children develop “hybrid thinking” ( Richard Louv) : technology & nature a fusion of two intelligences.

4)      Memorializing Moments

·        Photos are visual records of experiences in nature

·        Children can reflect upon their experiences from outdoors inside -and creatively use them as the starting point for writing, artwork, music, dramatics, science research

5)      Click-n-Share

·        Social sharing of photos with others via prints, email or other on-line tools spreads an enthusiasm for the natural world peer-to-peer

·        Sharing enthusiastically can lead to a conservationist mind-set

Most of FitzSimmons' points I had experienced myself when working with K-6 students. However, the concept of ‘hybrid thinking’ was new to me. Louv's use of the term is largely in reference to the act of combining children's love of technology and the outdoors as a way to heighten connection to the natural world. Interestingly, it is also a term that can be traced back to an IT research and develop company called Gartner, Inc. Founded in 1979, it is now a public company whose R&D work is widely used by government agencies, large corporations and  technology industries. (For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner )

Hybrid thinking in the Gartner context is a refinement of design thinking that it involves an integration of three concepts for solving problems that are culturally entrenched, also referred to as 'wicked problems'. To quote from Gartner materials- these are problems that are “ambiguous, contradictory and incredibly complex”…They are not conventionally possible to solve because the “interests are so divers and divisive, interdependencies are so complex and so little understood, behaviors are so dynamic and unpredictable”

The Gartner model suggests that hybrid thinking is one way to approach ‘wicked problems’. In essence, this process three points of focus with the first one being key to the process.

·        Solutions must be culturally meaningful or they will not be sustained by users and to be culturally meaningful they must have a strong emotional appeal

·        Solutions must be technologically possible

·        Solutions must be economically sustainable

For more information on Hybrid Thinking: http://bit.ly/RiR1HZ

Richard Louv's point is that the use of photography by children to capture natural subjects encourages hybrid thinking of a different  sort - the ability to synthesize the technical and natural world on behalf of connectedness to nature. Initially, Louv's idea would seem to have little to do with Gartner's model and for my young students, this may well be the case. But if the ultimate result of the efforts we are making with our young nature photographers is to lay the foundation for a lifelong connection to the natural world, then as adults they may well find themselves seeking solutions to 'wicked' environmental problems via a design thinking process that is quite like the one Gartner proposes. In both instances, hybrid thinking could be envisioned as an important aid in solving some of the difficult environmental problems of today and the future.

Design for Change

Design Thinking peppers the blogs and educational journals these days as more and more people become aware of the programs flowing from University Schools of Design into the broader educational arena. Standford, notably, has been generous in providing "how to help" for teachers interesting in the process, but unable to attend their Palo Alto based workshops. http://dschool.stanford.edu/dgift/

For the most part, teachers have intended to interpret the process as a means to creating a product that generally has a technology problem as the base: develop an inexpensive way to measure air quality; build a solar robot to carry X pounds of materials, Y distance; create an animated book on a self-elected topic; design a museum display to explain hominid evolution, etc. The possibilities are only limited by the imagination.

However, it is possible to consider Design Thinking in a larger context where it can be defined as the thinking that can make 'things'(life) better.  When one goes down this avenue than the 'products' open to include issues of social, ethical and esthetic consideration as well. From my first encounters with the Design Thinking, it has been the deeper changes it can impart to conventional learning as much as the excitement of the Maker World that has captured my attention. Therefore, I was delighted to recently hear a discussion of this very topic on a recent podcast that featured Kiran Bir Sethi  http://audio.edtechlive.com/foe/kiranbirsethi.mp3

Kiran, started her professional career as a Designer in a traditional sense having graduated from one of the leading Design Schools in India. Influenced from a young age by the work of Gandhi, she became an educational advocate and ultimate director/founder of The Riverside School in Ahmadabad, India. A decade old, Riverside is an N-12 school which focuses on using design thinking on behalf of civic engagement via student agency.  Her ideas were recently shared on a TED presentation entitled: Teaching Kids to Take Charge http://blog.ted.com/2010/01/12/teachiing_kids/. A summary of her definition of the process of Design Think as presented on-line is below.  The information in (  ) are my additions and drawn from a more conventional rendering of the process of Design Thinking.





FEEL THE CHANGE (Empathy)
What would you most like to create or change in your community?
An idea that could touch or affect the lives of many
An idea that YOU can make happen 
IMAGINE THE CHANGE (Define & Ideate)
Talk together about how you can create this change
Get others in your community involved
Plan how and when you will make this Act of Change happen 
DO THE CHANGE (Prototype & Test)
Gather the resources that you will need
Go out and make it happen
Record what you do, the impact you have and how it makes you feel 
These last two stages, I believe, are important additions.
SHARE THE CHANGE
Celebrate your Act of Change with your community
Document YOUR STORY and how you have shared it
Upload your project and documentation to us at Design for Change 
SUSTAIN THE CHANGE –
Reflect back on your Act of Change and what worked well
Do you feel the story has only just begun?
NOW what are you going to do next?!


 
Kiran also offers specific suggestions for those mentoring the design process with their students:

▪                ASK - DON'T TELL! 

▪                Create an environment where children can 'create' playfully and chaotically

▪                Some people need to sit quietly to use their imaginations, some need to be physical, noisy, energetic   and just a little bit crazy! How can everyone get what they need?

▪                Listen silently and deeply.

▪                Enthuse about ALL ideas however ambitious or whacky! 

▪                All ideas are good because they are part of the creative process.

▪                Unworkable ideas will evaporate of their own accord.

▪                Imagination is quickly silenced if people are worried about getting things "right".    

The Riverside school students have approached a wide range of Civic projects working from within a design thinking format. Most notably, their advocacy was responsible for their city agreeing to close a main street one Sunday a month in order to provide play-time and space for children many of whom never have play opportunities. In her model, one can see the roots of student projects that originate from students' sense of empowerment related to improving the world.

Nominations for Edublog Awards

Edublog Nominations

What is the Edublog awards:  "The 'Edublog awards' is a community-based initiative started in 2004 in response to community concerns relating to how schools, districts and educational institutions were blocking access of learner and teacher blog sites for educational purposes.  The purpose of the Edublog awards is to promote and demonstrate the educational values of these social media."-Steve Hargadon


For the most influential Teacher Blog, I wish to nominate The Future of Education discussion series.

• A long time follower of Steve Hargadon's work, especially his interviews via podcast, I have found him to be an ethical, intelligent, knowledgeable contributor to the ongoing dialogues around educational issues at all levels. His desire to move past surface discussions and challenge himself as well as his listeners is admirable. Moreover, he frequently succeeds in bringing issues to a higher level through his tenacious drive to uncover the deeper stories and/or possibilities.

For the best Ed Tech Blog, I wish to nominate Hack Education podcast.

• Audrey Watters' ability to follow the educational narrative week-to-week and report on areas she believes to be of unusual interest to educators at all levels succeeds in keeping me at least on the bank of the tech/ed current flow.
• Audrey Watters and Steve Hargadon combine differing, but equally insightful, views of the issues on both the front-and-back burners of educational debates. Both are equally committed to open source movements and offer an ongoing counter-balance to the increasing influence of business on curricular design and innovation.

Citizen Science or Childhood Naturalist – Further Thoughts

I continue to experiment with the best way to approach the diverse needs of students from grades N-12. A possibly useful way to refine the problem is to more closely consider the differences between programs intended to create Childhood Naturalists (C.N.) and those would that involve participatory Citizen Science (C.S.)

With this in mind, the following definitions are helpful.

Citizen Science is commonly defined as collaboration between scientists and non-scientists. It is recognized that lay participation in this effort has the benefit of encouraging community understanding of science processes even as it allows for long-term monitoring activities and/or the collection of data over a large geographic area that would be prohibitive for scientists to undertake on their own. Thus, it is a win-win situation.

A Childhood Naturalist would be a child who, to quote Howard Gardner (The Nine Types of Intelligence) is becoming “Nature Smart” by developing “the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations).” The relationship between children’s exposure to natural environments via positive and/or playful activities enhances their curiosity about the natural world. This is a fact supported anecdotally by outdoor educators as well as research. 

The differences between C.N. and C.S are especially helpful when considering the appropriate role for young students (N-6) in environmental education.  An article by  R.C. Jorday et al that appeared in The Ecological Society of America-August 2012, entitled: Key issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen-science learning outcomes provides one way to compare C.S. and C.N. The bulleted information is a summary chart from that article.

Individual Learning Outcomes

Increase in:

• Awareness & Understanding of ecology
• Understanding science processes
• Engagement w/ science & nature
• Motivation to participate in C.S. and/or naturalist activities
• Environmental Stewardship behaviors

Programmatic Outcomes

Improvement in

• Understanding natural systems
• Engagement with the public
• Understanding program plus & minuses
• Understanding community issues
• Understanding of participant motivation,  satisfaction
• Accessibility & utility of data
• Contributions to science research
• Relationship between program  & Community

The "Individual Learning Outcomes", desirable for students at all levels, should provide a starting conversation for any Citizen Science program. Additionally, they could be said to be the heart of Childhood Naturalist initiatives as well. Where C.N. and C.S. differ stands out much more when one looks at C.S. Programmatic Outcomes especially those that relate to data and contributions to science. I would argue that success of meeting C.S. Programmatic Outcomes will be more easily achieved with older students if we have built a sound C.N. program with younger students. In doing this, we would not be precluding young students from engaging in C.S., but rather suggesting that it needs to arise from personal, and/or school-based C. N. activities. The number of student-initiated “help the_”, “save the_” , projects that have sprouted at Harley the past few years suggests the enthusiastic energy students could bring to Citizen Science if it is cast in an obvious environmental framework.

Where either MS or LS students are involved, teachers need to be aware that data gathered for Citizen Science programs open to the participation of young students will rarely be incorporated into professional research. Still, it may carry useful anecdotal weight for developing professional studies.  Moreover, having to record and present data for outside consumption may have a positive impact on the quality of student work depending, of course, on how the teacher manages the project.

Unquestionably, US and/or motivated MS students can take part in Citizen Science as genuine collaborators and there are successful on-line examples of such programs. (http://participatoryscience.org/eels/introduction-eels) Yet, current studies indicate that the issues surrounding the collection of valid, reliable data with student participation is complex and, as such, a topic for another post.

Citizen Naturalists

Childhood and Nature advocate Richard Louv wrote recently about the need for Citizen Naturalists. Although his comment was made in reference to the adults who are interested in “salvaging threatened natural habitats and creating new ones”, the definition could as well include the young children we hope will grow into these needed adults. To the extent we are able to provide our Proto-Citizen Naturalists with opportunities to explore the natural world during the course of the school day, we are declaring this aspect of learning is as important as any other we promote.  Moreover, in a world with growing concern over the loss of after-school outside play and exploration, the school day for many students may provide the greatest opportunity for the outdoor experiences that fosters this development.   

A 2009 article entitled: Children’s Nature Deficit:What We Know – and Don’t Know (Charles & Louv) http://www.childrenandnature.org/blog/  has a long list of annotated findings such as:

• Children’s discretionary time at home is diminishing.
• Children spend increased time with media and multiple forms of media.
• International study suggests low rates of children’s nature experiences across many countries.
• Evidence of decreased mobility, reduced availability of natural areas, and restrictions placed on children’s activities in natural areas, suggests fewer opportunities to engage in the natural world.
• Children’s access to public play space has declined.
• Private and public land is increasingly restrictive regarding children’s free play.

However, one accounts for the information available on the changes in children’s outdoor experiences over the past few decades, it is doubtful many of us would argue that children are spending more time in outdoor play than did their parents. Nor would any parent or teacher deny the seemingly innate curiosity that young children demonstrate in the natural world.  Aside from the community loss that might result from a generation of children growing up with limited exposure to the natural world, it is a great personal loss to them if they are missing out on interactions with the natural world that can provide counter-balance to the fast paced digital one that is becoming the norm for modern life.

Having barely stepped into my new role as The Harley School's Citizen Science Coordinator, extensions of the Citizen Science concept beyond that of data collection and interpretation seems increasingly important. Even if students never share their outdoor experiences beyond classroom discussion, to the extent their innate curiosity about the natural world is maintained, I believe we all gain. For this reason, I am particularly excited about the possibilities that I am exploring with several primary teachers who have an equal interest in this area of curricular development. I welcome the input and experiences of others.

General References:

Richard Louy, (“The Nature Principle: Reconnecting with Life in a Virtual Age” and “Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder.”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Louv

Children & Nature Network http://www.childrenandnature.org/