In Chapter 7, Petroski likens the design process of engineers to the revision process used by writers. I'd like to talk a little bit about that here and also about the pain or cost of failure.
First of all, in reading this book I have been impressed over and over again by the depth and breadth of Petroski's knowledge in the area of literature. His quotes are so refreshing and with them he is able to bring a better understanding of engineering to us all. I love the idea from Wallace Stevens that writing a poem is like trying to put a pineapple together! There are indeed many similarities between writing a poem and designing a bridge as Petroski points out in this chapter, but I think it's also important to note one major difference, as stated by the author on page 79: The failure of a book may be arguable whereas the failure of a building collapsed into a heap of rubble is not. In addition, the cost to others in that second type of failure is more profound.
I think this difference between the engineering design process and writing is one that relates back to intent and helps to clarify for me what is engineering and what it is not. Engineered projects in the real world have a very specific intent - for a bridge to span a chasm, for a dam to hold back water, for a skyscraper to hold many floors of offices - whereas, the main intent of a piece of writing, such as a poem, is to communicate an idea or feeling, to move the reader and perhaps lead him or her to greater self-reflection. If the writer fails, it is sad for the writer and bad for the publisher. If the design of a bridge fails, it may be fatal. On the other hand, I see even the most beautiful bridges more as craft than as art. I do not think they can communicate in the same way as a poem.
My other thoughts relate more generally to the cost or pain of failure for the student. I think it's easy to say that we learn through failure. It's harder to experience that failure, especially when you're engaged in any act of creation, probably even more so when you are a student. Whatever we create, I think, is an extension of ourself, of who we are and, as such, it's hard to hear criticism of it. For some students, it costs so much just to create anything, that criticism shuts them right down. They tried their best to do what we asked and now we're saying it's not good enough? We would think twice- or many times! - about saying something critical about someone's hair do, their clothes, or they way their belly bulges over their belt buckle, but don't hesitate to point out shortcomings in their writing or calculations. Of course, that's part of our job as teachers - not just to criticize, but to create a climate where we take much of the pain out of such comments and make reflection part of our daily work. I think creating this climate is one of the most important things we do. So how do we go about it? How do we make failure "safe"? I think the key is in language - not just what we (or our students) say, but how we say it.
Hi Judy,
ReplyDeleteI have thought a lot about this, as you probably can tell from the years that I taught art at your school, in your classroom space. I also think it is most important to foster an environment that is low-anxiety, celebrating diverse solutions, recognizing that everyone has something special to bring to the table. But why is this recognized in the arts so easily while people do not associate this attitude with STEM disciplines?
Since I have switched to teaching science I have dealt with much more insecurity in my students. They come to me thinking that science is "hard" and not fun and that only some people are good at it. In struggling with this I have tried to dissect why it is this way. As an art teacher, I had less of this insecurity with kids I had known since kindergarten. I had been able to mold their attitudes from the beginning. I still had to contend with outside cultural attitudes about art, but the students became confident and enthusiastic about practicing art and not afraid of failure. I believe they respected art as well.
In science, I get seventh graders with huge discrepancies in what, if any, science they have had and emotional baggage as well about the experience! Some have already decided they cannot do science. Some think it is hands-on nature play but balk at the thinking part! They lack both the freedom to experiment (from art) and the acceptance of revision (from writing) and even have a hard time transferring knowledge from math class to a science/engineering challenge! They lack resilience in the face of small failures and take everything personally.
I agree with you that the language we use is important, but I also think that the required imposition of so much evaluative assessment reminds kids that they are always being "judged". It is a creativity killer! I am trying to figure out how to fix this situation somehow. If only I could re-program their attitudes! At least get them to suspend self-judgement for a little while!
Of course they are seventh graders. Preoccupation with self image and insecurity at their apex!
Meanwhile, all they want to know about is "What grade will I get?", and "Tell me exactly what I need to do for this or that grade".
Our grading system, honor roll, awards systems, all of it seem to conspire against me!
I have to lure and trick them into having so much fun that they forget themselves and get creative and curious again.
Then, there are the competing demands from above: Rigor! High standards! Accountability! Assessment! But make sure they love it! Engage them!
I do believe that at the K-8 level we must give them a feel for the fun adventure of engineering, and hope that this will motivate them to persist in the required math as they move up through school. Most will not become either poets or engineers, so I do not overplay the danger aspect. I talk more about responsibility. I don't want to scare them off engineering.
p.s. Art can be as deadly as engineering! Here is a short article called "8 deadly work of art", including Christo's Umbrella Sculpture that killed two people, and Richard Serra's sculpture collapse that lead to death and a lawsuit!
I think that as educators we have to create a classroom environment in which students realize that failure is an acceptable path to learning and understanding. To do this, we have to be willing to model failure and learning ourselves. I already model this, much to the amusement of my students, because I am not good at spelling. They laugh when I have to stop the think, or when I misspell a word. I encourage them to help me out which they love. I am going to try really hard to be better this fall about encouraging them to acknowledge their own short-comings and be more open and willing to let others help or support them. Also, I will need to be more patient with those students who "just don't get it."
ReplyDeleteI try hard to set a supportive atmosphere in my classroom. Where it is known that we will all struggle and achieve together. I also let them know when I am trying something new and I ask them for feedback on how I did. A little role reversal is good and we know how honest children can be.
ReplyDelete