|
Air traffic control, U.S. nuclear-powered facilities, naval aircraft carriers,
and highly organized enterprises are classified by the military as high
reliability organizations (HROs). HROs are so named because people who hold
these positions in the workforce are trained by instructors committed to “failure-free” operating
systems. Instruction is based on procedures that provide for constant reinforcement
and redundant systems. The staff is authorized to observe the system and
act on small breakdowns before critical parts are endangered. One of the
hallmarks of the training module is that the staff are carefully recruited,
extensively trained, and empowered to assess a situation and bring in the
expert (regardless of rank) to correct it before serious problems arise.
Does this sound like an organization committed to the education of our students?
(Somewhat.) However, education has been tagged as a “failure-tolerant” system.
Not
to disparage our educational system, but when comparing it to military training,
we’re not in the same league. The military has a captive
audience for other reasons than the sheer joy of learning. Also, common
goals are more easily identified in a military setting than in the diversified
environment of the classroom. However, we can learn from military trainers
that appropriately prepared teachers—those who are allowed to make
decisions in a timely manner—will foster and cultivate a learning
environment that is conducive to an empowered staff. An example is Linda
Ford, this year’s Conant Award winner.
A sense of collegiality is the advice she offers for both new teachers and
seasoned veterans. The
whole interview is really a must-read. You will come away with an insight
into her world that will energize you.
Besides empowering teachers (well-trained
classroom experts) to produce a highly reliable curriculum, we must also
provide our trainees (students)
with the skills necessary to succeed. Hull (1) stated
that “the average
student seems coolly indifferent, even cynical, toward the idea of learning” (p
27) and that “what needs to be cultivated in students is a healthy
recognition of their deficiency” ( p 29). These comments certainly
support the notion that education is a “failure- tolerant” system.
However, there is something that we can do about this. This issue of the
Journal is one of my favorites of the year. It is loaded with wonderful
ideas and classroom exercises that give you fun ways of challenging your
students. If you can capture the imagination of a student, the cynical attitude
mentioned above will disappear.
Highlights for April
In this issue, there are more than 15 articles that
present games, challenging puzzles, and novel approaches to enhancing the
chemistry curriculum. Check
out the new faces of organic chemistry—my personal favorite is the
Nano Texan. Play cards with a deck highlighting
organic functional
groups. If you need even more organic fun, see the spiral
puzzle. You might also want to spend a few entertaining minutes
vicariously living through Sherlock Holmes’s
latest case,
or delve into more forensics when you try to solve the mystery
of the crash of flight
1023. For use with our younger audience, you might want to try
the Elemental ZOO or practice terminology
solving word-search games. (Here are three: one, two, three).
Other interesting puzzles include the use of letter
matrixes and The Name Game. If you need a new twist
on building models, you will really enjoy The Molecular
Model Game.
Also, check
out the online trivia game regarding laboratory safety.
If you ever need a good resource to document why we do classroom demos then
you need
to read the article on using demonstrations.
This issue is full of activities and ideas
that are dedicated to enhancing the classroom with engaging education.
Have fun with it!
Spring Meetings
Two important conferences are imminent: I hope to see you
in New Orleans at the National ACS meeting March 23–27, 2003, or at
NSTA in Philadelphia (March 27–29, 2003).
Literature Cited
- Hull, K. Thought & Action 2001, 28, 19–31.
|
Citation
