The Art of Science Learning is a series of three conferences in Washington DC, Chicago and San Diego presented by the Learning Worlds Institute. The conferences examine how the arts can enrich science learning and what a true integration can afford for both the respective fields and the learner. Le presented during the plenary session Tuesday morning on “The Creative Ecology of STEM and the Design of Science Learning,” but we also had the opportunity to participate in the participatory workshops throughout the day on Monday.
A Summary
Overall, I was impressed with the range of backgrounds of participants: educators, artists, scientists, researchers, museum administrators, nonprofit leaders were all in the mix. Walter Massey’s keynote was particularly memorable as he highlighted courses and initiatives within the School of the Art Institute of Chicago that blend the two fields together: works of Andrew Yang , Frances Whitehead , and Kathryn Schaffer .
A “metaphorming” activity kicked off the interactive portion of the conference and provided a creative, hands-on method to grapple with the challenge to integrate art and science. Armed with pipe cleaners, rubber bands, clay, foil, foam shapes, magazines and markers, groups jumped into materially symbolizing the combination. Perfectly emblematic of the various ways we think, some groups immediately started making – thinking as they fiddled, while others pondered and planned before assembling.
Our group consisted of three teachers (two science and one art), one research scientist, the director of science learning at IIT and myself. We created a three-dimensional landscape embedded in the context of the natural world, from which we all derive inspiration. A central tower encased a giant double-helix that represented the entanglement of two strands: art and science. The tower was fixed to its context with rubber bands that symbolize how elastic, systemic but also inextricable the relationship is between the two fields and its context. The helix rested atop four institutions that must support the integration for it to be successful: business, the public, education and policy. Blossoming from the top of the tower was a hand to represent tactile engagement and a heart to represent emotional engagement – two important methods for experiencing the two fields. “How” and “why” also cascaded around the helix to illustrate the deep, contemplative thinking that powers both fields. Finally, two reflective mirrors encase the tower to remind us of the importance of research and self-reflection as we build on our knowledge. Our group loved the activity and it was a much more dynamic sharing experience as we walked around to other group’s pieces.
Following metaphorming we broke up into different groups to brainstorm practical methods for integrating art and science learning. As a facilitator, I broke out my post-its and asked my five participants to write down as many ideas as they could think of. The session was challenging for me as it quickly became apparent that most of my group members were not design thinkers and did not see the point in deferring judgment or dreaming big. With such a short amount of time, I could not push back and instead had to separate from my own thoughts to document what they wanted to present to the rest of the conference attendees.
Their final mindmap began with establishing a consensus on project goals, establishing common ground and deciding on the term for this new conception. At the heart of their strategy was research: compiling, substantiating, measuring. These processes feed empowering teachers, instructing students, forming policy and collaborating across disciplines and sectors.
Reflections
I was surprised by two things at the conference. First, by how conventional my small group went about planning an integration. With the opportunity to so radically adjust how we perceive the world around us, and to work with collaborators that offer such a fresh perspective, why did they limit themselves to approaching the change like any other effort of school reform? Many small groups emphasized the importance of research and although I agree with the need to understand precedence and whether a method works on a large scale, I worry this focus will limit an adventurous exploration of new approaches. The researcher in my group was evidence of this concern: her four post-its summarized her current research projects. This understanding of “research” is something we’re currently reconsidering at Cannon. How can we reframe research to involve both passive reflection and measurement and active exploration?
My second surprise was with a paradox that ran throughout the conference: rhetoric stressed integration and yet continued to treat the fields of art and science as separate entities that must be joined. Conversations sought commonalities or analyzed unique offerings of each. Establishing commonalities can be the first step in understanding how integration can occur, but the conversations did not go further to construct methods for conceiving the result as a whole, not two halves. Specific methods for teaching and communicating the resulting mixture as one body would ensure the integration was complete and lasting.
Applying to larger trends and our own work
This is a common dilemma in initiatives that strive to redefine elements in our lives. It is difficult to remove mental constructs and constraints. Our friend Stephanie Pace Marshall powerfully asserts that we must start with changing our language to shift these constructs. I believe design thinking offers a useful process that emphasizes getting beyond these barriers. If we don’t get around, understand the origin of and throw out random, new ideas we cannot achieve true change.
- Sarah Malin