School of Rock: PBL In Pop Culture

With a Tomatometer score of 92%, obviously School of Rock was well received by critics back in 2003, but was it more than just a hilarious and entertaining popcorn flick? Jack Black is well known for his off-the-wall physical comedy and in School of Rock he thoroughly delivered his trademark brand. Indeed, who could ever take this movie seriously? Surprisingly, underneath all of the silliness, School of Rock is actually a pretty good glimpse of problem based learning (PBL) in action. I recently revisited this movie and looked for examples of constructivist pedagogy and PBL. Not only did I find those, I also found a whole host of good teaching strategies. Perhaps the most puzzling thing about all of this is that Jack Black's character, Dewey Finn, isn't a real teacher. He has no training at all. In fact, he's pretty much a failure at everything. He can barely manage his own life, and when he ends up in the classroom he just makes things up as he goes. So, how can anyone seriously learn anything about teaching from Dewey? Before that though, a brief overview of PBL.

PBL is a constructivist teaching method where students collaborate in an effort to solve a problem. Learning is achieved through the experience of problem solving. Students often start off with what they already know about a given problem, then they find out what they need to know in order to solve it. They then do any necessary research and finally they attempt to solve the problem. The teacher acts mostly as a facilitator or guide to this student centred process. 

In School of Rock, the problem Dewey presented his class was: to prepare a song for a state-wide rock and roll competition and keep it a secret from the rest of the school and parents. He quickly found out that the students didn't know a lot about rock and roll, but he learned that they did have some training in classical music. Next, they brainstormed what will be needed in order to both create a rock performance, but also, keep it a secret. Students began to take on various specialty positions based on their own interests and knowledge. For example, the band needed musicians and singers, but they also needed security personnel, stylists, and choreographers. They needed technology specialists to set up lighting, smoke machines, amplifiers, and to oversee the logistics of transporting all the equipment. They also needed someone to create posters, graphics, and merchandise. Dewey even assigned a committee to come up with the band name, and picked one student to be the band manager. While Dewey was only doing this for his own selfish reasons and his use of PBL was completely unintentional, it is still a remarkable example. 

Dewey then set up a curriculum including rock history, rock appreciation, and rock theory. In his estimation, these were things the students were not well versed in, and would be required to create a truly effective performance. To deliver his lessons he used a mixture of lecture and hands on methods. He used video presentations and even arranged a field trip. All of these techniques are not only part of PBL but also just good teaching practices. 

Dewey's approach was constructivist in nature and extremely student-centred. If students weren't happy with their assigned duties they were given a chance to change. One girl was initially designated as a "groupie" but she wanted to sing. So, Dewey let her try out for the position and decided to give her a chance. Instead of just dictating which song would be played, he encouraged students to write their own song. He asked them what made them mad, in this case it was bullies, and he used that as the theme for the song they would then write. Ultimately, he employed a democratic process to decide which of the songs would be used at the competition. 

During class exercises Dewey used formative assessments and gave feedback via learning cues. For example, the students were talented musicians but lacked a stage presence. So, Dewey told one boy he was too "robotronic" that he needed to loosen up. Another student was playing a bit sloppily and Dewey asked him to tighten up a bit. He then demonstrated the rock and roll "power stance" to give the lead guitarist the appearance of a rock and roll attitude. Dewey also embedded structure and routine when necessary. The class security officers had surveillance cameras set up and whenever the principal was nearby, the class had a strict routine for hiding their rock and roll project from her.

In terms of motivation, Dewey managed to engage the students through their own intrinsic drive. Right off the bat he stated there would be: "no grades, gold stars, or demerits in this class." Later, the band manager got them out of a jam and Dewey praised her accomplishment. She responded saying, "I didn't do it for the grade." Researchers and educators are still exploring the potential benefits of a "no grades" approach to education, and here, School of Rock was advocating it back in 2003. 

Watching School of Rock again, in the context of PBL was very interesting. It just shows that sometimes true learning occurs under the most bizarre circumstances. Just like the students in School of Rock, I too, learned a lot from the most unlikeliest of sources.

Heinlein's Curriculum (Part II)

At the conclusion of my last post I left a couple questions unanswered. One of those questions dealt with the implementation of Heinlein's Curriculum, and whether it ought to be done in a subject based system like the one we have now, or should it be done using an interdisciplinary model? Having given it some thought, I've come to favour the interdisciplinary way. In this post I will attempt to explain how this curriculum could be implemented. One more reminder before I get going: this is a purely theoretical curriculum. I'm not saying that it should be taught in schools, I'm just asking what would school look like, if it were. 

In order to integrate all of things on Heinlein's list, there needs to be some sort of unifying theme. One example might be "birth, life, and death." In studying that theme students would cover things like caring for infants, butcher a hog, balance accounts, comfort the dying, pitch manure, cook a tasty meal, and die gallantly. All of these things can relate back to various aspects of life and death. 

Another unifying theme might be "war and conflict." Under that theme students could learn to plan an invasion, conn a ship, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, fight efficiently and die gallantly. These are all skills that are all involved in war and conflict.

One final example which includes some of the items not included thus far might be "industry and infrastructure." Contained within that theme are things like: design a building, balance accounts, cooperate, act alone, build a wall, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure and program a computer.

The only thing from Heinlein's list that was not included in the above was writing a sonnet, or more broadly speaking, written language skills—which could be implemented into all of the above.  

When broken down like that, it seems so simple, but these are all complex subjects of inquiry which take a lot of time and organization to deliver effectively. Only when several teachers with expertise in different subject areas pool their resources the above units of study are possible.

Another question that I posed in my last post was how to evaluate the above curriculum. For that, I think problem based learning might be appropriate. For example, in the "war and conflict" unit, the class could be posed a problem such as: in small groups, design and build a model of a fort using historical examples (i.e. Fort George) as a reference. Each member of the group could take a certain role, like chief naval officer, chief engineer, or chief medical officer. Each member of the group must research their own topic then incorporate what they've learned into their design. The roles could encompass any or all aspects of war and conflict and should be tailored to the students' individual interests. For example, the chief naval officer might learn about ships and naval warfare, so that the fort could be defended against a naval bombardment. The chief engineer could learn about palisade walls and how to build them so that attacking foot soldiers cannot climb over. Finally, the chief medical officer might discover what will be needed for medical supplies, food rations, etc. In the end, they would create a model of the fort using cardboard and/or popsicle sticks (or whatever other materials are available). They would also be required to create a written record of their design choices throughout the process. Teachers from various disciplines would oversee the process and include tons of ongoing feedback. Students would also be exposed to different methods of research, like text books, field trips, experimentations, etc. Ultimately, this type of curriculum could be as complex as time and resources will allow.

This has been a fun little thought experiment for me. The more I think about this type of curriculum, the more excited I am to begin teaching. To end things off I would like to return to the original quote from Heinlein. The very last line says: "...specialization is for insects." This is something I haven't really touched on yet, but I think it's important. One of the goals for 21st century education is to foster grit and resiliency. By focusing too much on one subject or subjects, students become less adaptable. In an ever changing environment, students need a broad base of knowledge and skills, so that they can become well-rounded citizens. I think Heinlein's Curriculum and others like it, if delivered effectively, can provide learners with all that they need to overcome the challenges they will face in the future.