Outside "The Box" (Week 4)

I had some time this week to think about STEMS2, which seemed nearly impossible considering all that was going on. I also heard back from a UH Hilo TCBES graduate student who I had called two weeks ago who is incredibly active with and knowledgeable about Hawaiian fishponds. Last Monday, September 11, I presented my Multiple Layers of Place Portrait on a place called Wai Uli. At Wai Uli there is a loko i'a called Honokea, which is in an on-going "restoration" state overseen by a small, grassroots organization in the neighboring community. Kamala- the grad student I chatted with this afternoon- is one of the key education organizers at Honokea. I followed-up with her by email before I came home today to introduce her to a project idea that I hope can be part of my Plan B project. Basically it would involve my students developing an "innovation" type project at Honokea to address some current issue or problem there. I also shared with her a little bit about my experiences at Waikalua Loko on O'ahu and that I am wanting to get funding for some ROVs through SeaPerch.

Although I'd like to live outside "the box", I have no problem recreating what was done this summer during our STEMS2 summer experiences. In fact, tomorrow I am taking some students out to hike at Mauna Ulu in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, which if you don't remember is the place that we all went hiking with Ali and Shari to kilo amongst the tree molds. I was really excited for this hike all week! One of the concepts I've been turning over and over in my head from Gruenewald and Sobel is this: to help students develop a love for their environment and nature before I ask them to save it. This struck me at a very deep level, especially because of one particular class I teach, environmental science, which is heavily "issues" based and sometimes flat out depressing.

I've also been challenging myself to think about my current approaches, lessons, day-to-day interactions with my kids and I concluded at least one thing: It's hard to shake the mold of how I've been teaching over the past 4 years. There are three stubborn misconceptions in my head (and the funny part is that I totally recognize them as such) when I think about my first real steps in community/place-based education. First, I think about this as being an "all or nothing" practice. Kind of like, if a person really wants to lose weight they can't just workout a couple times a month, they have to think of their transformation as a "lifestyle" of exercise and diet modification, filled with small and incrementally increasing steady steps. I feel like I'm craving the STEMS2 SlimFast. I hope that this makes sense to someone other than just me.

Second, I'd have to give up the conceptual "order", the proper and accepted progression, of how subject matter should be taught which I have become accustomed to since my teacher education program. Students would be in control of what we learn. And that's scary to me. Mostly, because in its purest form, truly student-driven, community-based, place-based education is hardly repeatable from one class to the next, year to year, since there are infinite numbers of questions that can be asked and investigations to be tried. Third, I have to accept that I'd be covering significantly less subject material (the assigned "subject" being chemistry or physics, whereas environmental science is more easily justifiable), but in the hopes of gaining a more interdisciplinary learning experience (luckily I have minimal explaining to do to my administrators who are extremely into the idea). But the possible rewards: more satisfied students, more memorable experiences, more real-world connections, more social capital for students to spend later on.

Tara pointed out during the Monday session that I made a critical point regarding the Sobel book; that the examples seemed to show teachers simply picking places that they thought would be appropriate in helping to develop their students' sense of place and community connection, and just going for it. We've been talking so much about each person's place being so special and unique and multidimensional and complex. But, does it have to be so complicated? And how meticulously do we need to pick at the definitions and the contexts and all the factors that make up our places before we just get out there and try stuff?  I explained that it would be impossible for teachers to intimately understand the "places" of all their students or to try to comprehend all the various dimensions that co-exist in a classroom, and beyond, in the lives of students. So, as teachers, we really are acting on partial information in how we design these hopefully change-inducing experiences for our students. And that's okay. The important thing is that we act. And lastly, that we don't get discouraged when it's uncomfortable and we miss it. 

My biggest obstacle so far is in dealing with my lack of creativity. I've been asking myself every day the following questions:

1. How can I make this lesson place-based?
2. How can I connect my students to their community today?
3. How can I connect this information to what they already know?
4. How can I make this lesson exciting? Fun? Mobile? Outside?

So, I'm excited to work at Honokea Loko I'a. Yet, I have to be careful to introduce my students slowly and caringly as not to force or rush the connections I so eagerly want to happen. I do anticipate a small clashing of socio-ideological views as their "places" expand, but that is why I am so happy to be working with Kamala. I'll dive into that more at another time and keep you all posted when concrete ideas are on the table.