What You Should Know About Marion Brady

7 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. Laura H. Chapman says:

   August 7, 2019 at 2:53 pm

   I have long admired the thinking of Marion Brady.
   Thanks for this link which includes some lovely posts with Valarie Strauss that I had not seen before.

   Reply
2. ponderosa says:

   August 7, 2019 at 5:02 pm

   Brady advocates teaching systems instead of subjects like biology or European history. It seems to me that this idea is embedded in the Next Generation Science Standards which demolish the walls between subjects (https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/How%20to%20Read%20NGSS%20-%20Final%2008.19.13_0.pdf). He would be happy.

   But my guess is that this is a wretched way to teach. It seems to me it will result in hazy and very unappetizing learning. We should start with the concrete and particular (volcanoes, coral reefs, petroleum, and cells), not bland abstractions. Once a foundation of concrete knowledge is built, then talk about systems.

   Here’s Brady:

   ” In the past half century, in many different fields of study, there has been a rapidly increasing appreciation of the importance and broad applicability of the idea of “system.” When the idea is applied to human affairs, a way of deciding what’s more and what’s less important clicks into place: Importance is determined by systemic consequences. What should be taught is what, if it were different, would cause much else to be different.
   Trying to decide what’s worth teaching, it’s hard to imagine a more important or useful idea. Families are systems. Classrooms are systems. Religious congregations, neighborhoods, ethnic groups, ecologies, economies, values and beliefs—all are systems.
   The ultimate system is “a way of life.”
   If we’ll accept that understanding our own way of life and the ways of life of others is what matters most, if we’ll think of subjects and courses as studies of working parts of these “master” systems, and if we’ll base our judgments of the importance of those parts on their contribution to our understanding of ways of life, we’ll get our instructional priorities in order. Ω”

   Reply
   • dienne77 says:

     August 7, 2019 at 5:18 pm

     Actually, it’s a very engaging way to teach. Students usually like it because they can see the relevance of what they’re learning. My 6th grade daughter, for instance, did a big project with her class on pencils. They learned a whole range of knowledge, from history, to science, to mining, to manufacturing, to math. They designed their own experiments, they built their own museum display (in the shape of a pencil – very complicated to design and build), they wrote and developed their own exhibits, they went to several museums to look at exhibits and talk to curators about how exhibits are put together. It was quite extensive and all students contributed equally and avidly and they all learned from each other.

     But you have your fingers in your ears and you’re not listening anyway, are you?

     Reply
     • Ponderosa says:

       August 7, 2019 at 5:39 pm

       Pencils are concrete.

3. ponderosa says:

   August 7, 2019 at 5:56 pm

   Here’s a model lesson from the NGSS website:

   https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19Kddy_JAdrvIKPN5lZ_AcxpCioL4mYrwYy0HgbEUysk/edit#slide=id.g3b7ea03934_1_75

   It gives a speedy, drive-by treatment of the juicy stuff (herons, forests, pizza) in order to harp on the dreary abstractions (systems). The concrete particulars are mere fodder for bland umbrella concepts. Ugh. (By the way, no practicing scientist in the world ever learned science this way. And…there’s no scientific proof this mutant approach to teaching science actually works. Kind of ironic for a set of science standards, no? Let’s bring back the old way.)

   Reply
4. ponderosa says:

   August 7, 2019 at 8:57 pm

   I’ve been reading a lot of Brady. I don’t find him persuasive at all. He despises teaching knowledge. He has much loftier goals –teaching higher order thinking. Here’s an assignment he devised that he seems proud of:

   “An aim of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the ever- greater miniaturization of self-contained life support systems—sort of garage-sized “family farms.” That’s tough to do in space, but should be easier on Earth.
   (1) Design a system sufficient to meet the needs of four people, operable in the local climate. (Remember, no outside connection to utilities.)
   (2) Compute the system’s approximate cost.
   (3) Decide who’d be the most likely buyers of such a system and devise a multimedia-marketing program, complete with roughed-in ads, etc.
   (4) Predict both probable and possible impacts of the system on local demographics, the environment, social institutions (governments, churches, schools, the economy, etc.) and attitudes and values.
   (5) In open debate, take and defend a position for or against making the system available and affordable.
   (6) Repeat (1) through (5) for a society outside the United States differing markedly from your own.”

   Unless you’re already an engineer, this assignment just seems like a giant pain in the a**. What student has the requisite knowledge to answer these questions intelligently? Kids are forced to gather a smattering of domain knowledge on the fly. At best, their answers will be half-baked. It’s one onerous hoop to jump through after another. What’s the gain? Brady seems to think this is building up thinking skills. I’d say it’s merely forcing gratuitous labor on the brain –for half-baked results. Better to teach kids about engineering in a lucid, engaging way so that someday they might be able to do a competent job at a project like this.

   Reply
5. Sandra M. Metcalf says:

   August 10, 2019 at 4:15 pm

   Have followed his efforts and accomplishments with great pride for years. So smart, so gifted, and I am proud to have known him as one of the very best Manatee High had to offer when I was there and since.

   Reply