Building a Strength-Based = Building a Joy-Based Curriculum

…and the case for no homework

This post can be read on its own but is very much connected to last week’s—which, if you missed it, you can catch up on here.

Another framework that was embedded within Sunnyside Micro-School’s curriculum was design thinking. As an aspect of the “playlist” (a collection of supplemental materials like videos, reading passages, games, etc., all related to whatever subject we were currently studying), each student would confront a design challenge created to deepen their understanding of said subject; each student would have an opportunity to explore what it means to think like an engineer or a designer. Design thinking is just a mental approach to solving problems through collaboration, creativity, resilience, iteration, brainstorming, experimentation, reflection, and celebrating small successes.

I was first introduced to design thinking at an education conference in 2008 and loved how the process enabled designers to avoid perfectionism (more on this idea in a moment) while building resilience and developing critical thinking skills. The design process engages learners in tangible problems they are eager to solve and creates a natural opportunity for social-emotional learning in the classroom.

Leveraging design thinking to drive project-based learning requires clear guidelines, especially when deploying this strategy for the first time. A free-for-all will not work, nor will white-knuckled control. Researchers and professionals use design thinking in many different contexts and industries; it’s used anywhere that products or services are created, from designing cars to planning events. There are different ways of describing the process. As an educator, I’ve found that articulating benchmarks according to the sequence below helps students begin to take control of their own learning. 

Step 1: Empathize. Students connect with themselves and others who are impacted by a situation, need, or condition.

Step 2: Define. Students narrow their thinking and define one specific problem they want to solve. This problem is born out of the empathy engendered in Step 1;  the desire to solve it takes shape as a clear goal.

Step 3: Ideate. Students bring their ideas to the table, exploring and tapping into their creativity. Collaboration at this stage is especially powerful. Learners also conduct research so that their ideas are well thought out and grounded in background knowledge.

Step 4: Create Prototypes. Students build their designs as prototypes, returning to the ideation process when the application doesn’t work quite as expected. This brings their thinking into the real world as learners follow through on their ideas.

Step 5: Test. Students test their prototypes based on specific and determined criteria. This stage is a reality check for learners as they experience practical outcomes. In design thinking, there are no failures. There are only iterations. The testing stage includes evaluating and taking notes about what could be done differently next time. 

A visual aide used at Sunnyside. These were often on large post-its that I would swap out depending on what we were up to.

Humans, at their best, solve problems and improve conditions for themselves and others. As I created Sunnyside Micro-School, I sought to design a meaningful learning environment for quirky, sensitive, and wonderful twice-exceptional kids—an environment where learners could stretch and grow while also being fascinated and delighted.

In addition to design thinking and project-based learning, we contracted with an educational therapist who worked with an assistant and intern. Each child had access to one hour with either the therapist or her intern every week to work on targeted skills in language arts. These sessions were often fun, game-centric, and focused on a topic that the child already loved, like turtles or history. 

Luckily, when it comes to validating a strength-based curriculum, the proof is typically in the pudding. Once a student comes to equilibrium after leaving conventional school and joining a program so different from what they have known, life gets easier for the whole family. Eliminating homework, taking away the pressure of grades, and creating an inclusive space and community go far in terms of cultivating joy and happiness in children.

While the case for homework and its effect on academic outcome is distinctly mixed (Marzano and Pickering, 2007), we know that the conversation as to whether or not to assign homework requires nuance and common sense. Proper homework design relies on a myriad of factors like type, subject, length, and home conditions. For a lot of my students, their pre-Sunnyside homework loads required one to two hours of focus each afternoon. Given their ages (generally 5 –12 years old), this is considered too much. I should also clarify that it was one to two hours each afternoon if the transition into doing homework went smoothly, which families would report, it often would not, in which case homework time could run well into dinner time, leaving everyone, especially the child, frustrated and angry. For many of my former students,  each evening would ultimately leave them simmering in the belief that they were “bad” or “dumb”—a pattern of negative self-talk that would continually increase over time.

In general, the rationale for assigning homework is that it allows children to practice the skills they are acquiring at school, increases mental focus and resilience, and teaches important skills like self-responsibility. However, if all actions taken in parenting and educating a child are ultimately for their best interest and well-being, why would we assign anything that ultimately undermines their confidence and positive view of themselves? There is a pragmatic balance here that must be struck if conventional school is going to continue to claim its place as a force for good.

Ideally, joy and learning are seen as interdependent and vital to the success of any designed educational experience. This is distinct from a student feeling superficially happy or unchallenged. Like everything else related to education, cultivating joy in the classroom is a multi-variable and nuanced endeavor. In 2012, two Finland-based researchers completed a meta-analysis of the available research about learning and joy. They organized their analysis into ten theses that intersected between context, ability, and relationships between the students and the teacher (Rantala & Määttä, 2012) and found that there are many ways to prioritize joy in the classroom. The analysis also highlighted how students clearly reach for joy in every aspect of their learning.

When teachers make space for joy to occur as a fundamental aspect of the classroom, everyone is happier and better off. When students are granted the freedom and guidance to share their skills and abilities in a personal and meaningful manner, they begin to thrive. While this is a simple equation to understand, its importance continues to evade most conventional education.

This is another reason why building a micro-school rooted in a strength-based curriculum is critically needed in our educational landscape. 

Coming up, I’ll dive more into how we nurtured students’ socio-emotional growth at Sunnyside and offer up some fun positionality map exercises for paid subscribers. (Not yet a paid subscriber? For the price of a cappuccino, join our growing community here.)

Until next time,

Jade

References

Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2021, June 16). Special topic / The case for and against homework. ASCD. Retrieved May 23, 2022, from https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-case-for-and-against-homework

Rantala, T., & Määttä, K. (2012). Ten theses of the joy of learning at primary schools. Early Child Development and Care, 182(1), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2010.545124