Previously in Carly’s inquiry…in last month’s post, I introduced readers to my non-traditional class on “happiness” for Kentucky’s Governors Scholars Program. Empowered with a C3-mindedness, I was ready to apply the Inquiry Design Model to our unpacking of this complex idea. (See below for the blueprint.)
Though they aren’t always this easy to write, the compelling question for the class was simply: what is happiness? To stage their inquiry, I had each student filmed individually answering four questions, none of which they were told about ahead of time. At this point, they still didn’t know what the class would be about!
The four questions were: what are your goals?; what do you feel trapped by?; what is happiness?; are you happy?
The scholars confessed that they primarily answered how they thought they should, rather than how they truly felt…especially for the last question.
In the spirit of the IDM, our exploration to unpack this highly subjective term followed four supporting questions, each reflecting a different disciplinary structure.
The first supporting question: How has happiness been defined? Students were individually assigned various philosophies. These included Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, Nietzsche, and Marx among others. We covered the gamut! Their formative task was to lead discussion explaining their assigned philosophies’ take on happiness, then to determine a piece of wisdom or advice from that. As often is the case at GSP, I completely underestimated the time this would take as students discussed these different philosophies with great enthusiasm. At some points, it got rather intense!
Eventually, we were able to move on to our next supporting question: What does the “pursuit of happiness” mean for American citizens? Our formative task required them to determine how Jefferson (and other specific Founding Fathers) defined “pursuit” then explain how this should inform the role of government and role of citizens. Inevitably, modern politics infiltrated their explanations, but this allowed us to dive into deeper questioning of American virtues, specifically “freedom.” Their understanding of “happiness” moved beyond individual experience to consider contextual factors and the role of civic responsibility in enabling conditions conducive to a more collective happiness.
This transitioned smoothly into a more economics-minded supporting question: How do we measure happiness? Drawing on the materials from the happiness-themed question from the NY Toolkit, scholars’ formative task had them assess the ability (or inability) to quantify such an abstract concept using various formulas including those from the World Happiness Report and OECD Better Life Index. Then, they created their own qualitative and/or quantitative “equation.”
Our last supporting question was framed by a short reading from Novalis’ Heinrich von Ofterdingen, which introduced students to the “blue flower” of German Romanticism. Rich in symbolism, we used the blue flower as a symbol of something one longs for, but is either unable to truly possess or it does not meet expectations. Leading them into their summative project, the supporting question asked: Can happiness be achieved? They developed a claim using evidence from the previous weeks about whether or not one can achieve happiness. Their answers varied widely. As a teacher, I could not have been more pleased – there was not a consensus, but nonetheless coalescence of perspectives. They drew on their favorite philosophies, considered themselves as parts of the larger body politic, and considered its quantitative and qualitative nature.
Now for the fun part…what do we do with all of this? Remember, I can’t ask them to write an essay or take a test (much to their chagrin, I’m sure!) First step was to review all that we had done over the previous month. What was meant to be a way to cue their brains back to the material quickly took on a life of its own. Though they didn’t write an essay, they did informally construct an argument using evidence from our previous tasks. The class definitely showed a new understanding (and a rather complex definition) of “happiness.” Below, you’ll see our class collage of words they associated with happiness. Some were more orthodox, others entirely inside jokes from the class, but a deep, meaningful image nonetheless.
As is the C3Teacher way, I knew I had the perfect setting to take informed action. I asked them “well, what do we do with this then? How do we share this?” As a class, we decided to do a collage in the spirit of Candy Chang’s “Before I Die…” walls. Taking the class collage and their new knowledge, they chose to produce a documentary showing their journey.
The scholars and I had immersed ourselves in the compelling question, “what is happiness?” Now, we needed to determine our documentary’s purpose and think about that purpose in an intentional manner. A handful of students really wanted to use a yellow smiley face throughout the documentary, an idea I was immediately opposed to, but I opted not to express these reservations immediately. Instead, I threw it back on them. “What is the intent of such an image?” “How does (or doesn’t) this support our message?” Thankfully, the idea was dropped, as all agreed it did not reflect the desired intent of the project.
Ultimately, I can let the project speak for itself. Despite my reluctance to release the reigns, I stepped back and let the students take the initiative. What they produced was not entirely in sync with my vision, but when do students ever produce exactly what we want? Instead, they created something entirely on their own, reflecting their experiences and reflecting their message. We shared our video with the GSP community, but also made it publicly available through YouTube.
“The Pursuit of Blue” Documentary
Teaching with Kentucky’s Governor’s Scholars Program isn’t conventional, but the philosophical structure of the C3 Framework worked perfectly. Why? Both want to foster the development of curiosity and “intellectual power” in today’s students, so that they can be engaged citizens and learners.
Isn’t that what education, at its very foundation, is all about?
