ON-LINE ISSUES

V.5 N.1, August 1999

The da Vinci Program: A narrative study of an alternative learning approach for life

by Blane R. Després
bdespres@interchange.ubc.ca

Centre for the Study of Curriculum & Instruction
University of British Columbia

The da Vinci Program is about an alternative learning practice attempted in the public school system. I contend that schooling is not complete but tends to neglect the learner as an experiential and interactive being in the realm of daily existence (see Gibbons, 1990; Goodson, 1992; Levin, 1991). This paper examines some of the issues related to the implementation of the program in one public school setting, such as the nature of schooling and implementation problems.
      Ideally in the da Vinci Program each student undertakes six passages over the course of the final three years of secondary school in conjunction with course work. The six passage categories of the Program are philosophical inquiry, physical challenge, practical skill, creative endeavour, career exploration, and community/global awareness. For each passage, students present a written proposal to, and negotiate it with, an advisor (a teacher). Each student must maintain a journal to document the experiences during the passage process from which they will conclude the experience in a “wrap-up,” or summary and conclusion. The culmination of the event is a public celebration after completion of the passage during which time the learning experience is shared with an audience.

Education designed, as a continuous lifelong process requires an approach to teaching and learning suitable for such a long-range perspective. If we acknowledge education as designing resources for development-a strategic array of experiences, activities, relationships, and training to supplement normally available resources for growth-then we must view learning as the desire and ability to use those resources (Gibbons, 1990, p. 29; emphasis added).

This narrative study of the da Vinci Program attempts to bring to light some of the key issues and experiences that arose during its implementation. Touted as an alternative learning approach, or paradigm, the da Vinci experience attempts to incorporate experiential learning in the culture of education. Where alternatives are implemented or attempted in education, the resistance can be overwhelming (Cuban, 1984; Elmore, 1996). The story of the da Vinci program is about such an implementation attempt. This paper, then, serves as a kind of preparatory work for further investigation into the culture of education, which includes the practice of teaching, the roles of teachers, and the nature of schooling. Although I do not engage in an in-depth analysis of the issues, I present them to intensify awareness about them to stimulate dialogue. Perhaps with more dialogue and questions, a clearer direction might appear that could act as an incentive to consider alternatives.

That education is still a distance away from the goal of lifelong learning ability instilled in its students appears to be an accurate description. Gibbons’ quote above delivers a still relevant challenging series of questions about education and how it might change. Cuban quotes one teacher who declared, “traditional teaching approaches drive students into boredom. If we were ever to teach sex the way we teach other things…it would go out of style” (p. 176). Likewise Marshall and Tucker (1992) note that, “most analysts now agree that the changing workplace demands not simply higher levels of mastery of the core subjects, but a different kind of education.…Our curriculum reflects the needs of the economy of fifty years ago as does the performance of the average student” (p. 80; emphasis added). Price (1992) also indicts the education system, stating that, “the gap that exists between the education system and the world of work needs to be bridged for the sake of both the youngsters and prospective employers” (p. 30).

Despite the calls to reform and the findings in the literature, education is slow to change (Cuban, 1984). Cuban notes that one explanation for teaching practice as it is/has been is the “occupational ethos of teaching that breeds conservatism and resistance to change in institutional practice. This conservatism (i.e., preference for stability and caution toward change) is rooted in the people recruited into the profession, how they are informally socialized, and the school culture of which teaching itself is a primary ingredient” (p. 243). Gibbons (1990) states:

>Criticisms, contradictory evidence, and suggested alternatives arise, but they are easily deflected by the authority of established belief and the sheer immovable weight of what is…With conditions the way they are in education, it seems that we are in just that position ourselves: so deeply steeped in traditional schooling that we seem unable to respond to the tide of effects pressing us toward a new paradigm of teaching and learning. (p. 144; italics in original)

Such curriculum activities and additions as advising, outdoor education, gifted programs, global awareness projects, and government meta-curriculum directives have been attempted in schools over the years. These have met with varying degrees of success or failure depending on the tenacity and energy of the implementers, budgets, politics, and long-term vision (Cuban, 1984). While educators have claimed for decades that schooling is for the whole child, much evidence, in fact, suggests that the opposite is true in practice (Becher, 1992; Chamberlain & Chamberlain, 1993; Contenta, 1993; Cuban, 1984; Gibbons, 1976, 1990; Illich, 1973; Lister, 1973).

In my own experience, at the time of the presentation of the da Vinci Program idea to my teaching colleagues, I had eleven years of teaching experience: seven on the east coast of Canada in French as a Second Language (FSL) at the junior and secondary school level, and four years on the west coast of Canada in FSL and Gifted at the junior-secondary level. I was involved in various student clubs and coaching responsibilities, staff organizations, was the staff professional development chairperson, and had organized and led student trips to Europe. During those years of teaching, however, I was continually struck by something missing in schooling. I tried variations in evaluation, methodology and delivery, but always felt that there was just something not quite right about the over all system of education. I saw myself struggling against the traditional structure of schooling, trying to ensure a learning experience that went beyond books and tests divorced from real life. Out of this developed the da Vinci Program.

As I was dangling beneath my parachute near Abbotsford, BC, looking up at the small plane that had carried us to 2900 feet, I was anxious. I was waiting for Cindy to follow. Cindy was a grade ten student and following through on her da Vinci project: to parachute despite a dramatic fear of heights. Cindy was even afraid of going out on her deck at home. This was her way of challenging her fear. When I saw her chute open, I was elated and shouted, more excited for her accomplishment than my own exhilaration. Once on the ground, she was thrilled and wanted to go again.

That was May, 1992. In September, 1991, I had presented an alternative lifelong learning approach to the staff of Chattanooga Secondary School (a pseudonym). By alternative I mean different from the traditional structure of schooling. The school was comprised of, at the time, about 400 students in grades 8 to 12 from predominantly Caucasian, middle-class families and a minority native settlement. The community is a rural setting near Vancouver and has a population of approximately 3,000 people.

At that time, I read Maurice Gibbons’ (1990) The Walkabout Papers. Gibbons had attempted an experiential learning project in the high school in the early 70’s. He laid the ground work for a lifelong learning approach after questioning the effectiveness of the traditional North American education system in preparing the adolescent for adulthood. He was struck, for example, by the “stark contrast between the [Australian] aborigine’s walkabout experience and the test of an adolescent’s readiness for adulthood in our own society” (p. 2). His “Walkabout concept” evolved as a practical response to the lack of a similar “rite of passage” in North America. Gibbons argued for the importance of learning processes that “could be used for a lifetime; responsibility, challenge and real-world projects not only [would lead] to the desired learning in compelling ways, but [also] to personal growth and the development of character” (p. iv). These processes include “goal-setting and planning, designing one’s own learning project, communicating, problem-solving, leading and participating in groups, reflecting in solitude, securing and organizing resources, and evaluating one’s progress” (p. xiv).

The name da Vinci was a personal favorite because of what that historical genius connoted: lifelong learning; passion about learning; continuous learning. The Program emphasizes self-directed learning through guided instruction, advising, and practical experience as the students work through their passage. When asked why he was there from the beginning-one of the original five members, Daryl replied:

I was looking for something that used the knowledge and skills that kids already had, not just try to cram more stuff inside them. But to say to them, come on, you’ve got so much neat stuff and cool things inside you right now, I’ll help you find out about them. And start inspiring them. I guess it’s the whole thing about teaching about learning, too-that’s such a glaring omission in the whole thing. It’s a whole life philosophy. You don’t teach about learning and the nature of learning and how cool that is in the traditional place. Looking back I think that was one of the things that inspired me to come along. (Després, 1996)

The following description of the da Vinci Program is a composite of Gibbons’ material and influences of the Walkabout program at a public, alternative school near Denver, Colorado. The da Vinci Program is comprised of six passage categories. A passage is a passing, or transition, from one stage to another. Recall the aboriginal custom where the adolescent would be expected to embark on a solo journey lasting an extended period of time in the wilds of the Australian outback. His return indicated a successful venture and marked a vitally important element of human growth: that transition from adolescence to adulthood (see also Pallas, 1993). This rite of passage would challenge the youth in all facets of his being: spiritual, personal/emotional and intellectual. Practical skills were learned for survival and for amusement. Philosophical inquiry, or questions of why, who, what, how would likely arise. The physical challenge of survival, the venture itself, and the developing awareness of his interaction with nature, with others, and with the world would be a part of the rite of passage.

Capitalizing on personal interests, the student of the da Vinci Program embarks on the following passages, one or at most two at a time. These experiential ventures pit the student against self in the developing process for lifelong learning:

• Philosophical Inquiry-dealing with deeper issues that demand logical reasoning and reflection (e.g., personal loss, life after death, beliefs).
• Physical Challenge-performing an activity that requires physical endurance and stamina (e.g., a bike trip for a weekend or a week, rock climbing).
• Practical Skill-acquiring a skill to accomplish something that previously required someone else’s help to complete (e.g., repairing small appliances, minor mechanics, gardening, cooking).
• Career Exploration-in-depth look at an occupation of interest (e.g., shadowing a professional for a period of time).
• Community/Global Awareness-researching and responding to an environmental issue (e.g., logging practices, waste management, hunger programs).
• Creative Endeavor-demonstration of a project in the visual or performing arts (e.g., a photography exhibit, a dance production).

In view of the passage categories above, Cindy’s parachuting passage was negotiated as a Physical Challenge because of the obvious physical demand of parachuting and dealing with the fear of heights. In another instance, George, a grade eleven student, developed and produced an 8mm movie based on claymations (clay figures “shot” in sequential stages of “movement”) under the Creative Endeavor passage category. His project went on to win a national competition dealing with drinking and driving counterattack. Other projects ranged from biking/camping tours (Physical Challenge passage), to conceptual pieces centered around psychology (Philosophical Inquiry passage), to the trials and tribulations of making contacts in the community (Career Exploration passage).

Each student in the Program negotiates an individualized action plan (initially, a proposal), or learning contract with an advisor. This document is designed to be an instrument for self-directed learning, and also a guide to maximizing the student’s learning throughout the passage process. In meeting the demands of each of the six passages of the Program, the parts of the contract should anticipate difficulties and challenges that the student will face and indicate solutions to explore. The contract identifies the vision or goals of the student, the learning strategies to be used, acceptable demonstrations of achievement, and the roles of participants where applicable. The teacher/advisor needs to understand the nature of the project being undertaken, the anticipated learning outcomes, and agree upon the standards that will be used to evaluate the outcomes. As part of the proposal, the student negotiates an evaluation technique that includes a minimum, an excellent, and a superior level of achievement (Gibbons, 1991), thereby incorporating evaluation in the learning process. As part of the passage process, students are required (and learn) to keep a working journal as they progress. The journal is a sketchbook or record of thinking, learning, planning, action and reflection, becoming a resource of ideas and reflections, much like the notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci.

The learner is encouraged not only to synthesize the learning experiences, but also to become conscious of developing skills, applying processes, pursuing goals, and participating in a variety of experiences. Evaluation is both formal and informal, and includes self-assessment as much as assessment by those supporting the student (such as a group of advisors and peer support group). While the demonstration of outcomes is an important aspect of evaluation in general, much of the evaluation/assessment in the Program will be through journal entries during the passage process and the wrap-up, advisor reports, and creative work, all of which will be synthesized and documented in a formal portfolio. Students are responsible for formative self-assessments to monitor their ongoing progress and summative self-evaluations that involve careful self-reflection and analysis of their learning experiences. Peer assessment takes the form of support groups known as triads or quads. In these small groups, peers informally discuss and assess each other’s passages providing ongoing support, suggestions and feedback. Parents play a key role in assessment by receiving and providing feedback at meetings and in their involvement in their children’s passage.

Advisors are responsible for monitoring the student’s self-assessment process through interviews, anecdotal records, proposal editing, and progress charts. From such interactions advisors also provide external, objective feedback to students. Feedback is ongoing and ranges from informal interactions to formal structured assessments. Advising could also be a function of a mentoring team comprised of teachers, parents, and other supporters. Ideally this team works with the student to foster an environment that is caring, safe and effective for learning. Mentoring differs from advising in that an individual (or possibly a small group of people) serve as a personal resource person whose expertise is directly related to the Passage topic chosen by the student. Ideally, a network of individuals from the community would be available from which to draw. Together, or by taking on specific roles, members of the mentoring team teach and guide the student in learning how to learn and how to achieve goals. The mentor team becomes involved in assisting with assessment and evaluation, and in celebrating achievements with the student. The team is assembled based on the needs of the student and the characteristics of their goals. Advising for each of the team members included suggestions in time management, scheduling, writing properly, encouraging, and directing to individuals in the community who could work with the person as a mentor.

Our roles as teacher/advisor involved facilitating and advising using diverse strategies to assist students in developing the attitudes, personality characteristics, and skills needed to pursue and achieve their negotiated goals. Daryl best expressed the dilemma of how to deal with the new role change in those early stages:

Well, first, letting go of the control…learning how to entrust people with control. Then, I think, not getting too freaked out about evaluation. Every moment does not have to be evaluated, have to be an evaluative event. And in terms of conflict, dealing with other people’s perceptions. Once you let go of what other people are going to think, then a lot starts to happen. Now it’s taken a few years to get over that. I just stay down here [in the classroom] and work with the kids, now. I don’t bother trying to convince others anymore. It’s just not worth the headaches. (Després, 1996)

There was a struggle not only with our own personal teaching “shift,” but, as Daryl intimated, also with the perceptions of other staff members and even colleagues in the District, and those of the students and parents themselves. Having begun in 1991 with a number of staff presentations and community presentations with urgings to participate, at the time of this writing, Daryl still has only one ally (an original team member at the time of this writing) who “helps out.” The initial idea of the school becoming the district “da Vinci” center where the program would be a part of every student’s learning experience gave way to a single elective course that, despite the Program’s contrary nature and our contempt, was forced to fit the time table. Once, as Gibbons and I discussed, I found that he had experienced similar staff reticence and systemic suspicion (see also Elmore, 1996; Migyanko, 1992) no less than twenty years ago when he had attempted to implement Walkabout in his own school.

Cuban (1984) established the track record of education, clearly demonstrating the tenacious hold of its traditional paradigm despite the call by some to more humane and relevant learning in schools (Gibbons, 1976, 1990; Illich, 1973; Lister, 1973), the positive findings regarding alternative approaches to learning (e.g., Cuban, 1984; Elmore, 1996; Gibbons, 1990; Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Horwood, 1987; Ozar, 1993), and the demands of society for reform (Bacharach, 1988; Bacharach & Shedd, 1989). Despite added curricular components that attempt to help the student deal with other than academic issues, the lack of experiential processes for students more specifically suited for life issues and grounded in research findings is real (see Bibby, 1990; Cuban, 1984; Darling-Hammond, 1993; Després, 1994; Gibbons, 1976, 1990; Illich, 1973; Lister, 1973).

Since teachers are preoccupied with diverse social and professional functions during the course of the day, little time is afforded the implementation of a program, particularly if that program challenges the beliefs and/or practices of the teacher. Miller and Seller (1990) declare that, “There must be a recognized need for change. If teachers do not recognize this need, the intended change will be a non-event” (p.233).

The da Vinci Program offers a challenge not only to the traditional approach of education, but it causes one to rethink the various roles: student becomes pro-active learner preparing for a lifelong adventure rather than passive recipient of disembodied information; teachers become facilitators and models rather than “bankers” that deposit information (Freire, 1974); administrators become, in a more transformational sense, coordinators of “the activities of members of the organization to accomplish the objectives more effectively” (Sergiovanni, 1987, p. 183); parents and community members become participant mentors and, likewise, models; institutions become learning and resource facilities; the school becomes a learning and resource center. Such notions tend to be out of keeping with the traditional paradigm of schooling with its hierarchical superstructure and fragile substructure. According to Hargreaves (1993), teachers work in virtual isolation from other adults, maintain abstract standards and curriculum impositions in the context of personal needs and ideology.

If one understands the da Vinci Program not only as an alternative approach to learning but also as a viable challenge in education, the beginnings of a new social and educational awareness become possible. Treating students as individuals with real needs demands a conceptual shift in the current educational system. By this I mean those who control the educational system-teachers, administrators, policy makers, and even parents-must examine their thinking in the light of collective schooling experiences and collective research. The da Vinci Program affords a means of change for all concerned. More importantly, perhaps, it also affords positive learning experiences for the student as a developing adult; learning experiences that will become stepping stones for a lifelong process and significant events in their lives. We need to continue the dialogue and we need willing participants (Candy & Crebert, 1991). Marshall and Tucker (1992) challenge: “The future now belongs to societies that organize themselves for learning. What we know and can do holds the key to economic progress, just as command of natural resources once did…The prize will go to those countries that are organized as national learning systems, and where all institutions are organized to learn and act on what they learn” (p. xiii, emphasis added). The aim of the da Vinci Program is to help the student develop fully in preparation for adulthood. It still remains the task and responsibility of a society to ensure the success of such an aim. This is the challenge before us as educators.

• Bacharach, S. B. (1988). Four themes of reform: An editorial essay. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(4), 484-496.

• Bacharach, S. B. & Shedd, J. B. (1989). Power and empowerment: The constraining myths and emerging structures of teacher unionism in an age of reform. In J. Hannaway & R. Crowson (eds.), The politics of reforming school administration (pp. 139-160), London: Falmer.

• Becher, R. (1992). The aesthetic classroom environment and student attitude toward education. Ed.D. Dissertation: University of Missouri.

• Bibby, R. W. (1990). Mosaic madness: The poverty and potential of life in Canada. Toronto: Stoddart.

• Candy, P. C., & Crebert, R. G. (1991). Lifelong learning: An enduring mandate for higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 10(1), 3-17.

• Chamberlain, C. & Chamberlain, L. (1993). Alternative schools as critique of traditional schools: The Tvind schools in Denmark. Canadian Social Studies, 27(3), 115-120.

• Contenta, S. (1993). Rituals of failure: What schools really teach. Toronto: Between The Lines.

• Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890 - 1980. New York: Longman.

• Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1993). Review of research in education. Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association.

• Després, B. R. (1994). The story of the da Vinci program: A narrative study of an alternative learning approach. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia.

• Després, B. R. (1996). Unpublished research notes.

• Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.

• Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.

• Gibbons, M. (1976). The new secondary education. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc.

• Gibbons, M. (1990). The walkabout papers. Vancouver: EduServ Inc.

• Gibbons, M. (1991). Slashing a pathway to education 2000: Self-direction, integration, challenge graduation. Bowen Island, BC: Personal Power Press.

• Goodson, I. F. (1992). School subjects: The context of cultural inventions. Curriculum and Teaching, 7(2), 35-46.

• Gray, P. & Chanoff, D. (1986). Democratic schooling: What happens to young people who have charge of their own education? American Journal of Education, 94(2), 182-213.

• Hargreaves, A. (1993). Individualism and individuality: Reinterpreting the teacher culture. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ Work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 51-76). NY: Teachers College Press.

• Horwood, B. (1987). Experiential education in high school: Life in the walkabout program. Ontario: Association for Experiential Education.

• Illich, I. (1973). The deschooled society. In P. Buckman (Ed.) Education without schools. London: Souvenir Press.

• Levin, R. A. (1991). The debate over schooling: Influences of Dewey and Thorndike. Childhood Education, 68(2), 71-75.

• Lister, I. (1973). Getting there from here. In P. Buckman (Ed.) Education without schools. London: Souvenir Press.

• Marshall, R. & Tucker, M. (1992). Thinking for a living: Work, skills, and the future of the American economy. New York: BasicBooks.

• Migyanko, M. R. (1992). Case study of impact of organizational changes on the educational climate of a school district. Unpublished EDD Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

• Miller, J. P. & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: Perspectives and practice. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.

• Ozar, L. A. (1993). Communidades de base schools. Momentum, 24(1), 38-40.

• Pallas, A. M. (1993). Schooling in the course of human lives: The social context of education and the transition to adulthood in industrial society. Review of educational Research, 63(4), 409-447.

• Price, J. (1992) The Industrial Ambassador Programme, In G. Forrest; A. Miller; & J. Fiehn (Eds.), Industrialists and teachers: Case-studies and developments (pp. 28-39), London: Falmer.

• Sergiovanni, T. J. (1987). Educational governance and administration (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Blane R. Després is a Ph.D. candidate in the Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of British Columbia. His research interests include business-education partnerships, philosophy, values, spirituality and educational theory. He has taught in the public school since 1980 and has been designing and building homes since 1982.

Copyright rests with the author.