After reading Ch. 1 of Wagner’s book, I was most intrigued by the last few pages in which Wagner isolates Montessori education as the common thread in the educational experiences of several high profile leaders and thinkers. First, I do not doubt that the Montessorian ideals of creative play and self-directed exploration are the hallmarks of a genuine education. However, I am concerned that teachers of PBL at the secondary level are retroactively trying to apply a model of learning that requires students to already be equipped with the Montessorian mindset of curiosity and engagement. While I wholeheartedly believe that PBL is the model of the future, it seems that we are in a transition period in which many students are so unaccustomed to actively pursuing their own learning that we are forced to devote an inordinate amount of time habituating students to the behaviors of lifelong learners that should have been developed throughout their educational journey. In short, is PBL enough to compensate for the sense of wonder and curiosity about the world that has been internally and externally squelched over the years? Are there skills that must be fostered from kindergarten on up that are necessary prerequisites to the richer learning experiences of PBL at the secondary level? Can PBL work with students who do not fit the profile of a Montessorian learner? Ultimately, I think so and that PBL at least moves students toward adopting those soft skills that are necessary for innovation (questioning, observing, collaborating, etc.) Accountability assessments and protocols will take care of a lot of the deficiencies that most often manifest themselves in off-task behavior, but I still fear that PBL’s end products can only be commensurate to the more inherent indicators of students’ initiative, adaptability, and satisfaction of learning.

I appreciated Wagner’s nod to Gladwell’s oft-cited statistic of expertise at 10,000 hours, which supports PBL’s mantra of less but more. If I can present richer learning experiences for my students that require them to seek out and understand more challenging texts and ideas, then by all means, I must reduce the number of units offered and dig deep for content with less ground to cover. 

Are those 10,000 hours achieved through passion or perseverance? Does one presume the other? How do we teach passion? If innovation’s linchpin is passion, then do we simply expose students to all areas of knowledge through PBL and hope they find something that they become super interested in? Not exactly. I believe it is the processes that students go through when engaged in PBL that allow them to stick with something, pursue it at a deeper level, test it, experiment with it, and ultimately immerse themselves in it.

On the whole, I am not an economist, so I will not try to evaluate Wagner’s overall argument that innovation (and innovation’s resulting jobs) is the only way we can solve our current and future economic woes. However, I am confident that students who both fail and succeed with PBL are more capable of responding to the changing skillsets of the 21^st century.