I think that everyone needs to relax a little. "Experts" feel that we need to completely overhaul the educational system. (Are these the same "experts" who brought us No Child Left Behind?) Apparently, the influx of new tools made possible by advancements in technology means that we, as teachers can no longer maintain the status quo. Largely, I agree. The whole job of the status quo is to be challenged. But we need to be careful and thoughtful. We need to keep in mind that traditional education works for the most part. Consider that the "experts" and the advancers of technology were probably educated in a traditional manner and they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. Alterations that we make need to improve the educational system, not just change it. We need to be sure that the changes will lead to improvements before we make them.
While I was reading our assigned articles, I went through a roller coaster of reactions from excitement to confusion to anger to hunger (but that was because I was reading at dinner time.) The NMC Horizon report was very interesting and it raised some very valid thoughts and concerns, but, to me, it shot itself in the foot by making statements such as "Many experts believe that learning by creating and doing will engage students in their education, prepare them for college . . ." (pg. 8) Many experts believe? What does that even mean? Is that proof? Is that evidence? Is that anything that we can use to support the call for change. Doesn't that mean that most experts don't believe that to be true? I cannot change what I do in my classroom based on "many experts believe." I do, however, agree with much of what the report said. Teachers do have to understand and be able to interact with technology in order to survive today. The role of the teacher should be examined to see if the role of coach or guide is a better fit. Regarding Open Educational Resources, on page 10, the report states that "The notion of sharing is inherent to the philosophy of open content . . . " That is also true of the notion of teaching. Teaching is sharing. Most teachers I know use content they find in books or on-line in a way that best serves the students, without much thought of the legalities involved. If a shift to Open Educational Resources means that there will be more material for me to borrow, then I am all for it.
When relating the challenges facing the integration of technology into schools, the report mentioned Integrating Personalized Learning. I believe that all of education needs to be personalized learning and I find it interesting that the writers of the report feel that removing the teacher, a person, can improve the personalization of learning for the student. They say that there are two paths being explored. One path is "organized by and for the learner," (pg 22) and "school goals and interests are driving the other path . . . "(pg 22) Those two quotes are a clear statement that schools are seen as having agendas that are at odds with the needs of the learner. I find that notion to be ridiculous and insulting.
The article from the PewResearch Internet Project titled Digital Life in 2025 was both informative and disturbing. As it was mostly a collection of quotes describing the future of the state and use of technology arranged in categories of decreasing hopefulness, it did not seem to have its own agenda. I liked that about it. I did disagree with the placement of Judith Donath's quote on page 3 of the article. Donath speaks of how we will be able to create an accurate picture of exactly how people spend their day. Listed as one of the more hopeful theses, I found it to be a disturbing picture of the future. Rather 1984-esque to me. Without a doubt, the most engaging part of the article to me came in the form of the quote from Google Chief Economist Hal Varian on page 4: "The smartest person in the world currently could well be stuck behind a plow in India or China. Enabling that person - and the millions like him or her - will have a profound impact on the development of the human race." I love that quote and, to me, it effectively speaks to the power of the internet to reach everyone on the planet and allow them to make their mark on the world. That is a hopeful statement,
The final article, written by Allan Collins and Richard Halverson was more infuriating than informative. The two authors made statements that they can not possibly defend. They insulted teachers as a whole and were wrong about a host of things. If these are the experts that are shaping our future, stop the bus and let me off. I do not wish to dignify the article with further comment.
And now I am hungry again.
Bryan, your roller coaster gives me a pretty good picture of your take on the readings. Your reflections made me think, "Are we losing sight of the forest by focusing on the trees?"
ReplyDeleteBryan, I'm in agreement with you on a lot of what you said (especially regarding the Collins and Halverson article... yikes). I do wonder though whether your thoughts on the current landscape are skewed by the fact that we work at a pretty progressive school. If all our students had cell phones, ipads, and macbooks hidden in their lockers, but we were using chalkboard and lined paper... you would probably say something had to change.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't you agree that your use of the smartboard enhances the teaching and learning in your classroom? Without experts or studies to rely on, if someone asked you if they should install smartboards in all the math classrooms of their new school, what would you advise?
I would DEFINITELY argue that the 1:1 macbook program has enhanced the teaching and learning in my English classrooms. In fact, I don't know how I would be able to offer as rich an experience without them. I would vehemently suggest a 1:1 program to any new school who asked my advice... and although I play one on TV, I'm no expert. :)
I agree that AIM is progressive and that may skew my vision a bit, but let's take a closer look at the role of technology in our classes. I love my SMARTBoard. It is integral to my teaching, but it has not had any impact on how I teach. I still teach concepts, then help students practice them, then let them practice on their own, and then ask them to apply what they have learned to unique problems. SMARTBoards and the internet help me do all of that better, but they have not altered the basic pedagogy.
DeleteHow about your classroom? I watch you do wonderful things there. But, again, the tools that you use are mere extensions of your creativity. If the power goes out, you will still reach your students because you, the teacher, are in charge and you know what you are doing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBryan interesting post. It seems to me that the first step then, is to ask ourselves, "Has education worked all these years? And if so, by what measure?" If you ask one person they'll say yes, but if you ask someone else in the same room they'll say no. It's really a messy thing to think about at the moment; we really don't have a universal measure of whether education has worked all these years. Yes there are many people whom have done alright for themselves, but there are also too many dropouts, too much disinterest, and other issues. Because of this, some people have come onboard with an all-or-nothing approach to change.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would be better if the experts and such focused strictly on the at-risk populations in education as opposed to a gigantic overhaul of the educational system. For example, how can we create motivating learning systems that particularly engage students who are repeatedly truant?
The ideas of "removing the teacher," and "schools having an agenda" almost seems to support a free-for-all approach to learning. Who would learn, under that model, however? (Not to mention, what would be learned?) There is a reason why teaching became a profession in the first place and children as well as young adults need some sort of structure and direction, otherwise, and not to repeat the cliche, everyone would be born an adult.
ReplyDeleteYet, those two statements are ones that come up frequently when discussing school failure and why certain students disengaged from schooling and it seems as if, some researchers are prepare to throw the baby and the bath water away to "solve" the problem. I agree with you Bryan that an excellent approach to school reform would be to test these new curricula/ideas a lot more stringently before implementing them; for all the praise the Common Core is currently receiving, I'm still leery of it. This all being said, it is obvious that the model of the teacher being the holder and only source of all information is outdated; likewise, it's obvious that just as students are human with their set of norms so are teachers and, like it or not, the responsibility falls on the school and teacher to provide inclusive spaces that promote education without privileging a culture or a norm over another.
However, we don't need sweeping reforms to accomplish this, we might need better text, different Ed-Prep courses in some cases and/or resources for reaching students who feel unheard or have disengaged—more technology could help this too. Generally, however, I am more in favor of tweaks not a total upheaval of the system. Schools seem to have an agenda because for centuries American society had numerous agendas or biases, as our society becomes more open-minded, interconnected and self-critical, I imagine the benefits will positively affect schooling too.
Thank you for a very interesting post!! I am a little surprised, because I didn't think of these articles in the same vein as you. I agree with you that all of learning has to be personalized, and you bring up rightly that teachers cannot be removed from that personalization. I think the authors are being harsh on didactic teachers and pedantic school system / curriculum, and this article was not meant to insult teachers who's pedagogy is progressive and fosters a creative and meaningful learning environment. I'm sorry if this weeks readings felt like they were diminishing the importance of a teacher's role in any way. These readings were picked so as to introduce you to some of the larger themes while thinking about preparing students (and teachers) for tomorrow world, while considering the ever changing technology. These were meant to foster conversations and I'm glad it did that. Again, I didn't mean to underrate the importance of teachers.. that was definitely not an intent.
ReplyDeleteI like your take on the Horizon report Bryan. I didn't see it the same way at first glance, but as I re-examine it the commentary on personalization is glaring. I like, "As schools make the shift to more student-centered learning, they are also face, as a matter of course, with rethinking the functions of teachers.." (p. 6). Because schools in the past (and present) are not focused on the student's learning, and the teachers conducting class in those schools are not either.
ReplyDeleteOr, "Deeper learning can be an important approach to making schools more relevant and effective, and this trend is gaining traction around the world." (p. 8) Have schools thus far been irrelevant and ineffective? As you say about the "experts" mentioned elsewhere, these authors were likely educated in a school in the last 50 years, and they seem to be doing okay.
But maybe it's not that simple. As you and I were discussing earlier, our school is likely not an unbiased sample of the attitudes of teachers. Not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but AIM tends to hire people that are progressive thinkers. We both work with a lot of amazing educators - but when is the last time that any of them were in a typical public school setting? You know, the schools that educate 90% of the nation's children. I'm not sure, but I bet our shared attitude of focusing on the needs of the student is not the institutional norm.
Last note - I agree with your appreciation of the Anderson - Raine paper. I liked its format. And, at least these authors are not afraid to name their many experts.
One of the things I thought was frustrating about the Collins & Halverson piece was that is was written in present tense but it is actually more than a few years old. I feel like the piece was purposely semi-inflammatory. I wish they had said "some schools" instead "schools". I found myself feeling attacked or disrespected... maybe disregarded by the piece. "Teachers do not like to see their authority challenged..." I guess I do know a few people like that, but I wish my students would push back a little and ask why. I don't think that part of learning can be well managed by a computer. A computer can give you content but it doesn't know if you are critiquing the information or not.
ReplyDelete