This week throughout the readings there were several messages that came across loud and clear. The first thought is what are schools teaching now? Eisner created a strong argument that there are many messages taught in school that are "numerous, subtle, and consistent." (88) Many of these messages (such as compliance, competitiveness, and a timetable) are created through the use of a traditional curriculum. The question that remains, is a traditional curriculum the best system for the future? Sugatra Mitra argued that it is not. He spoke to the idea that schools are outspoken and were created for a "Bureaucratic Administrative Machine" that was necessary in the past for survival.
Throughout the readings/videos there were several ideas and concepts for new schools. Mitra argued that with new technology (computers and internet) and a coach that doesn't have to be trained in the specific skill, students are able to teach themselves if posed with a "sexy" way of learning. He shows proof that students posed with questions were able to learn a subject way beyond their years. However, these students were only focused on that one question, thematic learning. Mulgan spoke to a project completed in England where schools were created for 14-19 year olds that focused on job specific skills. The work experience was intertwined with the study of the subjects, creating a hands-on experience where bored students were able to see life connections and jumped from the bottom performers to the top. Several others speak to the fact that schools lack in training in computers. When almost all jobs and people use computers on a daily basis, why aren't students taught how to use coding, the basics of operating programs and computers? Then finally, a poll on parents shows that they do not believe schools teach skills to create good character such as higher well-being, building stronger relationships, manage finances, being healthy, and being involved in the community.
All of the previous ideas and concepts are extremely thought provoking. Times have certainly changed and the requirements needed for jobs have changed dramatically. Children do not have the patience that we had when we were young with the internet at the tips of their fingers. However, what is the right way? I feel that it is important for students to have a basic knowledge and exposure to all subjects. If they did not, how would one really find a passion for a subject in their future? I truly liked the idea of the school created in England. By the time a student is getting to the age of 14 they should have a general idea of their likes and could start working on a more hands on way in topics of passion. At least then, if they decide they dislike it, they did not waste thousands of dollars and time at a university. I also don't find that all students really need to learn all subjects to the depth we force in the traditional curriculum. If a student knows they are going to work in a business world why do they need to take biology and anatomy? It would definitely then be possible to have a "coach" help guide students to learning by self exploration like Mitra spoke of. This would be possible due to the students connections to real life, the increased passion the student would have for that subject, and the plethora of information that students can find on the internet that they no longer need a teacher to tell them.
Hi Andrea,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this week. You did a nice job of stringing the readings together in a coherent continuum of thought that helped me reflect upon the week’s lessons. One of the more interesting TED talks that we viewed this week was Sugata Mitra’s (2013). His bold statement that education is obsolete certainly challenged my stance, but did not altogether contrast with it. You noted that he calls for classrooms to be led by a coach figure that is not necessarily trained in their content. This begs the question: what the coach figure should be trained in? Under the structure of his model, I would suggest that such coaches get trained in child development and psychology as well as some work in leadership. I argue for the former skills because students will still need to be taught “soft skills”—as defined by Lopez and Calderon (2013). The latter training in leadership is necessary because teachers will not be navigating content as much as they will be directing the direction of a classroom (of course, this is true today, but even more so under Mitra’s (2013) model). I will say that while some direct instruction in some content areas may be obsolete, some skills and contents are exceptions, such as essay writing/structure. Overall though, it seems that teachers should be prepared to direct learning, as opposed to teaching lessons, and produce citizens (as Nussbaum (1977) suggested).
What do you think? What should these “coach figures” be trained to do?
Thanks again,
Edward Nelson
I really appreciate your thoughts and am in totally agreement about the depth of knowledge some students need in some subjects. I teach science and each year I struggle with what we expect students who are not ever going into a science related field to know. If they are going to want a career in business, automotive, writing why do they need in-depth knowledge of the Kreb's Cycle in a cell and the ions of periodic table? I agree students need to be exposed to all areas so they can figure out their passions for the future but only then do they need some of the in-depth knowledge. So why can't we create schools like this in the US if they can in other countries? Do we have too much red tape and bureaucracy? I would really like to open my own school where I could help students find their passions and then coach them to learn like they did in England or that Mitra described. With the internet do we really need to teach content anymore? The teachers role is drastically changing and in education we have to accept that fact and move with the times or there will not be a public education system anymore.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post this week. You brought up many parts of the articles that I did not mention. I thought the parent survey results were interesting in the fact that they contradicted what Eisner thought schools did teach. I feel that schools do teach well-being, strong relationships, finances, health, and community involvement. I personally feel that schools introduce these ideas and students participate in these values while they are at school, but very few students continue to do them at home. Overall, I feel that parents do not want to be as involved as previous generations. At my school we have multiple nights where parents can engage in activities with their students and the community, but we do not get a very good turnout unless we give a reward. All of society seems to be waiting for something to be done for them so they can work the way they are supposed to be working anyway. All of society is built on extrinsic rewards; give cards, frequent flyer miles, reward points at gas stations/stores. I do not think that schools do a bad job of teaching higher well-being and community involvement, I think that parents and society are waiting for something to be done for them and the kids act the same way.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking on motivation, I like how you brought up the point by Mitra where he stated with all of the technology and computers available, students need a sexy way of learning. In the city where I am teaching there are three online schools to my knowledge. Two of them are K-8 and they are half day on the computer, half day with a teacher. There is one K-12 school which is fully online and there is a coach. I personally do not agree with these schools in regard for the virtues that schools do teach. However, from an academic standpoint there must be enough research that students will be motivated to learn and push themselves to a higher level learning. In my opinion I think that students need to have one on one conversations with students and teachers, debate, and learn from those discussions to gain knowledge outside of what the curriculum says.
Andrea,
ReplyDeleteThis is a good synthesis of the readings/viewings, however, I'm looking for your argument, here. I suppose that your last paragraph gives me some sense of what you think about the theme, but I find myself wanting more :)
What I am left with after reading your post is the question of balance. I sense that you are still thinking, as I am, that exposing students to a broad range of subjects is useful. You specifically mention coding, a "hard" skill as well as several "soft" skills like communication and I find myself wondering how you see balancing the range of subjects available. What is most important for students to learn? Are certain subjects less vital to a general audience? Which subjects are absolutely necessary? How do we decide? In the case of the Studio School, it seems like they are able, to some degree, to work across disciplines with various projects. This jives with Dewey's ideas about having experience guide the learning wherein the experience itself could dictate what subjects arise. So, if students are working on a project, it might organically create a balance of subject matters due to the nature of the project. If students want to build an e-commerce website they will, at some point in that endeavor, have to use coding, math, photography/art, writing, and other "hard" skills but will also certainly be using "soft" skills like communication, collaboration, and creative problem-solving. Do you think a model like this could work in the context of public schooling in the US using the current infrastructure or would we need to do a total overhaul?
Best,
amanda