Wesch, in his "Rethinking Education" video, raises a point I've thought a lot about. How will the current shift in education affect the way universities are run? Or will this shift affect them at all? Does the abundance of information and the collaboration of peers mean anything for universities? As I emphasize group projects and collaboration, and knowledge discovery (rather than delivery) in the classroom, I wonder if students will be prepared for college. Will colleges react at all to students who are used to working with peers to collectively find answers? Or will they ignore this and continue with their lecture-based curriculum? If indeed they do not change (as I fear), then I wonder how we can simultaneously prepare them for college and use groupwork in the classroom. I personally include some direct instruction in each of my lessons before I move kids into partners or groups. Students must also learn skills like listening and taking notes as well as collaboration.
Wesch, in his "Rethinking Education" video, raises a point I've thought a lot about. How will the current shift in education affect the way universities are run? Or will this shift affect them at all? Does the abundance of information and the collaboration of peers mean anything for universities? As I emphasize group projects and collaboration, and knowledge discovery (rather than delivery) in the classroom, I wonder if students will be prepared for college. Will colleges react at all to students who are used to working with peers to collectively find answers? Or will they ignore this and continue with their lecture-based curriculum? If indeed they do not change (as I fear), then I wonder how we can simultaneously prepare them for college and use groupwork in the classroom. I personally include some direct instruction in each of my lessons before I move kids into partners or groups. Students must also learn skills like listening and taking notes as well as collaboration.
0 Comments
Visitor or Resident? I hadn't given much consideration as to what sort of web-user I was until this video. Before the time constraints of this program and clinical practice, I was more of a resident. Now, I call myself a visitor. I think I used the web before as a way to kill time. I enjoyed the things I read, what I shared on social media with friends, etc. However, since I've had to prioritize my time a little more, I now go on the internet as a means to an end. If I find myself clicking around social media, I stop and go back to work. I often feel as though my time on the web is wasted unless it produces tangible results. More often than not, it doesn't. When this program ends and I have a little more time, I think I'll remain a visitor. I'll go on to do research, read news, etc. But I will not reside there. I agree with Wesch's basic premise that we need to move students from just knowing stuff, to being able to do things with the information. This, for me, is a good jumping point for some of my lessons. As someone that teaches history, I'm always desperate to make it seem relevant to kids' lives and applicable to today. Wesch emphasizes the need to have students use the knowledge that they have or we give them. For me, I try to give students the facts they need and let them imagine what they would do in a given situation. This forces them to use the higher-level thinking skills that Wesch speaks of. For example, in a couple weeks I'm teaching about the rise of Hitler. I'll give the students the facts they need about Hitler. I'll set the scene for the them. Here's why Hitler was angry, here's how he came to power, etc. This is the knowledge I must give them for them to do the higher level thinking. The knowledge is the bricks and mortar for them to do more. Students then take this knowledge and evaluate, "would I have followed Hitler if I'd lived through the Weimar Republic? If I was alive and in Germany in the 1930s in light of what I've learned? So this taking students to knowledge-able, as Wesch describes. This is a lesson I'm going to use when I get to the rise of Hitler.
Why School?
Why school is a compelling question. Why do we teach it? Why do we send our kids there? What do we expect out of it? These are fundamental questions that we must ask ourselves (and answer) in order to get the most out of school. I found Will Richardson's book very interesting in a few ways. He mentions that the kids are using their phones, computers, etc everywhere except the classroom. When they come to school, students are often told or expected to put their phones away. Richardson assumes that technology is inherently helpful and desired by the children. When I surveyed my students, I found that 1/3 of them did not want to use any technology in the classroom because they found it distracting. I wonder if Richardson has met students like this. On the other hand, I like his point about not teaching answers that are easily google-able. If it's information that they don't need to think about, it's not worth spending a lot of time on. Sure, students must start with the facts and the lower-level thinking skills, but as teachers we must move from there. Once students know the facts, then have them compare/contrast, evaluate, and analyze them. Our role as teachers has indeed changed since the advent of such pervasive technologies like iphones. Students don't need us for knowledge; they need us to teach them thinking skills. I've been fortunate enough that no student has yet asked me, "Why do we have to learn _____?" If they did, certainly I would have a response relating history to current events. I have, however, had students why they have to learn some math. I had to be honest with the student and tell her that I did not see a purpose for her calculus unless she was intending on going into a career that required high-level math. I added, of course, that a math teacher might have a different perspective on that question though. Students are right to question the purpose for what they're learning. And if we as teachers can't find a good answer and can't demonstrate how it's relevant to their lives, then we should reconsider teaching it. Richardson's idea which I will struggle with the most is what he calls "Discover, don't deliver, the curriculum." This idea is something our social science methods teacher stresses to us. Students take ownership, become engaged, and really interact with the content when you allow them to "discover" it. The reason I struggle with this is for a few reasons. First, I am opinionated and often want students to understand the content as I see it. Students that make their own analogies remember them better and seem to truly care about the material. However, I often find myself too impatient to allow students to arrive at their own conclusions or analogies about something, and I just "deliver" that part of the curriculum to them. I'm excited, though, to implement Richardson's "Share Everything" philosophy. In it, he highlights the need for teachers to collaborate and share with each other. By working with my master teacher, the need and the benefits of collaborating with other teachers has been apparent. He gives me ideas, I add to them, and then he incorporates them into his lesson. We talk about what we'll teach, how we'll teach it, then discuss what went right/wrong afterward. This has helped me tremendously in my clinical practice and I look forward to continuing similar collaboration through professional development once I become a credentialed teacher. |
AuthorAspiring History Teacher Archives
April 2015
Categories |