As I consider the function of education, I keep coming back to the maxim - "there is no such thing as teaching, there is only learning and the learner controls it." The maxim does not necessarily denigrate the process of teaching at all, yet if the learner is not engaged, it doesn't matter what the teacher does.
Related is that fact that if the learner does not feel safe, feel capable, or feel supported, there is little the teacher can do to ensure engagement. The teaching-learning process is first emotionally driven, with the learner's affective needs being critical. Secondly, if the learner feels validated, appreciated and respected, s/he is much more likely to be willing to engage in learning. Learner engagement still requires additional critical skills by the teacher to provide opportunity for the student to learn. Thus learners need social-emotional support as well as meaningful engagement in the learning process. Wow, this is complicated! You bet, but I say, "teaching starts with the heart!"
Monday, September 17, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
Is education about content or thinking?
I just read a blog post by Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post. Valerie was sharing a post by Roger C. Schank, a cognitive scientist, artificial intelligence theorist, and education reformer.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/no-algebra-isnt-necessary--and-yes-stem-is-overrated/2012/08/26/edc47552-ed2d-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_blog.html)
Schank taught at Stanford and Yale universities and is the John Evans Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, Psychology, and Education at Northwestern University. The former head of the Institute for the Learning Sciences, he is the author of “Teaching Minds: How Cognitive Science Can Save Our Schools."
Basically, his argument in this post is that we need less learning of algebra in our schools and more helping students to understand their cognitive abilities: "the ability to make an accurate prediction or describe situations, or diagnose a problem, or evaluate a situation, person or object."
I am supportive of Dr. Schank's perspective. Technology has seriously changed how much we need to memorize content, we have access to so much more than out brains can handle. At the same time it is very difficult to think without content to think about. Algebra is a value-symbol language, necessary to communicate certain types of concepts. How much of the language of algebra does every student need? For that matter, how much of any controlled curriculum content does every child need? These are difficult questions, and yet we obviously need to rethink schools and their functions.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/no-algebra-isnt-necessary--and-yes-stem-is-overrated/2012/08/26/edc47552-ed2d-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_blog.html)
Schank taught at Stanford and Yale universities and is the John Evans Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, Psychology, and Education at Northwestern University. The former head of the Institute for the Learning Sciences, he is the author of “Teaching Minds: How Cognitive Science Can Save Our Schools."
Basically, his argument in this post is that we need less learning of algebra in our schools and more helping students to understand their cognitive abilities: "the ability to make an accurate prediction or describe situations, or diagnose a problem, or evaluate a situation, person or object."
I am supportive of Dr. Schank's perspective. Technology has seriously changed how much we need to memorize content, we have access to so much more than out brains can handle. At the same time it is very difficult to think without content to think about. Algebra is a value-symbol language, necessary to communicate certain types of concepts. How much of the language of algebra does every student need? For that matter, how much of any controlled curriculum content does every child need? These are difficult questions, and yet we obviously need to rethink schools and their functions.
Monday, July 16, 2012
The inevitable change....
Nothing stays the same, or so we hear. Yet, by in large, school has stayed the same for much of the last 100 years. Nonetheless, we are starting to see the inevitable change in schools as we get further into the 21st Century. As for me, I think government policy has had too much effect, technology needs to have greater effect, and the desire of educators for change must become personal.
We are the professionals; real change needs to be up to us! We should not be the pawns of policy but rather the authors of change in our system. OK you say, how? Technology allows us to "flip" our classrooms from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning. The question then becomes do we believe that the point of student learning is to improve thinking or to improve test-taking? Policy makers want school to be about test-taking. We teachers should want the point of learning to be about improving thinking.
My feeling has always been that educational policy should be about "desired" outcomes, not mandated inputs or content. If we see policy as expected outcomes and we professionals control the inputs and process, then we can both meet the letter of the law AND improve student thinking. This is where the "rubber meets the road" in teaching. Do you know how to control both content and process to improve student thinking? As professionals that is our task. We each also need to be learners ourselves, don't we!?
We are the professionals; real change needs to be up to us! We should not be the pawns of policy but rather the authors of change in our system. OK you say, how? Technology allows us to "flip" our classrooms from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning. The question then becomes do we believe that the point of student learning is to improve thinking or to improve test-taking? Policy makers want school to be about test-taking. We teachers should want the point of learning to be about improving thinking.
My feeling has always been that educational policy should be about "desired" outcomes, not mandated inputs or content. If we see policy as expected outcomes and we professionals control the inputs and process, then we can both meet the letter of the law AND improve student thinking. This is where the "rubber meets the road" in teaching. Do you know how to control both content and process to improve student thinking? As professionals that is our task. We each also need to be learners ourselves, don't we!?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)