In Why School?, Will Richardson presents two types of school reform occurring today. The first type of reform is the so-called corporate reformers’ approach, which involves delivering the same old content using technological tools. According to Richardson, the corporate reformers see big business opportunities in charter schools, assessment software, delivering “personalized” curriculum via computers, among other “reforms.” However, the educational focus remains on “information acquisition, basic skills, a bit of critical thinking, analysis—accomplishments that can be easily identified and scored” (24-25).
The second type of reform is a progressive approach that involves a total shift in emphasis from content mastery to learning mastery, or, stated differently, from information delivery to information discovery. According to Richardson, “It’s about asking questions, working with others to find the answers, doing real work for real audiences, and adding to, not simply taking from…the Web…..It’s about developing the kinds of the kinds of habits and dispositions that deep, lifelong learners need to succeed in a world rife with information and connections” (27). Students will take more ownership of their own learning and create their own unique paths. Assessments will focus less on what students know, and more on what they can do with what they know.
I am all in favor of a more progressive educational approach that shifts the focus away from memorizing trivial facts. This is not a new idea: law school is all about learning how to “think like a lawyer,” not memorize laws you can easily look up. I am deeply grateful for my law school experience. I would love to teach students how to research relevant information on the Web, evaluate the information using 21st century literacy skills (including how to evaluate sources for quality and reliability), and create something that will show me what they can do with the information.
The main challenge with that approach, in my mind, is in laying the foundation that will prepare students to analyze information, engage in critical thinking, and apply what they have learned. I have little doubt that a typical high school honors student can already do this work effectively. Such a student already has “effective reading and writing skills, as well as a solid foundation in math, science, history, and more” (28). Furthermore, such a student probably has the maturity to engage in self-directed projects effectively. With younger, less curious, and less disciplined children, I am not completely convinced they are ready to take ownership of their own learning. However, I’m willing to give it a try. I certainly do not like the trends I see in “corporate” reform. Replacing real teachers and thoughtful assessments with computer hardware and software is a risky educational idea. Destroying public schools in the name of profit is a downright dangerous social proposition.
Richardson proposes that, while the reform debate rages, teachers rethink how to help kids succeed according to both traditional measures and in the new, digital, information-saturated world of learning. He proposes that teachers rethink teaching in six ways:
(1) SHARE your best practices/thinking about education digitally (39).
(2) DISCOVER, don’t deliver, the curriculum (42). Guide projects where students pursue their own interests in the context of the subject matter.
(3) TALK TO STRANGERS – i.e., have students connect online in the classroom with strangers from whom they can learn (46).
(4) BE A MASTER LEARNER; model your own ongoing learning process (47).
(5) Do REAL WORK for REAL AUDIENCES, such as creative projects that result in podcasts, videos, etc. posted online.
(6) TRANSFER THE POWER; give students license to find their own teachers, classrooms, and information online.
I can commit to four of these: share digitally, discover rather than deliver the curriculum, be a master learner, and do real work for real audiences. I am doing some of this already.
The last two pieces of advice—talk to strangers, and transfer the power—may be a struggle for me. On the issue of talking to strangers, I have serious concerns about the safety of students who connect online privately with strangers. However, I would welcome an exchange in a forum to which I have access, and I certainly welcome exchanges with students at other schools and with educators at museums, universities, and so on. On the related issue of in-class computer use, monitoring it to make sure students are using digital tools appropriately is a major challenge. Students use their smart phones in my classroom all the time, and 90% of the time the use is unrelated to their learning and an unwelcome distraction. When they visit the computer lab, I inevitably have to stop students from watching YouTube videos about rap music, surfing, etc. when they are supposed to be working on world history assignments. Finally, the recommendation of giving students license to find their own teachers, classrooms, and information online sounds compelling in theory, but I fear parents and administrators would view it as an delegation of my duties as a teacher. It also sounds strangely like the “corporate reform” model Richardson criticizes in the book, where students report to a computer lab and do online work in the presence of an adult who is little more than a chaperone.
The second type of reform is a progressive approach that involves a total shift in emphasis from content mastery to learning mastery, or, stated differently, from information delivery to information discovery. According to Richardson, “It’s about asking questions, working with others to find the answers, doing real work for real audiences, and adding to, not simply taking from…the Web…..It’s about developing the kinds of the kinds of habits and dispositions that deep, lifelong learners need to succeed in a world rife with information and connections” (27). Students will take more ownership of their own learning and create their own unique paths. Assessments will focus less on what students know, and more on what they can do with what they know.
I am all in favor of a more progressive educational approach that shifts the focus away from memorizing trivial facts. This is not a new idea: law school is all about learning how to “think like a lawyer,” not memorize laws you can easily look up. I am deeply grateful for my law school experience. I would love to teach students how to research relevant information on the Web, evaluate the information using 21st century literacy skills (including how to evaluate sources for quality and reliability), and create something that will show me what they can do with the information.
The main challenge with that approach, in my mind, is in laying the foundation that will prepare students to analyze information, engage in critical thinking, and apply what they have learned. I have little doubt that a typical high school honors student can already do this work effectively. Such a student already has “effective reading and writing skills, as well as a solid foundation in math, science, history, and more” (28). Furthermore, such a student probably has the maturity to engage in self-directed projects effectively. With younger, less curious, and less disciplined children, I am not completely convinced they are ready to take ownership of their own learning. However, I’m willing to give it a try. I certainly do not like the trends I see in “corporate” reform. Replacing real teachers and thoughtful assessments with computer hardware and software is a risky educational idea. Destroying public schools in the name of profit is a downright dangerous social proposition.
Richardson proposes that, while the reform debate rages, teachers rethink how to help kids succeed according to both traditional measures and in the new, digital, information-saturated world of learning. He proposes that teachers rethink teaching in six ways:
(1) SHARE your best practices/thinking about education digitally (39).
(2) DISCOVER, don’t deliver, the curriculum (42). Guide projects where students pursue their own interests in the context of the subject matter.
(3) TALK TO STRANGERS – i.e., have students connect online in the classroom with strangers from whom they can learn (46).
(4) BE A MASTER LEARNER; model your own ongoing learning process (47).
(5) Do REAL WORK for REAL AUDIENCES, such as creative projects that result in podcasts, videos, etc. posted online.
(6) TRANSFER THE POWER; give students license to find their own teachers, classrooms, and information online.
I can commit to four of these: share digitally, discover rather than deliver the curriculum, be a master learner, and do real work for real audiences. I am doing some of this already.
The last two pieces of advice—talk to strangers, and transfer the power—may be a struggle for me. On the issue of talking to strangers, I have serious concerns about the safety of students who connect online privately with strangers. However, I would welcome an exchange in a forum to which I have access, and I certainly welcome exchanges with students at other schools and with educators at museums, universities, and so on. On the related issue of in-class computer use, monitoring it to make sure students are using digital tools appropriately is a major challenge. Students use their smart phones in my classroom all the time, and 90% of the time the use is unrelated to their learning and an unwelcome distraction. When they visit the computer lab, I inevitably have to stop students from watching YouTube videos about rap music, surfing, etc. when they are supposed to be working on world history assignments. Finally, the recommendation of giving students license to find their own teachers, classrooms, and information online sounds compelling in theory, but I fear parents and administrators would view it as an delegation of my duties as a teacher. It also sounds strangely like the “corporate reform” model Richardson criticizes in the book, where students report to a computer lab and do online work in the presence of an adult who is little more than a chaperone.