A recent study by the Center for Research On Education Outcomes (CREDO) finds that online education underperforms traditional "brick and mortar" schools. Having experienced online education myself, I'm not at all surprised by these findings. Students need to connect to material, discuss it, and make it an active part of the experience. I had little luck connecting to material found in my online classes and honestly, my work was less inspired as well. The're cheap and easy to access, but online institutions lack a vital part of the puzzle, the human element. Teachers don't need to be the dispenser of knowledge anymore. Students have the collected knowledge of all humanity available in the palms of their hands. A teacher"s role has adapted to be the mediator between this knowledge and the current understanding of the students. Guiding students to the correct information in an orderly and well-paced structure is now the focus and with today's media and technology, the possibilities are exciting! Interactive presentations, web-based virtual labs, and a wide variety of social and sharing software combine to create an environment where limits are set by the teacher's imagination, not the textbook. Online education is exactly that, an interactive textbook. Sure, it has videos, tutorials, and a plethora of "help" options, but those options won't put you face to face with someone who is capable and wants to help you. Time will tell on web-based education and while I don't see the concept losing steam anytime soon, the numbers aren't looking good!
It's been drilled into my head from the beginning of my education courses that teachers should rarely, if ever, sit down during class time. This accomplishes several goals for the teacher, including behavioral management, "withitness", and making the teacher available to all the students for on-on-one help. That being said, I'm not sure if I'd condone throwing out all of the teachers' desks!
That's exactly what Donna Connely, a Bronx K-5 principal, did according to a recent article circulating around Slate and the New York Post. Connely felt that her teachers were sitting too often during class, so the desks were removed, students watching as the teachers emptied their desks and pushed them into the hallway for removal.
Connely decided to return the desks after a strong social media response and several articles in media outlets such as the New York Post and Slate, I guess that's one good thing about the immediate feedback of social media, make a mistake and people are all too excited to point it out!
When the education field is tumultuous and things are in a constant state of change, what good do actions like this do for students? What went through students' minds as humiliated teachers begrudgingly shoved desks into hallways? Better yet, what education was accomplished that day and how long will the ripple effect last? Feel free to leave your opinions in the comments section below.
I saw this video a while ago and it's recently become a hot topic on social media. Yesterday, sitting in a botany lab with my lab group, a discussion began where this video and its ideas were a main topic. Many of the students and even the teacher expressed concern about what isn't being taught in our public schools. There seems to be a consensus that young adults are leaving high school ill equipped for daily life, unprepared to face the daily challenges of being self-reliant and independent.
While we discussed how students don't seem to understand personal finance, basic personal healthcare, job and interview skills, or even maintaining their homes and vehicles, a thought occurred to me that I felt was worth sharing: Where are the boundaries for the ideas and skills that public schools should teach? Where does public education draw the line?
I remember being taught how to balance a check book, dress professionally, operate a washing machine, and several other skills when I was young. The issue is that I was taught these skills by family and friends. I learned these social skills in my social environment. Now don't get me wrong, my school offered several courses in which the goal was to prepare students for "real life", but these were classes that students took to fill their schedule with a class that didn't cut into their Friday night. Maybe these classes are being culled from the curriculum do to low student interest or it could be because schools are struggling to cover the content and new instructional methods being passed down from state and national education departments.
This brings us to my main point. Who is responsible for teaching students basic life skills? I have no doubt that many educators would delight in providing students with skills that would help them become better individuals and citizens, but I don't know of many who can find any time in class to provide these lessons. Coming from a Biology background, there is no lack of content that I would love and actually feel I need to cover, but there just aren't enough hours in the day. Many educators already struggle finding a middle ground between what they feel they need to cover and not covering so much material that students are incapable of processing and retaining it.
So, should schools focus on trying to provide a well rounded education including life skills to all students or should they focus on just academic topics? The general idea in western education is to provide a well rounded education, one composed of several subjects and cognitive skills. Now, my ears perk up when I hear people discussing the state of education these days and I often hear people lamenting the fact that they have to learn two years of foreign language, the quadratic equation, and which acid is the final product of the Kreb's Cycle when they plan on becoming a media specialist. It makes sense from either perspective, well rounded or content focused education. I think the issue is that there isn't a consensus on what public education should include, at least a realistic one.
If schools focus on content and academics, that leaves the burden of basic life skills on the shoulders of parents and the community. If schools try to include basic life skills in every student's education, that means less content and other skills covered in class. Unfortunately, you apparently can't have your cake and eat it to. So, where do you stand in this debate or do you have a position? If you do, feel free to comment!
I really like what this guy has to say. He has some great insights about education and educational culture. There's a big pressure nationally to "teach to the test" and honestly, I can understand why educational institutions find their educators doing this. If students don't do well on these standardized tests, the schools are defunded and teachers and faculty are subsequently "let go". An article posted by the NEA explains some of the opinions and numbers.
It seems to me that this form of high stakes testing is rough on students. Instead of being able to explore science (I guess we should include the other subjects as well...), students are placed in a tunnel vision approach for the test with no errors allowable, no side trips! These investigations and allowing curiosity to be nurtured and encouraged doesn't seem to have a place in the modern educational arena. The focus is content coverage and preparation for evaluation, both on the part of the student and the teacher.
Sure, there needs to be a way to assess teacher and student performance, but is our current model working to the benefit of our students? Is this the best method we can devise to maximize learning and interest in academia? I'm rarely satisfied with good enough, usually focusing on ways to improve and not just be content with the status quo. I think it's about time we rethink our approach, find ways to maximize true learning and a fostering of academic curiosity. Doing this while finding a better assessment method won't be easy, but anything worth doing rarely is!
So, I had the joy of teaching my first lesson of the semester at a local high school. The lesson went really well and the students seemed to have a good time with the activity. With all the educational joy floating around and the excitement from the activity, I was surprised to notice something a little disconcerting. THE STUDENTS DID NOT WANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS! Now, for those of you who already teach, this is probably not exactly a revelation to you, but many of us "green horns" haven't had enough time in the classroom to have experienced this. Students DO NOT like answering questions, specifically during the lecture. I noticed and addressed this in my lesson that day.
I decided to bring this up right in the middle of my lecture, mostly because the opportunity presented itself and I felt that it's advice that often isn't handed out to students. The truth is, at least in my experience as a student, most of us practically crawl under the desk hoping to avoid answering the teacher's questions during lecture! Why is this the case? Why are we so afraid to speak up when called upon, especially when some of us, myself included, have no problem speaking up in class about pretty much anything else? Well, to put it simply, no one wants to look stupid in front of a crowd!
So, I told the class "Hey guys and girls, if you knew all of this information already, I'd be out of a job! You're all here because you DON'T KNOW what we're talking about....YET!" One of the best ways to get past the "yet" is to ask questions, answer the teacher's questions, and in general, not be afraid of being wrong. We're all going to be wrong, so embrace ignorance! I can pretty much guarantee that several of the other students in the class are just praying that someone will ask the question that's been in their mind the whole class. So, don't be afraid to speak up, answer the lecture questions, or ask your own questions! We all just might learn something ;)
Discrepant events, or a Conceptual
Conflict, are situations or scenarios where what one observes does not match
what one would expect to observe. It is a paradoxical event that clashes with
what the observer knows to be true, essentially throwing a wrench in their
cognitive gears. When this happens, the general reaction is a discomforting
curiosity that leads the observer on a path to reach a kind of equilibrium or
solace. In the case of its use in science education, the students (observers)
were motivated to figure out the trick or understand why the event didn’t make
sense. Students who were generally disengaged or unmotivated were also lured
into the educational trap! Students just couldn’t stand not knowing how it all
worked and this lead to a change in their mindset in the classroom. It lead to
the mindset that so many teachers seek to instill in their students: wonder,
curiosity, and a desire to overcome the challenge. Teachers who can present the
right challenge to students in the right fashion can have profound effects on
their students.
I
had a teacher like this once, an 8th grade Biology teacher with a
crazy personality and an even crazier taste in pants. I heard about this
teacher within a week of starting classes in the school. It seemed like
everyone knew him, liked him, and wanted desperately to be in his class. After
I heard his name buzzing around for long enough, I walked over to his classroom
to see what all the fuss was about. Sure enough, the lair of a mad scientist
with a soft spot for critters, specifically snakes. I saw rabbits, several
snakes, various rodents, and all manner of beakers, burners, and cool
scientific stuff. It looked like a classroom I wanted to be in, but it wasn’t
the pets or even all the cool gadgets littered throughout the room. It was him,
Mr. Granderson. He had a reputation for blowing stuff up and doing crazy
demonstrations in his classroom, a reputation I was lucky enough to confirm
when I took his class the next year. He didn’t just blow things up, set them on
fire, and entertain us until our hearts were content, he challenged us. Many of
his little demonstrations were discrepant events, leaving us perplexed and
itching to learn. This drive is the result of the application of discrepant
events in the classroom.
