What do our Students Need to Know?

David Warlick contrasts web 2.0 from 1.0 as “A layer of content that comes out of conversation rather than authority.” This statement is interesting when applied to the nuances of Internet browsing, but is mind-blowing when considered from a communications standpoint. In demonstrating the progression of information gathering on the web, Warlick forms the argument that the ability to reach an audience is more important than the ability to present reputable findings. This presents the challenge for educators to embrace the wealth of information at their fingertips while ensuring that their students are able to analyze sources and validate credibility.

            Wikipedia has long stood as the scapegoat for misinformation and lack of authority. I have been in countless classes where citations for papers and presentations are discussed and the teacher asks, “Is Wikipedia a reputable source?” with a tone that suggests that the site has all of the credibility of a scribble on a cocktail napkin. I’m not saying that Wikipedia does not have countless pages of misinformation and bias, but we as educators must understand what it is and the influence that it has over the concept of learning. Wikipedia is an amazing resource, the boundaries of learning are limitless, and the most interesting part is that the authoritative word is never final. The label that Wikipedia lacks credibility is incorrect because it promotes its lack of authority with the cautionary messages that Warlick displayed.

            Warlick asks the audience if our classrooms are flat, and if so, how do we drive teaching and learning in an era where we are teaching to an unpredictable future in a new information landscape? The answer lies in resources like Wikipedia where the venue promotes dialogue from it users rather than positioning them as observers.  Learning in the new information landscape means students must be able to navigate the web in terms of evaluating, analyzing, and forming their own opinions. These are the “habits of literacy” that Warlick insists teachers must promote. I feel that teaching students to think critically requires them to question sources, especially ones that make up the accepted authority.

           

            The idea of having students create trailers for Othello is an amazing way for students to personalize their opinions of the critical aspects of the drama. In creating the trailer, students had to consider the audience as receptors of this information. They also had to create the emotional climate that they wanted to convey to their audience. In performing a video assignment, students could consider the information they present as marketable, making them consider their viewers in a way that writing a standard essay would have failed to do.

            I love the idea of looking at learning as an activity that we all take place in rather than as a law that is recited from the mouth of an authoritarian teacher from stone tablets. Breaking the model of teacher to student information transmission shows students that teachers not only promote, but also practice the habits of literacy and learning. While the methods of learning may be be redefined as technology evolves and information gathering refines itself, the habits of literacy are the elements of critical thinking that must be instilled in our students.

Teaching to an unpredictable future

The David Warlick video illustrates the conditions that are "drawing down" teaching in a digital era. The state of these three issues reflect the challenge of teaching to students who approach information in a far different manner than their educators.

The availability and immediacy of information is completely different for students today then for students even five years ago. As the rate of technological advancement grows exponentially,  the idea of data collection and analysis in schools takes on an entirely new role. In high school I remember the assignment in health class of nutritional analysis in various foods.  This was a several week project where we had to go to the supermarket, record data involving the calories, fats, and the like. We then had to put together a diet based on the food pyramid and a proper daily values.
This assignment is still given in the high school that I work in for sophomore health class. The teacher told me that this assignment now takes less than a period.  The students all googled the nutritional information of the foods, and used a website to create a meal plan based on the information that they had inputted. Even a few years ago the teacher would have had to reserve a computer room for the period so the students could access the Internet. Now my colleague tells me that all but one student immediately jumped on their smart phones and began to work in the classroom.

This instant gratification of information has created an apparently impatient and easily distracted group of students.  This resulting distraction can be not actually a distraction at all but rather a form of multitasking. These students process information at a very different rate than the generations that have preceded them. And while I understand that this difference between generations occurs, I still have to wonder if it is a good idea to do your homework while listening to music and updating your facebook status with an IM box open and an incoming text message?

The other point I wanted to touch on refers to the purposes of information that Warlick contrasts between  students and adults. In approaching information as a work in progress as opposed to a product to be consumed, students position themselves as active participants in the information process rather than as a receptor of information. Thus students see information as what they make of it rather than what they are meant to accept.

In teaching for an unpredictable future to a generation of tech savvy students in a new era of information,  teachers must update their style of communication to resonate with a group already bombarded with stimuli. What seems to be most important in advancing with the times is what has always been the most important aspect of educating students--to find effective ways to connect with students in terms of communicating the information.

Chuck

Sir Ken and Revolutionizing the Way We Teach

Hi Everyone,


I must admit I clicked on the link to the ted website with more than a hint of skepticism. I have found in my years of higher education that professors like to open the year with a speaker, author, or educator who they find personally inspiring. Sometimes the person or performance is entertaining or resonates with why you are in grad school and putting in a lot of hours on top of your job, often enough it misses the mark. Usually the best bet as a student is to give the canned "I liked it"response, as not to disagree with the prof. But Kenneth Robinson was in all honesty entertainingly thought provoking. 

I watched the videos in the top-to-bottom sequence they were listed on the site. In his lecture at the ted conference he won me over pretty fast with his idea that we are only teaching to half of the head. I am a big advocate of children having a well-rounded educational experience. I have problems with the hierarchy of subjects that take place in schools, and how the first thing to be compromised is the arts. The school culture somewhat promotes this inequality between subjects. In my high school we were required to take 4 year long English classes while only required to take 2 semesters of art, health, computers, and other associate classes. The fact that the schedule is set up with "associate" block periods that fall around "core" block periods speaks to the importance of their respective subjects. I often refer to "subject snobs" as the people who I observe in faculty meetings that marginalize the arts.

However, it does not seem like Robinson is for a balanced education, but rather for catering to the interests of the child. I am going to play devil's advocate to Mr. Robinson and say that while I do believe children should follow their passion, there is merit in having a marketable skill or knowledge. As he told the story of he girl who danced for the royal ballet, I couldn't help but think that there are a lot of dancers who are waiting tables while they hope their big break comes. I don't know if that statement is an example of the "enthralled" patterns that Robinson wants to deconstruct. But I do think that there are a good deal more art majors that are making lattes rather than opening galleries in a recession.

As a child through my teenage years I wanted to be an professional football player. It was my passion, my challenge, my love. I don't think that means I should go to football school in place of pre-algebra.
 I would bet that if you polled today's students on what they would like to if they could do anything, one of the most popular answers would be a rapper. If schools began teaching students only poetry, linguistics, and hip-hop classes, the music industry might be better but we're probably gonna have a ton of out of work rappers. 

Ultimately I think Robinson is important for his thought provoking ideas about breaking down paradigms is our educational system. Moreover, I respect the guy for wanting to revolutionize education in hopes of raising the quality of people's educational experience.