“If we teach today’s students as we did yesterday, we rob them
of tomorrow”
(John Dewey as cited
in Digital Media 2011)
The first time I heard this quote was in one of my Master’s
of Education classes Technology in the
Curriculum. What struck me the most was the truth behind it. If we take a
look around our society today, the significance of 21st century
technology is evident in almost every aspect of our daily lives. From the time
people wake up in the morning to the time they go to bed at night, technology
has an impact on both productivity and social activity. People are able to
communicate to each other instantly through text messages, emails, Skype and
social networking sites. Businesses are able to market and sell products to
people all over the world through online websites and advertisements. It amazes
me each day how much society has truly changed in such a short period of time.
However, what I think has not changed, are our schools.
Ironically, schools
were initially developed as institutions aimed at preparing students for the
future. However, somewhere between the creation of the traditional school and
the beginning of the 21st century, schools have forgotten this goal.
How are schools preparing students for a world of endless possibilities when
they are taught problems must be solved a certain way, or when they are taught
to think of things as being right or wrong? The standardized tests we are
imposing on our students are teaching them to think in a way that is conducive
to yesterday learning.
According to Tanner (2013), in the early years of the
testing industry test makers sought to align standardized tests to the
curriculum being taught in schools. As society allowed standardized testing to become the
chief representation of student learning, a turn around occurred in which schools
began aligning the curriculum to the test. Today, in a world where creativity
and innovation are butting heads with conformity and standardization, schools
and teachers are struggling to determine how to prepare students for the world of
tomorrow. On one hand, grades and class rank, both products of standardized tests, are highly valued as determinants for entry into Universities and Colleges
around the world. On the other hand, the characteristics businesses and employers look for in
their respective employees are innovation, creativity, collaboration, and problem
solving. At the end of the day, who wins? Conformity or innovation?
“In looking to the future, rather than insisting on a choice
of either/or, we should consider shifting to both/and” (Drake, 2010, p. 4). According
to Drake (2010), we need to recognize what was good from the “old method”
(standardization) and carry that forward. Perhaps there is no winner or loser,
no need for a battle between conformity and innovation. I think the answer lies in an integration
of the two practices. The old method or standardized testing was first implemented in schools to specifically assess students' literacy and numeracy skills. These subjects were viewed as the “basics for
a successful life” (Drake, 2010, p. 4). In the 21st century,
literacy can, and should still be considered a basic skill for life. However, the criteria of
what it means to be literate must be re-visited. Being literate in today's digital world not only involves traditional literacy skills, but being able to interpret new media as a critical
consumer of knowledge. Literacy in the 21st century means asking questions regarding authorship and credibility when
it comes to information presented online. Any one can create a
website on a topic of their choosing in a matter of minutes. Credentials are no longer a necessity for
being an expert. Thus, it is very important today’s students learn to approach knowledge from a critical perspective.
In the article What does it mean to be Well-Educated? Alfie Kohn (2003) discusses how most teachers can instantly name students who are intelligent thinkers, but who do not perform well on standardized tests. As well, there will always be students for whom standardized tests seem to overestimate their intellectual abilities. This is why one mode of testing is not sufficient. (see http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/welleducated.htm). In the Growing Success document developed by the Ontario Ministry of Education, three different types of assessment are emphasized (visit http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/success.html). In particular, assessment for learning is a way in which teachers can monitor their students learning and provide them with feedback throughout the learning process. In addition, it is recommended that different assessment types such as journal entries, question-answer cards, interviews, portfolios, graphic organizers, and drawings are used to ensure all students are tested in a way in which they perform best. Using such methods of assessment along with standardized tests provide a much clearer picture of a student’s strengths, abilities, and areas of weakness compared to standardized testing alone.
In the article What does it mean to be Well-Educated? Alfie Kohn (2003) discusses how most teachers can instantly name students who are intelligent thinkers, but who do not perform well on standardized tests. As well, there will always be students for whom standardized tests seem to overestimate their intellectual abilities. This is why one mode of testing is not sufficient. (see http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/welleducated.htm). In the Growing Success document developed by the Ontario Ministry of Education, three different types of assessment are emphasized (visit http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/success.html). In particular, assessment for learning is a way in which teachers can monitor their students learning and provide them with feedback throughout the learning process. In addition, it is recommended that different assessment types such as journal entries, question-answer cards, interviews, portfolios, graphic organizers, and drawings are used to ensure all students are tested in a way in which they perform best. Using such methods of assessment along with standardized tests provide a much clearer picture of a student’s strengths, abilities, and areas of weakness compared to standardized testing alone.
When it comes to preparing today’s students for the world of
tomorrow no teacher is able to predict what the future is going to look like.
However, what schools can do is incorporate what worked well in the past with
the skills needed for learning in the 21st century. In doing so, we
will teach our students not to forget the past, but embrace triumphs and
initiate change where it is needed. That, I believe is the key to learning in
the 21st century.
If you are wondering what 21st century learning looks like, check out this amazing video of what some schools are doing. http://www.pbs.org/programs/digital-media/
References:
Drake, S. M.
(2010). Enhancing Canadian teacher education using a story framework. The
Canadian Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2),
1-13.
Kohn, A. (2003).
What does it mean to be well-educated.
Retrieved from
Ontario Ministry
of Education. (2010). Growing success:
Assessment, evaluation and reporting
PBS. (2011). Digital media: New learners of the 21st
century. Retrieved from
Tanner. (2013). The end of schooling as we
know it. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
45(1), 4-15.
It is an interesting conflict you propose of Conformity vs. Innovation as I do not know which would win. If innovation is the new way of teaching that is being taught in colleges currently, this does not become integrated into the classroom until the new teachers obtain jobs. This however as I'm sure most of us know this is very difficult at the moment. Even once we get into the schools what is the environment like? Will we be able to incorporate innovative practices and create a new story or will we have to conform to the current ways? I agree that there may not be a battle between conformity and innovation however there may be a battle between the old way and the new, with the old way being held by those in power who use conformity as a weapon against the new.
ReplyDeleteHi Alison
ReplyDeleteThe notion of credibility or credentialism is such an interesting one to me. Yes, anyone can be a creator or co-creator of knowledge without having a specific set of credentials, but I still feel like questions of validity arise. Educators can promote a sense of "academic entrepreneurialism" in their students in regards to having them be creators of knowledge, but it should also be accompanied with at least some way to back up their claims. I often think that the latter part of this sentiment is forgotten in our technological age. For example, I was reading a post on Tumblr the other day from a blogger who touts themselves as a social justice blogger. Most of the time, what they write is interesting, personal, and political. This particular post, however, seemed so strange to me (along with numerous other visitors to this person's site). The blogger was suggesting that predatory animals should be trained to be vegan. They backed up their claims with significant sources, but most were from other social justice blogs that had similar ideologies (I can't find the post I'm referring to - but hopefully I will by class time on Wednesday to show you). Yes, I understand that part in parcel of the 21st century learner is a sense of critical media literacy - but I wonder how many students are actually properly receiving that part of the package.
I'm not suggesting that veganism is bad. Nor am I suggesting that this blogger is foolish. What is foolish to me, however, is that this specific individual is so wrapped in their own personal story, they are forgetting to engage in the RIGHT kind of critical thought. How can predatory WILD animals be taught to be vegan? Are they going to hand out pamphlets to each other? It's a ridiculous thing to think about. Yet, this blogger is generally spot on in regards to other social justice issues - so where did this gem of a post come from? Back to your post, however.
Yes, the personal is political, and individual stories can be significant in creating social knowledge (how would the world change otherwise, as you pointed out). But, I honestly do believe that there needs to be something to back those stories up. In theatre, we often discuss the ethics surround intercultural theatre: the notion that an individual of a different race, gender, sex, SES, etc. can write/embody the life of another that is not their own. Some argue that as long as an actor can find some way to connect with the story of that other person, they are being ethical in their portrayal. However, others argue that one cannot ethically express the life/knowledge/experience of another unless they have truly experienced it. I think this can be applied to knowledge creation. Just because one person thinks they know something about a topic, it does not mean they are necessarily qualified (or being ethical) in their own distribution of that knowledge. This is why academic journals are peer reviewed. This is why there are ethics review boards. I don’t think that all knowledge and knowledge creation should be tied to the ivory towers of academia, but I do think that there are certain aspects of knowledge creation (perhaps what would be included on standardized tests) that need to be scrutinized prior to their dissipation.
Of course I connected with this blog because it used the Story Framework! It seems that you certainly understand the framework and how it applies to education. I also liked the way that you embedded literature into the blog and gave us interesting links. It is the both/and that will bring together the best of the old and the realistic of the new. The new story is coming as you seem well aware and will probably are very ready for. Onward!
ReplyDeleteThis is a great quote Allison. Your post definitely gave me some you food for thought. Here are some of my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought was, unfortunately change in education moves very slowly. This is largely due to the fact that we have many stake holders, like policymakers, administrators, educators, parents, etc. and by the time they all come to an agreement a new theory/teaching practice is discovered or mandate is in.
The fact is that today's Kindergarten child will be graduating in approximately 2027 therefore we are preparing these students for a future that we are not even are not of. That's a little scary to me.
Another thought is around standardized assessment. Often people considered these tests as very negative. However it is not the assessment itself but rather what we do with the data that's problematic. Using the data from assessment to look for trends and areas for improvement helps schools and educators improve their teaching practices.
In closing in order to prepare our students for the 21st century it is important to use the data we have to hand to see where we have been and what accomplishments, and what needs to be done. That we can devise a plan to move forward.