“We don't need the current schooling system” (Mitra; Build a School
in the Cloud). I would like to say that this statement shocked me, but it really
didn’t. In my mind it was not developed as far as only needing a grandma in the
room, but the seed that a “teacher” should be more of a facilitator in the
classroom was planted some time back. In general, I believe this is the way to
go. Reflecting on Mugan’s A Short Introduction to the Studio School, there are
many times when I just want to get in, I want you to tell me what I need to
know, and I want to get out. However, there is no substitute for doing the work
yourself, hands-on. As is the case with our students because so many of them
lack the sit, listen, and learn skill.
I return to a thought that I expressed in Theme
2, "How is present day schooling going to prepare them for that
world?" (Mitra). There is a gap between what is being taught and what will
be necessary when students walk out our high school doors. And another thought
occurs to me. One of our readings in Theme 2 talked about how there is so much
available and accessible research out there about learning, curriculum and best
practices. Now that I read and see and hear more of it, it truly does boggle
the mind about how classroom teaching can boil down to so much testing. Mitra
was able to collect data and show growth through unconventional teaching.
Granted, there was testing involved (the 0-30% test), but the delivery was
unconventional. I have tried several times to teach outside the box only to be
corralled back in for testing. Could we not produce better-educated citizens
through more student-directed learning? How long do we continue with the
typical and rigid delivery of instruction that Nussbaum and Eisner say, and we
know, goes on, and expect different results?
Eisner’s discussion of the Null Curriculum
makes a lot of sense. We want to churn out better, less biased citizens with a
varied repertoire of thought process, but THAT we’re not teaching them (98). I
see that process learning does not develop these qualities in students beyond
those who already have it as a natural ability.
I like what Mitra had to say about educational
self organization, “it’s not about making learning happen, it’s about letting
learning happen.” In fact, although not through the use of computers, I often
answer my students’ questions with questions in an attempt to scaffold their
discovery process. That scaffolding applied to the Null Curriculum could lead
to those better-educated citizens we’ve been looking for.
I often tell teachers that lessons should have meaning for students, something that they can relate to, in order for them to engage. This link talks about how the curriculum of Big Picture Learning is based on student interests.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bigpicture.org/2009/10/big-picture-schooling-an-unconventional-spin-on-education/
Pardon the "French" in this clip, but talk about unconventional learning..."Real learning took place, because you don't need teachers or classrooms..." This rings of Mitra.
http://www.upworthy.com/if-this-unconventional-educator-had-his-way-no-student-would-ever-be-uniform-again-2
I was also struck by Mitra’s words about “letting learning happen”. So much learning that we do in life just happens. A lot of our learning as a baby is by instinct. s we grow up, we learn about social norms and streetwise experiences by just doing. However, I think it is such a difficult concept for many within the American education system to grasp fully. Although learning by doing seems to be taking off more in schools, my experience with it has always been a halfway there version. Student directed learning could be a wonderful tool, as long as all students are motivated to learn. However, in many schools I have watched students who are not motivated crash and burn in these types of programs. On the other hand, I have seen others have great success and really push themselves far beyond what I had ever expected for them. Although I love the video by Mitra, I feel that there still should be some direction, especially in the elementary school setting. Especially considering the testing like you had mentioned. Until we are not being “graded” by standardized tests where students have to answer very specific information, it would be hard to fully embrace a curriculum like this. Teaching information towards a test is still a struggle for me since moving back. Here’s hoping that is something we can look past in the future while considering what is best for our students!
ReplyDeleteLupita,
ReplyDeleteReally great points, here. I'm really enjoying the way you process the ideas in each theme through your posts.
I guess I wonder if you think that "innovative" curriculum and pedagogy, like the Studio School or the Hole in the Wall Project, is mutually exclusive from testing? What I mean is, can you foresee a model similar to a Studio School in which students still participate to some degree in high-stakes testing? My intuition is that if you gave the kids in the Studio School the tests we give our kids they would do pretty well. Perhaps what is diametrically opposed is standardized, scripted curricula and a Studio School-esque model. I can see how those two things cannot possibly exist together. But, I wonder if everyone would just settle down for a minute and take some time to really figure out what might work best, if we could still have something like Common Core and still have some (not a million!) testing in the midst of a more progressive model. What do you think?
If we could adopt a different model, what do you think would be ideal? Where would we start? What would need to happen to the curriculum? How would we prepare teachers?
So many questions! Thanks for provoking them...
Best,
amanda