America is changing, both technologically and culturally. As a result schools will have to evolve in order to prepare the students of the future for the world. Currently as illustrated by Oakes, there is a strong lobby for the traditional mold of schooling. However it has become apparent that this mold is quickly becoming obsolete. Draves and Oakes both agreed that the current model is built on the concept of a factory, in order to churn out students as a finished product for the industrial era. This attempt at a homogenized product, I would say did not provide education for all the students, even in the most homogeneous student body. The student body however is becoming increasingly diverse, along with an increasingly globalized technological based economy.
The structure of schools will have to change. As I mentioned before, the current model is based on the factory model with the intent of churning out a homogenized product. However students are all different with different strengths and weaknesses that they bring to the table. What is important is recognizing this and making changes to accommodate for this in ways that encourages students to work. This can be done with a multitude of different policies. However perhaps the easiest way to go about assisting students to learn is to have a prolonged contact with their subject teachers. Graduating classes can be assigned certain teachers in each subject who they have throughout their career at that school. Oakes writes on page 442 “Research has shown that students do better in school when their teachers know them well and when they work with the same teacher for two or more years”. Having the same teacher only represents one minor problem for a teacher, which is having to prepare for new subject matter each year. However the advantage is that the teacher will know their students more with each passing year and have a better handle on how each of them learn. Teachers will be able to personalize their lessons and assessments to their students, instead of grasping at straws each year. This makes basic sense to me, based on one of my hobbies which is Dungeons and Dragons. In the game the Game Master (aka DM) creates a series of puzzles and other problems for the players to overcome. I found that as time goes by with the same group of players, creating new puzzles and problems for them to enjoy becomes easier and more enjoyable. I have so far likened creating lesson plans and assessments to planning for Dungeons and Dragons. In both you are supplying the individuals with what they will need to later solve problems to prove that they are able. It only makes sense that having the same students for more than one year will make creating lesson plans for that class far easier. Another advantage is that by having the same students for a longer period of time, the teachers are able to aide students in ways other than academically. By having the students, teachers are better able to get to know their personalities, and what they may need emotionally. This could range between noticing on going trends, and being there for support, or noticing sudden changes. This reminds me of an ex-girlfriend I had back in high school. She was normally a very good student, hardworking and cared about her classes. However her junior year events happened within her family that caused her a great deal of emotional anguish. Her problems went by rather unnoticed by faculty who just assumed that she had an attitude problem, and that her apathy was normal. She was stuck dealing with her issues on her own wit my help. The problem is that at the time I was only 16, and in no way able to really help her continue on with school. Her grades never recovered and she barely graduated. Now if we had the same teachers that we had our freshman year, or even sophomore I firmly believe that teachers would have noticed that something was going on, and would have stepped into make sure she got the assistance that she required.
In fact it is this ability to care for the students that bleeds directly into how curriculum must be modified. Perhaps the first thing that needs to go is the use of high stake tests to measure student performance. The problem with standardized tests is that, first just like students learn in different ways; they also express what they know differently. It boils back to students having different strengths. What I suggest then is that schools rely on traditional tests less, and integrate more authentic assessments. The video “Educational Futurists” covered this at great lengths. They discussed how students become excited and more involved when they are actually doing what they are learning. I agree with the one teacher who made the comment about how he remembered the projects he did in school, and referenced when he traced his hand to look like a turkey. This was backed up by the teacher who made a comment about how students are always asking her “do you remember that one project we did...” and that no one ever asks her if she remembers a test. Students remember projects because they find them interesting, and like they said in the video, there is a finished product they can be proud of. As a result of the students remembering their projects, they are also more likely to retain the information used to accomplish the project. Aside from that, it helps students develop problem solving skills, forcing them to think critically. The one man interviewed in the video from Harvard who commented about how critical thinking is imperative for prost-scholastic life. Testing skills are vital for tests only, however what is learned in the class room can be translated over to a broader range of uses. This however would require that teachers force students to perform different tasks with the information used. Students preparing a presentation on the American Revolution for example are not only showing what they know about history, but also perfecting vital research, and public speaking skills. By having students produce authentic assessments instead of standardized tests, students are going to retain a greater amount of the content taught, as well as develop other skills then just testing skills.
Lastly certain aspects of pedagogy could afford to be modified. Aside from teachers making more of an effort to show that they care, all teachers could afford to use their class time to convey the importance of social justice. I may find this to be important because I am hoping to teaching history or civics. The purpose of these subjects is to convey the importance of ethics, justice, and how a democratic society should act. However I do not feel that these topics can only be taught in those the social sciences. Gardener makes a mention of different kinds of minds, and among them is the ethical mind, and talks about how a world without ethics would not be a world worth living in. Students need to think about social issues to decide for themselves what it means to be ethical. While the social sciences draw heavily on historical events, and politics, other subjects are also full of potential. Students can create projects in math regarding economic issues, such as capitalism, or the issues with outsourcing jobs. Science is a subject that brings up ethical issues all the time, be it evolution, or the ethics behind stem cell research. By eliciting students to think about topics on an ethical level, they not only become more civic minded, but also the subjects take on another dimension of life. This in turn will further increase their interest, and allow them to think about adult issues instead of being children practicing their times tables.
The world is changing, through a combination of new technology and more students of different backgrounds. For America to maintain world dominance, the school system will have to evolve to help students meet the new challenges of the future. America as a nation will benefit from the increased number of more capable high school graduates.
No comments:
Post a Comment