What is old is new again.

I went to high school from 1968 to 1972 (yes that makes me OLD). For the first two years it was an "old school" system: streamed homeroom classes based intellectual "ability", dress codes (no pants for girls, no facial hair for boys!), and regular exam sittings. After my grade 10 year the administration changed and brought with it new and "enlightened" practices. Term and final exams were abolished and replaced with "continuous evaluation." Teachers experimented with new teaching and evaluation styles. (All my social studies evaluations were "oral exams"). We didn't write essays. We had quite a bit of choice as to how to structure our time and when we would complete assignments. We didn't even have to go to class. Dress codes - we had to wear clothes. In total the school experience was supposed to be modern and "relevant."

I should also add we were working class kids. Most of our parents had working class jobs and little experience with post-secondary education. Post-secondary ed was possible because we could live at home and take the bus to tech school or university.

I chose to go to university. I remember how ill-prepared I was for the experience. Most of my academic survival skills came from the first two not the last two years of high school studies. I survived but many others did not. ( I should add that the technical schools are even more demanding than university and often more difficult to enter.) Students who came from more traditional educational experiences coped a whole lot better than I did.

A lot of the people who didn't survive post-secondary studies went to work and stayed in those jobs. In the seventies, you could go to work at potash mines or meat packing plants and make pretty good money. Interestingly now most of their kids pursue university or some form of post-secondary training.

I think we need to be EXTREMELY careful when we talk of educational reform. I see a lot of people arguing for something VERY MUCH like what I experienced my last two years of high school. My students write exams and essays not because I think they are particularly superior educational activities. They may need these skills in order to help them move onto something they really want to do with their lives.

Why I Really Liked Being on the In-School Technology Committee

I've always known why I love being in Educational Technology. It isn't machines, or computer scripts, or games, or....

The real reason I love it so much is that I get to indulge my passion for eclecticism and to hang out with an eclectic group of people all concerned with teaching and learning. We all come from different academic and technical backgrounds so for us to "talk shop" we need to focus on how we teach not what we teach. I can't think of getting any closer to educational heaven than that!!!

What Have I Learned? A Response to the REAL Gary's Post

What is the most recent thing I've learned as a teacher? I've been mulling that over since Gary wrote his post and put out the "challenge". I guess I have to haul out my "dirty little secrets" about why I wanted to become a teacher in the first place.

Way back when (1976) when I finally finished my first degree (Arts 4 year, sociology) I began to re-ponder the question..."What do I want to be when I grow up?" I'd had one disastrous (for me) year in the (now defunct) College of Home Economics (I wanted to learn interior design). I'd always said I didn't want to become a teacher; however when I sat down to look at my career options one of the things I always like to do is learn. It seemed to me at that time that teaching was a logical choice to meet that need.

Even though teaching has been difficult (I'm a pretty hardcore introvert) it has met my need to learn (and learn and learn....). Teaching is never dull. If it becomes dull (for me) it means I need to learn something new which has meant going back to university ... in 1981 -82 to study special education, and in 1994 to start a masters in educational communications.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm teaching something new just for the sake of meeting my need for novelty as opposed to being a truly innovative teacher. Am I meeting my students' academic needs or are we just mucking around in the unknown for the sake of doing it? Is it even ethical to depart from the "tried and true" in order to forge new pedagogical territory? My step-daughter has just finished five semesters of medical education; her studying arsenal includes piles of flashcards to prepare her to write multiple choice exams.

. I know I have to follow "the curriculum". My experience and what I have learned from my studies in grad school don't always match up to what "the curriculum" tells me to do. Teaching ro me is a never-ending series of questions, and experiments in order to teach my students effectively.

Educational Reform = Societal Reform

I think education has become the scapegoat of society. Schools are expected more and more to perform the duties that only a whole, well-functioning and integrated society can.

I remember some things learned back in my caveperson university days, an era when calculators had just replaced slide rules. I remember learning that schools are a reflection of the communities they serve. If this is true, (I think it is) then it is nearly pointless to ponder educational reform until social reforms take place.

It would seem in our society that we have compartmentalized everything, for example religion, food production, commerce, health care, families, child rearing, elder care, education of the young, safety. We have created experts and institutions for each of these social functions. These experts and institutions tend not to take any responsibility for matters not considered under their authority. The individual must deal with a dizzying number of experts and institutions in order to just survive from day to day.

Somehow in our 21st century world we are getting worse and worse at effectively meeting the needs of the people who live here. Society needs to function as a whole unit since a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Until we world citizens can de - compartmentalize our institutions and learn to communicate and effectively problem solve together, I don't think anything will get much better, and probably will get a whole lot worse.

Would This Qualify as "21st Century Skills"?

My grade 5/6 social studies class is ticked off with me. Really.

We are studying the geographic regions of Canada. We've already gone over what they are by reading a section of a book and making notes. We've even marked the notes together as a class.

As a follow - up, I've put them into groups of 3, given them short articles on the geographic regions of Canada from 2 different photocopiable activity books (which means that the printing is big and the headings and sub headings are large) and I've given them a frame (aka "note taking sheet") into which they have to put the correct information to complete the notes. In order to do the task, hopefully, a) they will work as a group; b) they will use headings and subheadings to help locate information; c) they will look for specific bits of information by skimming and looking for key words or clue words from the notes.

Yes we are using pencil and paper. Yes we are getting information from two different sources and putting it together. Yes maybe we are getting the idea that the information really DOES EXIST even though I can't locate it in 2.5 nanoseconds (Ms. Cone wasn't really lying after all.)

My experience with kids using the internet for locating information is that they have no, or almost no clue that they actually have to READ something beyond the first sentence or paragraph. Hopefully this kind of activity will translate into the development of better over all research skills so that they will use the internet (and other sources) effectively.

Wish us luck.

So...what exactly IS 21st Century Learning?

My step-daughter is in medical school, and publishes a blog about her experiences. Some interesting recent quotes (she is writing 3rd semester finals this week)

"today’s final is blocks 1-3 cumulative with a bunch of neurological exam stuff thrown in. i know my spinal cord transections and syndromes way better than i did when we first learned them in May. and i know blood supply like nobody’s biznez."

and

"Dr. L indulged us in a seemingly never-ending 4 hour Genetics review yesterday afternoon for the seemingly never-ending 4 month Genetics cumulative final. he just stuck around and kept teaching as long as there were students (about 15 of us) willing to listen. it was great! and really very generous of him. i mean, it’s not like the Assistant Dean isn’t a busy man.

i found the review session particularly helpful because even though i don’t like studying in groups, i have a hard time identifying the small bits and pieces i’m neglecting or forgetting."


From her posts, I gather that she has a LOT of straight memory work to do to get through these exams. She also has to write standardized exams which I assume require the same kinds of memory skills to get through.

This is 2008. I know she will need to be able to look up info and come to some new kinds of creative constructive knowledge, but she will also have to rely on a fair chunk of stored basic knowledge aquired by good old fashioned pre-21st century methods in order to be a good doctor.

Are we sometimes forgetting this when we write about "the learners of the future?"

This is sometimes how I feel when I read too many Ed Tech blog posts

Some days if I hear buzz terms like "21st century skills" I think of this famous movie clip