overall, it was tempting to bristle a bit at the notion of Harvard MBA's giving pat educational advice about our broken system. However, in the introduction--and continuing throughout the book-- they allay some of these concerns by taking some of the traditional and long-standing criticims of schools and playing devil's advocate against them. Structurally, this gives them a bit of credence for reader-educators.
I agree with the authors that simply "cramming" computers into our classrooms is not the solution. This approach was part of the model in South Dakota--begun with good intentions with the Governor's wiring projects in the late 90's, but really following the path described by the authors.
While i agree in part with the disruptive model for deployment of the computers, I'm not sure about the emphasis and somewhat wholesale buy-in into online courses. I would echo Mile-High's concerns that they are just as good as traditional models. I look at my own students who are taking online courses, and the patterns they fall into: figure out the bare minimum to read, take the quizzes with friends, and if there's discussion, bland affirmations to get the points.
But...stuff like this is good to read. While i think we've gotten away from the commercial system of material buy-in discussed on p128--most of us are going far beyond that now--status quo is comfortable. Outside perspectives can always help.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Reflection Post
I realized that the author is banking on online courses to replace a significant number traditionally taught courses. This simply will not take place to the extent he claims: 50%. This would mean that online courses are as effective as courses taught in a traditional sense.
I think that the possibilities of individualization are increased when technology is used in an intelligent way.
I disagree with the belief that using computers does not only change the way we go about teaching and learning, but it also should effect what we teach. The idea was proposed of why we teach something that a computer or software can produce in fraction of the time. I want my Doctor and Pharmacists to take their math and science classes with a professor and not online using a program to skate through college algebra.
I think that the possibilities of individualization are increased when technology is used in an intelligent way.
I disagree with the belief that using computers does not only change the way we go about teaching and learning, but it also should effect what we teach. The idea was proposed of why we teach something that a computer or software can produce in fraction of the time. I want my Doctor and Pharmacists to take their math and science classes with a professor and not online using a program to skate through college algebra.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Reflection Post on something from the book
At the beginning of Chapter 6 the book talks about the first 36 months in a child's life and how important it is. I've had older teachers tell me that a good kindergarten teacher can tell you how successful a child will be w/a very high accuracy rate. (No scientific data to back it up though!) However, we've all had (or have) kids in school and we are not the least bit shocked when we see their name in the police blotter. Or when they graduate at the top of their high school or college class.
The book speaks of a "groundswell" among politicians and policy makers for universal prekindergarten as a means to boost chances of children who would otherwise be unprepared for school. It mentions three areas to target: the creating an intellectual capacity, cultivating a strong positive self-esteem, and stimulating intellectual curiosity. When 98% of our educational dollars are spent after the all-important early years when basic intellectual capacities have been determined, it seems we could allocate at least some funds to this segment of our population. In the long run I think it would benefit us as teachers because if students do well early in school, they are more likely to do well when they get to us.
We have always had "Head Start" and similar programs, but maybe we need to direct even more dollars at this "problem." As more and more parents go to work earlier and earlier in their child's developmental years and therefore have less and less to do w/their kids, how can we not afford this? To me it is just another unfortunate step away from the family as the core of our society, but we need to address this issue. As I'm sure all of you will agree, I see more and more students less prepared to succeed in my classroom. Whatever we can do to stem this pattern would be money well-spent in my opinion!
The book speaks of a "groundswell" among politicians and policy makers for universal prekindergarten as a means to boost chances of children who would otherwise be unprepared for school. It mentions three areas to target: the creating an intellectual capacity, cultivating a strong positive self-esteem, and stimulating intellectual curiosity. When 98% of our educational dollars are spent after the all-important early years when basic intellectual capacities have been determined, it seems we could allocate at least some funds to this segment of our population. In the long run I think it would benefit us as teachers because if students do well early in school, they are more likely to do well when they get to us.
We have always had "Head Start" and similar programs, but maybe we need to direct even more dollars at this "problem." As more and more parents go to work earlier and earlier in their child's developmental years and therefore have less and less to do w/their kids, how can we not afford this? To me it is just another unfortunate step away from the family as the core of our society, but we need to address this issue. As I'm sure all of you will agree, I see more and more students less prepared to succeed in my classroom. Whatever we can do to stem this pattern would be money well-spent in my opinion!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)