Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

What’s so striking is how much this accords with the analysis we released last week in our paper, “Is K–12 blended learning disruptive?,” which introduced the theory of hybrids. The data is supporting that theory.

In contrast, in high school, and to a lesser extent middle school, we said that in the long run, the disruptive models of blended learning will substantially replace traditional classrooms because there are so many areas of nonconsumption for online learning to plant itself.

Sam Levin, an alum of Monument who is currently a sophomore at the University of Oxford in England studying biological sciences, started the program in 2010. Frustrated with his public-high-school schedule and realizing that his friends weren’t inspired to learn, Levin complained to his mother about how unhappy he and his classmates were, to which she responded: “Why don’t you just make your own school?” And so he did — albeit in small steps. In ninth grade, Levin started a school-wide garden that was solely cared for by students; some woke up early on Saturdays to work with the plants. The garden is still functioning and serves at-need families in the community. After witnessing the commitment that his classmates had to nurturing something they had created themselves, Levin was convinced that they were capable of putting more time and energy into their studies — as long as it was something they cared about. “I was seeing the exact opposite in school. Kids weren’t even doing the things they needed to do to get credit. There was something at odds with students getting up to work for no credit or money [on the garden] at 7 in the morning, but not wanting to wake up to read or do a science experiment,” says Levin. “I saw the really amazing and powerful things that happened when high school students stepped it up and were excited about something.”

The semester is split in half, with the first nine weeks focused on natural and social sciences. Each Monday morning, the students formulate a question with the help of their classmates. For example, “How are plants from different parts of a mountain different from each other?” or “What causes innovation?” The students spend the rest of the week researching the answer and creating a presentation to summarize their findings to share with their classmates at the end of the week for feedback and critique. The students are in charge of keeping themselves on task, creating their research plans and meeting their deadlines.

By taking ownership of their learning, the students at Monument are forced to think creatively and capitalize on their own talents in order to excel. The class framework is similar to what will be expected of them in college and in the workforce, when they have to make their own educated and independent decisions.

This is not an isolated event—schools across the country regularly ban finger use in classrooms or communicate to students that they are babyish. This is despite a compelling and rather surprising branch of neuroscience that shows the importance of an area of our brain that “sees” fingers, well beyond the time and age that people use their fingers to count.

Remarkably, brain researchers know that we “see” a representation of our fingers in our brains, even when we do not use fingers in a calculation

Evidence from both behavioral and neuroscience studies shows that when people receive training on ways to perceive and represent their own fingers, they get better at doing so, which leads to higher mathematics achievement. The tasks we have developed for use in schools and homes (see below) are based on the training programs researchers use to improve finger-perception quality.

ll children are born to drive their education. The problem is that prior to the digital age there were no child-friendly pedagogic vehicles. Now that the military-industrial complex has created them, parents and teachers should give the keys to the kids as soon as possible and let them head off on their own down the beautifully linear highway of knowledge.

One of the empires is the empire of fear. Surely we are not free if our lives are dominated by fear. Although Mitra’s minimal model blithely assumes that children greet everything new with a calm curiosity, Rousseau recognises that children can just as easily respond to the new with fear. To avoid this requires early training. A snippet of his advice on this subject:

At another junction on the same road is the empire of habit. We are not free if we are too firmly set in our ways. Hence Rousseau’s advice: “the only habit that a child should be allowed to contract is none. Do not carry him on one arm more than the other; do not accustom him to give one hand rather than the other, to use one more than the other, to want to eat, sleep, or be active at the same hours…Prepare from afar the reign of his freedom…” (63) (Sir Ken Robinson’s critique of the school bell is but a footnote to this.)

Back to my statement: Knowledge of facts is critical to building understanding. In-depth understanding. And yet, knowledge is slowly becoming a Cinderella in the broader context of education for reasons that escape me. Cognitive science tells us that “thinking” well depends on activating knowledge effectively: “The power of human cognition depends on the amount of knowledge encoded and the effective deployment of it.” (A Simple Theory of Complex Cognition, John R. Anderson, 1995) We all know that there are two types of knowledge: declarative knowledge (yes, those “irrelevant”, googlable facts), and procedural knowledge (more commonly known as “skills”). These two are intertwined and as student-friendly as you might want to be in dismissing the former (because, well, “knowing” stuff is hard and we want students to have only great experiences or “fun”), you cannot. These facts (“units” in scientific terminology) are the building blocks of skills (“rules”). Simply put, you cannot build a skill or develop deep conceptual understanding in the absence of facts.

Edtech Priorities for Educators: No Shiny Toys! In addition to the above issues, educators clearly stated that the purpose of edtech should never be to replace a teacher. Instead, edtech products should: Relieve administrative burdens; Increase the efficacy of teachers; Deepen the relation among students and teachers; Embed assessment directly into daily learning experience; Amplify the reach of effective teachers; Empower students to become creators; And ultimately, keep the humanity in education and create more equality of opportunities.

Here’s a combined list from all 18 groups: The best interests of students must always be first and foremost. Tools should fill a REAL need for teaching/learning (not solutions in search of a problem). Ask teachers and talk to administrators at every stage of the design process. Have open, balanced conversations among all stakeholders. The introduction of edtech should include ongoing targeted meaningful staff development that is preferably teacher led. Student data must be secure: edtech companies should be open and clear about their use of data and information. Education technology should continually be tested in classrooms. The larger community should be included in the selection and implementation of edtech. If solutions claim to be research-based, they need to be truly research based. We need to know more about what works based on real data. Access should be reasonable and appropriate for all stakeholders. Compensate teachers who are product developers for their works. Similarly, compensate educators for providing extensive feedback and help with product development. Structure the ways teachers can provide feedback and interact with new tools as forms for professional development. Research should include recommendations that address the socio-emotional implications of using technology products. Districts should provide thought leadership on their theory of learning to help drive appropriate product development that aligns with district priorities.

Everything should revolve around the learner.