The intentions are to unlock the potential of students to learn in innovative ways. There is the possibility that what is learned through this school will find its way into our traditional schools to increase innovation throughout.
They need a librarian more than ever (to figure out creative ways to find and use data). They need a library not at all.
Librarians that are arguing and lobbying for clever ebook lending solutions are completely missing the point. They are defending library as warehouse as opposed to fighting for the future, which is librarian as producer, concierge, connector, teacher and impresario.
Post-Gutenberg, the scarce resource is knowledge and insight, not access to data.
The next library is a house for the librarian with the guts to invite kids in to teach them how to get better grades while doing less grunt work. And to teach them how to use a soldering iron or take apart something with no user servicable parts inside. And even to challenge them to teach classes on their passions, merely because it's fun. This librarian takes responsibility/blame for any kid who manages to graduate from school without being a first-rate data shark.
The next library is filled with so many web terminals there's always at least one empty. And the people who run this library don't view the combination of access to data and connections to peers as a sidelight--it's the entire point.
They need a librarian more than ever (to figure out creative ways to find and use data). They need a library not at all.
...librarian as producer, concierge, connector, teacher and impresario.
A walk through the new Inquiry Hub in Coquitlam is a bit like walking into a school of the future even through it's located in historic Maillardville and the school is more than 100 years old. There are few desks, and those there are on wheels. Project tables line walls topped with with fish tanks and bits of other projects, and kids sit together or work alone on laptop computers while listening to music on headphones.
While Inquiry Hub isn't for everyone, it is worth exploring for any student who is looking for a more self-directed style of learning.
I think that's where we are with most online courses: They're not quite as good as face-to-face, but they're close enough. Are some of them just as good? No doubt. Might some be even better? Possibly. But a few, at least, should probably not be taught at all—"Advanced Brain Surgery" would be high on my list—and most are merely good enough.
I'd like us to be more honest with students. Generally speaking, online courses are harder than face-to-face ones, not easier. Online courses require a tremendous amount of self-discipline and no small amount of academic ability and technical competence. They're probably not for everyone, and I think we need to acknowledge as much to students and to ourselves.
Online enrollments across the country are strong and growing, while success rates stay about the same: abysmal.
Software companies now market products designed to determine, up front, whether students can handle the workload, the pedagogical approach (heavy on reading), and the technical demands of the online environment, and some of those products have shown promise. That sort of approach just makes a world of sense
I agree with those who think that hybrid courses, incorporating face-to-face and electronic elements, are the future. Some concepts can be conveyed quite well online, while others really need to be taught in a traditional classroom.
isn't it time that we had an honest national conversation about online learning? With countless studies showing success rates in online courses of only 50 per cent-as opposed to 70-to-75 percent for comparable face-to-face classes- isn't it time we asked ourselves some serious questions?
Next I created a Google Form survey that asked unconference participants to read a characterization statements about old textbooks and write in comparative characterizations of next textbooks. For instance, if Old textbooks are NARROWLY FOCUSED then Next textbooks are…