Learning environments of the future are in incubation. And therein lies the challenge: Learning environments that don't exist can't be analyzed. Moving into the unknown requires a pioneering spirit. Helen Keller reminds us that is the truth of not only our age, but of all ages: "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing."
The point of this story is change. It illustrates how the teaching profession you are entering today will be a different ‘place’ in ten, fifteen, twenty years time. The relationship between a profession and its client group – and in our case that’s children and parents – is constantly transforming. That is something we all have to accommodate. The landscape within which we operate changes too – sometimes quite dramatically.
''Fixing the technology's important, but so is changing the pedagogy,'' Mr Tanner said. ''While we've made great progress in e-learning, there's been an awful lot about 'e' and not much about 'learning'.''
UNIVERSITIES that fail to embrace new technology will lose students and die, former federal finance minister Lindsay Tanner has warned. Mr Tanner, now a vice-chancellor's fellow at Victoria University, told a Melbourne audience last night that while Australian universities were using the internet to deliver study materials, they were not yet fully exploiting the potential technology offered for new ways of learning.
"While attending this particular workshop I was, at first, contemplating how I could utilize this tool as an administrator. As those thoughts wandered, the instructor repeatedly said the words "expand the walls of the classroom". That caught my attention and then I had no problem envisioning how the teachers I worked with could utilize a wiki to do just that."
"In conjuction with our partners in the Rethink Learning Now campaign, we have produced an ESEA Toolkit for you to use in making your voice heard around ESEA reauthorization."
IMAGINE AN assessment system in which teachers had a wide repertoire of classroom-based, culturally sensitive assessment
practices and tools to use in helping each and every child learn to high standards; in which educators collaboratively used
assessment information to continuously improve schools; in which important decisions about a student, such as readiness to
graduate from high school, were based on the work done over the years by the student; in which schools in networks held one
another accountable for student learning; and in which public evidence of student achievement consisted primarily of samples
from students' actual schoolwork rather than just reports of results from one-shot examinations.
The teachers understood that learning doesn’t have to be measured in order to be
assessed.
It focused on teachers’ personal “connection[s] with our subject area” as the
basis for helping students to think “like mathematicians or historians or
writers or scientists, instead of drilling them in the vocabulary of those
subject areas or breaking down the skills.” In a word, the teachers put
kids before data.
All that does is corrupt the measure (unless it’s a test score, in which case
it’s already misleading), undermine collaboration among teachers, and make
teaching less joyful and therefore less effective by meaningful criteria.
"While some education conferences are genuinely inspiring,
others serve mostly to demonstrate how even intelligent educators can be
remarkably credulous, nodding agreeably at descriptions of programs that ought
to elicit fury or laughter, avidly copying down hollow phrases from a
consultant's PowerPoint presentation, awed by anything that's borrowed from the
business world or involves digital technology.
Many companies and consultants thrive on this credulity,
and also on teachers' isolation, fatalism, and fear (of demands by clueless
officials to raise test scores at any cost).
With a good dose of critical
thinking and courage, a willingness to say "This is bad for kids and we won't
have any part of it," we could drive these outfits out of business -- and begin
to take back our schools."
Many universities are trying to figure out how they can build "something like YouTube" to support their educational activities. Most of them end up building things that are very little like YouTube in that they tend to lock down the content and make it hard to move into other spaces and mobilize in other conversations. In a sense, these university based sites are about disciplining the flow of knowledge rather than facilitating it.