Dan Meyer discusses the flaws in textbooks and how they fail to teach students patient problem-solving. As he puts it, "The way our textbooks, particularly math adopted textbooks, teach math reasoning and patient problem-solving--it's functionally equivalent to turning on 'Two and a Half Men' and calling it a day" (Meyer, 2010). The issue here is that students are conditioned into working with problems in which students are handed the information they need to solve, and then they solve those problems in a short amount of time. As a result, students don't develop the patience they need to solve authentic problems that take a substantial amount of time. This reminds me of the times when I've explained to my students that we're working on a particular topic (like polynomial division) partly because it helps to build their endurance for heftier math problems. Technology can do a lot for helping students to develop their math endurance, to develop patient problem-solving. One issue with current teaching and textbooks is made evident when Meyer informs us, "Yet in my practice, in the U.S. here, we just give problems to students. We don't involve them in the formulation of the problem" (Meyer, 2010). I could use technology to find and present authentic problems that have real context. I can also use technology to give context and life to the problems that are in the textbook, just as Meyer demonstrates in his video. For example, Meyer takes photographs and produces videos that he presents in class to incite discussion among his students, thus involving them in the formulation of the problem. If I were a student in Meyer's class, I'd probably find this approach highly conducive to my learning. See, I learn by doing. People can talk to me until they're blue in the face, but when it comes down to it, I don't know how to do something until I've actually done it myself. I think I've always learned this way; it's how I learned to cook, to rotate the tires on my car, to tie my shoes, and even to do math. What's important to note here is that Meyer didn't make technology the star in his class. He simply used it as a medium to get conversations started between students, which lead them to devising ways of solving the problem at hand. I can do what Meyer does--I can take photographs or make videos and I can present them in class as a means of putting math problems in real context for my students. In this way, I can evoke conversations among my students and teach them patient problem-solving. By doing so, I can also show other teachers what my students are doing and, perhaps, lead those teachers to involve their students in the formulation of the problem too. Reference: Meyer, D. (2010, April 12). Dan Meyer at TEDxNYED. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlvKWEvKSi8&index=13&list=PLbRLdW37G3oMquOaC-HeUIt6CWk-FzaGp Michael Wesch is a university professor who challenges teachers to break out of the mold of the education system into which they have been placed in order to improve the quality of education their students obtain. He urges us to take another look at technology as he states, "Media are not just tools. Media are not just means of communication. Media mediate relationships" (Wesch, 2010). Wesch goes on to discuss how media of technology, such as television, have altered our relationships and the ways in which we connect to each other. To illustrate his point, he presents a television commercial from Dove that urges parents to talk to their children about issues like body image before the beauty industry adversely affects those children. Wesch also promotes a YouTube video in which people offer and receive free hugs. Later, Wesch shows another commercial, done in the same manner as Dove's advertisement, in which Greenpeace creates awareness of Dove's impact on the environment in Indonesia. Wesch presents these videos in order to demonstrate how media make an impact on our society. If asked where I disagree with what Wesch advocates, I would be hard pressed to find anything. The truth is that we must do more than simply disseminate information to our students. But teaching our students to think critically is not enough as Wesch stipulates, "In an era of new media we need to go beyond critical thinking" (Wesch, 2010). Referring to students, Wesch explains, "We need to move them to being knowledge-able; that is, able to find, sort, analyze, ultimately criticize and even create new information and knowledge" (Wesch, 2010). Those are things that autonomous, independent thinkers do, and one of the goals of education is for students to become autonomous, independent thinkers. So how can I use Wesch's ideas as an instructor? One thing I can do is continue learning about new technologies so that I can keep up with how my students connect to each other and so that I may better connect with my students. Another thing I can do is teach my students to collaborate and analyze the information they discover. By teaching my students how to critically analyze the information they find through new media, they will be able to determine what information out there is valuable and relevant as well as how to create their own information that means something. But like the bird in Wesch's story, all I can do is "The best I can." Reference: Wesch, M. (2010, October 12). TEDxKC - Michael Wesch - From Knowledgeable to Knowledge-Able. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeaAHv4UTI8 Dave White is a professor at the University of Oxford and he presents the Visitor/Resident Theory in an online video. I found the Visitor/Resident Theory to be quite interesting. As I watched White's video, I learned that some people have a visitor mindset with respect to the Internet and that others feel more like residents, viewing the Internet as a social space. Visitors are concerned with their privacy and they "critically assess as to whether the platform that they're going to use is actually going to solve a problem for them or move them forward in a goal that they're trying to achieve" (White, 2013). The resident, on the other hand, is communal and "enjoys the idea, enjoys that sense of ambient social presence" (White 2013). Though visitors view the Internet much as a toolbox rather than a social space in which to create and maintain a digital persona, White (2013) states that the "visitor is no more or less technically adept than the resident. They're just more focused in trying to achieve particular ends." Something I found intriguing that White (2013) said is that being a visitor or a resident "has more to do with their kind of educational ideology than it does with their approach to technology." I must admit that my preconception of the Visitor/Resident Theory was that residents are very digitally literate and visitors are not tech savvy. But I was wrong because "it's not about academic or technical skills, it's about culture and motivation" (White, 2013). This makes me realize that there are people who use technology all the time, who do stuff with Facebook all the time, and yet they have little or no idea how to use the Internet to attain any kind of educational goal. I discovered that I am a visitor with respect to my private life as I don't use Facebook, Myspace, or other social media. I know millions of people love social media and have made it an integral part of their daily lives, but I choose to avoid social media for my own personal reasons--one of which is that I don't want to be a "micro-celebrity." Like other visitors, my privacy is an asset that I value. In regards to my professional life I am mostly a visitor as well. Though I have recently done some blogging and tweeting, those are not things I have done on a regular and frequent basis. Reference: White, D. (2013, May 31). Visitors and Residents. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFBadv04eY The need to change American education and "fix" our schools is one of the most widely discussed issues around the country. Some say we need to abandon the current system altogether while others, like Will Richardson, believe we can salvage our schools if we make significant changes now. In his TED ebook Why School? How Education Must Change When Learning and Information Are Everywhere, Richardson contends that schools must "prepare kids for old school expectations and new world realities alike." I believe there is a set of knowledge that our students should know, that the general American public should know. But like Richardson, I also believe that schools must emphasize more on how to use or apply that knowledge in a world that is constantly changing.
Richardson mentions that a "recent IBM survey of CEO's asked them to name the most crucial factor for future success. They cited creativity and managing the growing complexity of the world." This should be a wake up call to all of us. We need to keep in mind one of the most vital purposes of school--to prepare students for the work force. In mathematics, for example, it's important that students know the formal definition of the derivative. But how will that formal definition help them when they're writing code for computer software, designing robotics, or managing the finances of a multinational conglomerate? Students need to develop a deeper understanding of the concepts we teach and how to use them. Richardson presents six ideas for unlearning or relearning. One such topic that has me concerned is the idea of "share everything." Richardson asks, "How can you make sure that every student who walks on graduation day is well Googled by his or her full name?" In response I ask myself, "What can we do to first teach our youths how to protect themselves online?" With teenagers driven to suicide by online trolls, and predators stalking their victims through the Internet, the web has unwittingly provided access to a host of new methods for people to emotionally and physically harm others. As educators, we should help our students to cultivate their technological literacy, but it's imperative that we teach our students how to stay safe. Thus I'm really not open to the idea of "share everything." However, when Richardson says "talk to strangers," he does not mean that we should send our children out into the digital world to get in contact with just anybody. Richardson tells us, "scientists, journalists, politicians, athletes, authors, historians, other students--they are all out there for the learning." There are many people out there who are valuable assets to the learning experiences of our students, and our schools generally don't provide access to those assets. This is an idea with which I can be on board. Richardson says, "Classroom connections to people online who can enhance your students' learning will thin the walls, so to speak, and open up all sorts of possibilities for exploration and collaboration. And, more important, it's a chance to teach kids how to do this for themselves." Another idea Richardson presents is to "discover, don't deliver, the curriculum." I am all for this idea, and it is particularly important in mathematics. For example, when solving application problems, we may write an expression such as 7x. Simply telling students where in the word problem the notion of 7x comes from is not enough, and neither is explaining my own reasoning why I write 7x. Students need to construct the 7x themselves in order to understand it. The point is that 7x should have meaning for each student instead of being some unfathomable, abstract concept. As Richardson states, "Teachers need to be great at asking questions and astute at managing the different paths to learning that each child creates. They must guide students to pursue projects of value and help them connect their interests to the required standards. And they have to be participants and models in the learning process." Richardson has a few other ideas, and he suggests that a teacher should "be a master learner." Doesn't it make sense that someone who is teaching children to enjoy learning and how to learn should themselves continue learning and be willing to learn? I could definitely commit to being a master learner in order to improve my expertise with the content I plan to teach, but also because I realize that I need to model my learning process for my students. Richardson also professes that students should "do real work for real audiences." I think this is an interesting idea, and executed properly it could enable students to gain valuable experiences with indelible memories. "Transfer the power" is Richardson's sixth idea, and like being a "master learner," it makes sense. He's telling us to create ways that enable our students to choose which paths to take. This can help our students to own what they're learning and to take pleasure in it. There are whole worlds of knowledge out there for our students, and us, to explore. As Richardson states, "Teachers and classrooms are no longer found only in brick-and-mortar schools." The Internet is inundated with educational opportunities of which we do not take enough advantage in our schools (I myself am a fan of Crash Course World History with John Green on YouTube). Does this mean we should scrap school altogether? I think not, but I also believe we should take greater advantage of the vast libraries of digital learning tools, educational videos, and other online resources for the benefit of our students. Reference: Richardson, W. (2012) Why School? How Education Must Change When Learning and Information Are Everywhere. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com. |
AuthorI graduated from California State University, San Marcos with a B.S. in Mathematics and now I am pursuing a Single Subject Teaching Credential in Mathematics. Archives
May 2016
Categories |