To what extent do you think "pocket calculators" or "pocket calculations" have changed how kids learn school math and the specifics of what they learn? My take on this is they really didn't. Kids in Virginia can use calculators on the state math tests for all parts of the test except "computation and estimation," but they rarely do because they are not accustomed to using calculators as part of learning to do math and most of the questions are more recall than application any way. How do we get beyond rote memorization of math facts and even being able to group numbers together in various "families" and leverage "pocket calculations" to change what kids do to master a new kind of mathematics that will open globally significant doors for them? Why do we "teach" fractions every year? How many times do kids encounter area and perimeter? What will it take to eliminate unnecessary redundancies and how can we leverage the ubiquitous pocket calculation tools to do this?
Given the little impact I believe pocket calculations have had on education, what can I do to ensure pocket information (mobile devices with access to Google and Wikipedia and you name it) has a greater impact?
I was eating my lunch in a teachers' lounge at an elementary school the other day and someone asked me a question. I said I didn't know but I could find out, pulled out my phone, and Googled it right then and there. I said, "With Google and Wikipedia on my hip, I don't have to remember **** anymore!" The teacher asked if she could quote me on this and we all laughed and then I talked about the pocket calculation vs pocket information challenge. The laughter stopped as the teachers reflected on their own classrooms. Can we take this on?
How do we shift so kids are not consumers of information and content but they are sifters and evaluators and remixers? How do we shift so kids no longer spend their school days at knowledge and comprehension- they spend their days at evaluation and creation? What will it take? What role might "pocket information" play in this evolution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think we need to differentiate teachers; there are those who believe and teach skill-based curriculum. They do it well. There are those teachers who build in kids' strengths, see their talents connnected to the curriculum, and find ways to immerse students to learn through differentiation and integration by finding multiple answers to essential questions. We just need to place these teachers on teams working with kids as guides so students can not only find the facts, but also apply the evaluated and synthesized information creatively to invent and invest in solutions to the world around them-- responses to essential questions. Examples would be The Kiwis for Kenya Project http://m3rbs.21classes.com/archive/2008/09/05/kiwis-for-kenya-update.htm; Culture Quest http://www.culturequest.us/cultural_studies_toolkit.htm; Planting a Hummingbird Garden http://www.brighthub.com/education/k-12/articles/27355.aspx .
A must read is "The Global Achievment Gap" by Kevin Conion.
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2008/08/20_wagner.php
"teaching all students how to reason, analyze, write well, and so on. We have not made teaching all students how to think...transformed teaching from an “assembly line” job into a high status “knowledge worker” job."
The projects above provide the venue through which skills are learned and used while engaging in critical problem-solving or networked collaboration.
Pocket information allows us, and our students, to tap into, add to, and evaluate the world's information. We choose and adapt, create and share more ideas as we apply the needed information to our local issues.
Your questions speak to this need to teach students to think.
Correction: The author is wrong in my post:
Tony Wagner who wrote
The Global Achievement Gap
Kevin Conion wrote the review at the link --
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2008/08/20_wagner.php
Sorry for the confusion.
Very interesting. I have considered this before and heard the argument that google on the hip is going to make us dumber. In my opinion it makes me smarter because it allows me to spend more time thinking about the information I have just rapidly looked up so I can form a new idea based on it. Previously you had to look up information, verify with other sources and then break it down in a way that is useful. Today we have information served quickly and efficiently. We just need to be careful that the quality of information we are receiving doesn't dip otherwise we are absorbing worthless dribble. Great post!
Post a Comment