The school sets up its curriculum focusing on "need to know" problems. Their curriculum is designed to allow students to strive to solve problems. If it's one thing I've read most often in all the ed reform books I devour, it's that business, politicians, and others in the 'real world' are calling for schools to produce students who can problem solve, not just fill in bubbles or dutifully take notes or wait for the right answer to be given.
It's sad that the latter skills have been forced upon our students (and us) for generations.
It is only now that there is a great push to redesign curriculum that emphasizes teachers as "the sage on the stage" to teachers as a "guide on the side."
Quest to Learn gets that.
This reminds me of a podcast from Duke that I was listening to the other night. In it President WIlliam Broadhead is interviewing Steve Nowicki, Dean of Undergraduate Education. In their discussion, Nowicki - also a science professor - posits what his perfect curriculum would be like.
First, he states that prior to the start of the semester, students would receive a flash drive in the mail with the necessary material they will need to digest and master before they walk in to the room. This used to pass for 'education' years ago in the form of notes and lecture. But in such a flat world where kids are plugged in all the time, why not give them all that information ahead of time and let them digest it like I digest podcasts (while I mow lawn or drive to work) and do my professional research (mornings over coffee or in the middle of the night while I am up with my son).
Second, and here is where it connects to Quest to Learn, students will spend their entire time in class taking the information they mastered before they even walked in and using it to solve complex problems. Of course, this will take a lot of planning and work to make sure the problems are neither too hard nor too simple. But it's a much better way for a teacher to spend their time (actually planning curriculum as opposed to going through old notes on what to lecture about this week) and it's also more engaging for students.
After all, aren't many students going to be solving some form of problem in the work force, whether it's an IT problem at Digi Key, a research project in a university, a problem with hits to a web site as a search engine optimizer, or simply solving a problem as basic as how to install a sink and toilet in your bathroom as part of a home remodel project or how to build a patio so that it is smooth and flows water away from your home.
If most tasks in schools were set up this way, what would the result be?
Now I'm not totally sold that every subject should be taught in this fashion, but I think aspects of every subject could be taught this way.
Just off the top of my head - Instead of simply memorizing the food groups and doing some basic meals - as I did in my home ec class - students could research their eating habits (and those of their families) and design a healthier shopping list and food list. Perhaps, this would even lead to families once again sitting down together and eating a single meal . . . at the table! That is worthy enough for me.
I think if the key here is that students are asked to do something . . . to become engaged. That's difficult. Years and years and years of indoctrination into the "sage on the stage" style of education has drubbed out their quest to learn (sorry, couldn't resist that). It's easier to listen to a lecture and copy notes or read a chapter and then do the questions at the end or to read a short story and complete the cross word (guilty of that one myself). But it is not engaging. It's busy work. And kids hate busy work. We hate busy work.
But give us real problems to solve (such as how to build a patio or how to construct a tree house or how to install a new furnace) and watch us go.
Why should it be any different with our students? Why do you think they spend so many hours playing those video games? They are engaging and constantly present them with problems to solve and levels to master.
And don't give me that crap about kids running to the internet to get codes to cheat the games. I've seen my own kids spend hundreds of hours playing video games . . . and no cheat codes. Why pay $75 dollars for a game just to cheat your way through it? Do we buy novels and then look up the plot at Sparknotes and never read the book? Didn't think so.
2 comments:
Seems to me if we could only get the electronic game makers to put the curriculum on game cartridges, complete with the usual game colors, sounds, and exciting formats, our kids would work their way through elementary, secondary, and college before they were ten years old. Imagine a student spending hours trying to complete an assignment and wanting to do it! Why isn't someone using this venue? I believe it would work.
I agree. There are 'learning' games. In school I recall number munchers and Oregon Trail. But if a game manufacturer could make the works of Shakespare, for example, come alive the way the makers of Call of Duty have made the history of World War II come alive, I think it would work too.
I saw a presentation that showed what the US spent on education research. Then it showed what Nintendo spent on game research. Let's just say it wasn't even in the same ballpark. Perhaps if serious dollars were spent to improve how things are taught - rather than wasting it on the agendas of whatever political party is in power - we might see a real quest to learn.
Post a Comment