We are now resource, technology and
information abundant. Everything is
available. The scarcity model is
dead. Anyone trying to make a pay wall actually
pay knows this to be true. If I can find
it for free, why would I pay? More to
the point, if I can teach myself, why do I have to listen to a teacher?
I was at high school before the World Wide
Web was a thing. I was good at not
listening to teachers. I was so good I could do it without the help of the Internet. I made it into an art form. I can daydream with the best of them.
I can also spot a teacher who doesn’t know
what they’re doing. Some of my
teachers were bad at teaching. They were
bad at it all by themselves, without the Internet. Some were great at teaching. I would have asked them for help before going
to Google because of their skill.
Engaging with them was a delight.
The Web has nothing to do with the
relevance of teachers. Some of them were
irrelevant before 1994. Has the
Internet made the others (the good ones) irrelevant?
Think back to a teacher who really made an
impact on you. Chances are their impact
was personal. It wasn’t their
understanding of their subject; it was their understanding of you that made the
difference. You connected with
them. They took time to address your
needs. They made the world a better
place because of what they did and said.
Have you noticed that we haven’t become any
smarter or wiser since 1994? A googolplex of information might be available, but Silvio Berlusconi is still at large,
obesity rates are through the roof and owling is still a thing. We don’t need teachers to give us the
facts. They’re readily available. We need teachers to help us make sense of
them. Mathematics needn’t be scary. Sentence construction can be a creative
delight. Subatomic particle physics is
endlessly fascinating[1].
Did your teachers simply give you endless content and then test you on it? Or did they help you make sense of the world through the subject they were teaching?
[1] Note: The value “endless” can
only be known if the value “fascinating” is unknown. And vice-versa.
All very nicely put! I constantly nodded away as I read, except for one statement (I'll include that at the end :).
ReplyDeleteThe best teaching I see constantly was evident across from me in the staffroom this week! It was you! - asking a few students how they were coping with change and reflecting with them on what it meant over time!
You were empathic, engaging and collaborative! The stuff of real magic! AND ... you outline this superbly in the reflection.
Is technology the future of the classroom? I humbly reply, No ... I don't think so ... BUT! I certainly agree that a teacher and a student ignores it at their peril for the very good reasons you outline.
Great article!
Readers, please note: The comment above is not a plant! Shucks, Trevor. What can I say? The cheque is in the mail. It's post-dated, though, so don't get your hopes up!
ReplyDeleteIn terms of technology being the future of the classroom, I admit it; the statement is meant to be provocative. The whole idea behind "artless" integration is that the focus is on learning, not technology. There's a lot of people "selling" education technology which simply complicates and confounds rather than actually helping to teach. Cuban knew this over a decade ago (http://goo.gl/s3rQs). I teach music, and there's a lot of propriety music technology that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot music pole. My most powerful technology tools are the ones that maximise Hattie's high level "influences" on his table of effect sizes (http://goo.gl/7NNzU). Education comes first, technology should follow.
In terms of the future, however, technology is disrupting and continuing to disrupt education paradigms. Those who benefit from orthodox models feel under threat (http://goo.gl/ST5kJ). No one can see the future, but I do know what happened to the recording industry! (http://goo.gl/pgH0f)