New Education Paradigm

[ThreeLawsSafe]

I've been working in education as a high school English teacher for ten years. Like most educators, I have some ideas about how the system could work better. I would appreciate any and all constructive criticism about my ideas.

Most schools operate on the principle of the "Carnegie unit." This means that seat time equals credit. In high school, we usually require students to sit for about an hour a day, five days a week, for about fifteen to twenty weeks. Seat time differs depending on the age of the student and the school or district, but most of the time, the Carnegie unit is the standard for education. If a student does sufficient work in that period of time, they pass and move onto the next semester.

I think we should shed this idea for a new paradigm. I think we should replace this with a "steps and levels" approach in which students work at their own pace. They would progress once they've shown proficiency in a skill-set and/or content unit. Here's how it might look.

When a student comes into the system, they are assessed in a variety of subject areas. I would think reading, writing, mathematics, science, social studies, world languages, music, art, and physical education would be some of those areas. The curriculum leaders in each area have divided up the skills and content in each area into a set number of levels -- perhaps twenty -- that they feel naturally divide the subject into teachable chunks. So, an entering student might be level three in reading, but level eight in mathematics, level one in social studies, level five in physical education, and so on.

Students are then put into a small group with about ten students from their level in each subject for a certain amount of time daily. Teachers would work with this small group on achieving mastery of the "chunk" of skills and content the student is supposed to master at their level. I think it would be advisable to give the student as many options as possible in terms of how to master their skills/content. So, while lecture might work well for one student, a hands-on project would work for another, and small-group collaboration might work best for another. I would also think that the students in the next level above could be assigned to help teach students how they learned the level.

Once a student shows sufficient mastery of a level, they then move to the next level. For some students, this might take two days. For others, two months. I think we do whatever we can to remove the social stigma of assuming students must be at certain levels at certain times. Additionally, students would probably accelerate through some subjects faster than others.

Students would be considered "finished" with their primary and secondary education once they had reached the highest level of mastery in all the requisite levels. For some, this might happen at age ten. For others, this might happen at age twenty-five. Again, the removal of the stigma that "all sixteen year olds should be sophomores" is unhealthy.

As a teacher, I frequently see problems with students who miss classes because of active schedules, frequent sicknesses, family vacations, and so on. This system could work flexibly with these issues. If a student is gone for three weeks, they simply return to class and begin work again on the mastery of their levels in the various areas.

I grant that my idea has certain difficulties. First, it might require an entire district to hold all classes in a central "campus." If a student is level two in reading but level eighteen in music, then she would need access to teachers in such widely-ranging levels. Bussing students back and forth to buildings across a town or city would be too costly and ineffective.

Related to this, I'm not certain if all younger students could handle switching instructors and rooms (or even buildings) over the course of a school day. This may not fit their emotional and physical needs. Another potential problem here might be the difficulty of a five-year old working with a twenty-year old if they both hit the same levels at the same time. There might, however, also be advantages to such diversity as well.

Also, I think keeping courses to ten students for every instructor is costly. However, I do think most educators agree that, generally, decreasing class sizes benefits students and increases teachers' ability to individualize instruction.

I'm interested in anyone's constructive criticism or questions.

[SR71]

Hi TLS, I just wanted you to know I read your post. Some of it I agree with very much. Sorry, just too dissipated to reply with anything very coherent or helpful, but it was a good read. Thanks.

[LadyShea]

Finland is considered to have one of the best public education systems in the world, and many of these ideas are represented. Y0u may want to closely look at their model.

I much prefer any system that prioritizes mastery over age segregation (take a look at my many started threads here in Study Hall for a more complete picture of my journey through educational philosophies)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I'm interested in anyone's constructive criticism or questions.

Interesting comments, but I must assume that the students were good workers and willing to do what was required of them. I will assume that you 10 years were the last 10 years and may not corrospond to my experience which was 7 years from the 70's. Here is one of my recomendations based on my experience from that period,

Mar 23, 2008 5:00:27 PM
One of the primary problems with the US public school system, is the lack of flexibility. Students who do not fit into the approved mold will not do well. When a student dresses the right way, behaves the right way, joines the right activities, they will do well. Students who do not, will do poorly, and many will fail. Schools put on a show of flexibility with various courses and activitys, but the emphasis is still on conformity. Those who are outside the 'norm' will not be reached and will not receive adaquate opportunities for education. Even in a large and wealthy district the range of accepted behaviors is limited. One change I would make, is to eliminate mandatory attendance up to a certain age. The school should be required to 'make avaliable' an education to each individual, whenever that person is ready. A young person who is unproductive or unwilling to be in school, should be allowed to leave and come back when the value of an education is appreciated. If a person leaves school and is successful, perhaps they do not need that education. If another does not do well, they may realize what they lack, and be more receptive to that education. If this policy had been in place years ago, I might still be teaching.
by - thedoc

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Interesting comments, but I must assume that the students were good workers and willing to do what was required of them. I will assume that you 10 years were the last 10 years and may not corrospond to my experience which was 7 years from the 70's. Here is one of my recomendations based on my experience from that period,

Mar 23, 2008 5:00:27 PM
One of the primary problems with the US public school system, is the lack of flexibility. Students who do not fit into the approved mold will not do well. When a student dresses the right way, behaves the right way, joines the right activities, they will do well. Students who do not, will do poorly, and many will fail. Schools put on a show of flexibility with various courses and activitys, but the emphasis is still on conformity. Those who are outside the 'norm' will not be reached and will not receive adaquate opportunities for education. Even in a large and wealthy district the range of accepted behaviors is limited. One change I would make, is to eliminate mandatory attendance up to a certain age. The school should be required to 'make avaliable' an education to each individual, whenever that person is ready. A young person who is unproductive or unwilling to be in school, should be allowed to leave and come back when the value of an education is appreciated. If a person leaves school and is successful, perhaps they do not need that education. If another does not do well, they may realize what they lack, and be more receptive to that education. If this policy had been in place years ago, I might still be teaching.
by - thedoc

thedoc-

I think you're right on the money here. Tailoring education to the individual is an essential component missing in education today. It's especially important to allow the student to pace himself, which may mean graduating at 10 years old, or graduating at 30 years old. I think once you follow that premise to its conclusion, a self-paced "level" system focusing on mastery of skills and concepts proves far superior to the Carnegie unit. We have to undo the "assembly line" notion of education.

Thank you for your comments. It sounds like education hasn't changed much in 30 years.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Finland is considered to have one of the best public education systems in the world, and many of these ideas are represented. Y0u may want to closely look at their model.

I much prefer any system that prioritizes mastery over age segregation (take a look at my many started threads here in Study Hall for a more complete picture of my journey through educational philosophies)

He might also want to take a look at what is happening at Khan Academy.

[SR71]

@ TLS & thedoc, a lot of what you've written are thoughts I have considered myself. I'm not in education, but I did get one, eventually, so view these comments from this perspective. The impetus for my own ruminations on the subject are retrospection of the train wreck that was me in secondary levels.

Basically, everything came easy, really easy, except math. Science, Social Studies, English... all easy. This ease caused problems when it was time to hand in homework or notebooks (Take notes for what? You can't remember this stuff?) or whatever, because I didn't need them, I aced the tests anyway. I did usually hand in book reports or papers, because those were kind of interesting and challenging, but most of what I was expected to do was really really boring. I just couldn't seem to get it done.

Math, OTOH, definitely not easy. Frustratingly not easy. I kept learning how to do things and then forgetting again, over and over. Easy things, like long division, even when I really tried.

Anyway, at the end of Junior year, my grades were bad, from not handing in work and not being good at math, and I only needed a few credits, like Phys Ed and whatever to graduate, so I dropped out and got a GED.

I can't blame anyone else for this, my parents were riding my ass the whole time, telling me all the right things to do, and for whatever reason I just could not or would not do the right things. Yeah, I was causing a lot of tension and unhappiness. There were plainly plenty of other kids in school who could do it all properly. Just as plainly, there were other kids like me who were falling off the cliff.

I can not help but wonder, if I had been able to allot less time, via self paced learning, to devote less time to the easy stuff, and more to math, if things might have turned out differently? I didn't like that I was bad at math, because I am kind of competitive, and just wasn't doing great in that particular arena; the point being, I might have applied myself more in math if I'd had leftover time and energy that was not devoted to the subjects that were easily learned to allot to math?

thedoc, I find what you have written to be a concept that is very worthwhile of serious consideration. Your ideas seem both practical and compassionate.

Now, funny story (or not), at the age of maybe thirty five I started working out various physical practical applications mathematically, quite spontaneously, and with no reference books. I found this to be quite gratifying, and on that basis, coupled with some ideas I had gained from casual reading, decided to go into engineering after I got out of the service. I was therefor one of the masses of people choking up community college learning remedial math that I should have had in high school. I ended up being p. good, though certainly not brilliant, at the numbers.

Sorry for the bloviations. Thank you all for posting.

P.S. Sorry, too ennervated and or apathetic to proofread. Apologies for any annoying errors this post may contain.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by SR71

@ TLS & thedoc, a lot of what you've written are thoughts I have considered myself. I'm not in education, but I did get one, eventually, so view these comments from this perspective. The impetus for my own ruminations on the subject are retrospection of the train wreck that was me in secondary levels.

Basically, everything came easy, really easy, except math. Science, Social Studies, English... all easy. This ease caused problems when it was time to hand in homework or notebooks (Take notes for what? You can't remember this stuff?) or whatever, because I didn't need them, I aced the tests anyway. I did usually hand in book reports or papers, because those were kind of interesting and challenging, but most of what I was expected to do was really really boring. I just couldn't seem to get it done.

Math, OTOH, definitely not easy. Frustratingly not easy. I kept learning how to do things and then forgetting again, over and over. Easy things, like long division, even when I really tried.

Anyway, at the end of Junior year, my grades were bad, from not handing in work and not being good at math, and I only needed a few credits, like Phys Ed and whatever to graduate, so I dropped out and got a GED.

I can't blame anyone else for this, my parents were riding my ass the whole time, telling me all the right things to do, and for whatever reason I just could not or would not do the right things. Yeah, I was causing a lot of tension and unhappiness. There were plainly plenty of other kids in school who could do it all properly. Just as plainly, there were other kids like me who were falling off the cliff.

I can not help but wonder, if I had been able to allot less time, via self paced learning, to devote less time to the easy stuff, and more to math, if things might have turned out differently? I didn't like that I was bad at math, because I am kind of competitive, and just wasn't doing great in that particular arena; the point being, I might have applied myself more in math if I'd had leftover time and energy that was not devoted to the subjects that were easily learned to allot to math?

thedoc, I find what you have written to be a concept that is very worthwhile of serious consideration. Your ideas seem both practical and compassionate.

Now, funny story (or not), at the age of maybe thirty five I started working out various physical practical applications mathematically, quite spontaneously, and with no reference books. I found this to be quite gratifying, and on that basis, coupled with some ideas I had gained from casual reading, decided to go into engineering after I got out of the service. I was therefor one of the masses of people choking up community college learning remedial math that I should have had in high school. I ended up being p. good, though certainly not brilliant, at the numbers.

Sorry for the bloviations. Thank you all for posting.

P.S. Sorry, too ennervated and or apathetic to proofread. Apologies for any annoying errors this post may contain.

I know that many people share exactly the kinds of frustrations and boredom that you experienced, SR71. That's why I propose this new paradigm. I think students who get bored need to have options in directing their own learning, at their own pace, without the stigma to be at a certain level at a certain time. Your parents' anger with you was, I would guess, at least partly a reflection of that cultural stigma. I think my paradigm would remove some of that.

Your desire to learn as you got older is also common, I believe. I developed a real interest in science myself in my mid-20's, even though I wasn't ready for it in high school. If students could return to the public school at any age to work toward proficiency, I think we would be serving them well.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

He might also want to take a look at what is happening at Khan Academy.

naturalist.atheist - I like Khan Academy, and use it myself to assist students who learn well through that approach. A lot of students like the videos, and some really benefit. Not as many as you'd think, though. It's one approach out of many.

LadyShea -- the Finland system is among the highest-rated educational systems in the world (by U.N. standards, anyway). And you're right; they do have a highly flexible paradigm with no real high-stakes exams and a lot of individualized learning. They still stick to a general set of guidelines about which ages should be in which levels, though it is "looser" than most American schools.

One disadvantage to the Finland system is how early students are required to choose a career path. Sometimes that's happening at age 16. I think age 18 is too early. Current research in neural development shows that the frontal cortex and the capacity for serious decision-making really don't develop fully until the mid-20's. Though it might be impractical, I wonder if delaying the necessity for choosing a career-path until closer to the mid-20's wouldn't produce greater happiness and productiveness in the workplace.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

naturalist.atheist - I like Khan Academy, and use it myself to assist students who learn well through that approach. A lot of students like the videos, and some really benefit. Not as many as you'd think, though. It's one approach out of many.

Thanks ThreeLawsSafe, it's been a long time since I taught and it was only at the university level. If you don't mind, I would be interested in reading about your experiences with the weaknesses of the Khan Academy approach. Not so much because I'll have any opportunity to make practical use of your experience, but just out of a general curiosity.

[thedoc]

It's only fair to point out that the problems in education are not all the fault of the students, as I'm sure any teacher can tell you, but most probably will not.

I had been assigned to a study hall for a period with another teacher. The other teacher being senior took the lead and was reading the roll. One girls name came up and her given name was normaly a nick-name (let's say her proper name was 'Beth' which is usually short for 'Elizabeth'). The teacher insisted that the girls name was 'Elizabeth' and we were not useing the nick-name 'Beth' even after the girl tried to correct her and stated that her proper name was really 'Beth'.

In HS I was taking German as a language and the first semester came easy and I A'ced it. Then one day while waiting in line for lunch, which went past the room for German class, a younger kid came past, reached in and banged on the door and ran away, those of us in line just stood there not knowing what to think. The teacher came out in a rage, hearded all of us into the room and proceded to berate us for disturbing him in his room. At that point I decided to intensly dislike the teacher and refused to work in his class, my grades stepped down from an A to a D and stayed there for the rest of the 2 years, which were the minimum required. That teacher being a jerk cheated my out of learning a language. He didn't even ask if any on us had done it or seen who it had been.

It's not limited to teachers only, while I was teaching there was an election for student council president. The student who won was not the one who would have been chosen by the principal, and when he came on the intercom to announce the results, he made that clear by saying, among other things, "If this is the kind of person you want for student council president, then you get what you deserve."

While teachers and adminstrators showing bad behavior didn't outnumber students, the teachers certainly showed more variety in the nature of stupid things thay could do and say.

PS I could probably remember a few examples at the college level, if I tried.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Thanks ThreeLawsSafe, it's been a long time since I taught and it was only at the university level. If you don't mind, I would be interested in reading about your experiences with the weaknesses of the Khan Academy approach. Not so much because I'll have any opportunity to make practical use of your experience, but just out of a general curiosity.

The Khan Academy is popular with kids because youtube is so popular. One inherent weakness is that students are extremely distracted while using the internet generally. They tend not to remember or integrate information online as well as in some other mediums. It's also a matter of dispute as to whether consistent video-watching decreases attention spans. You might read The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, by Nicholas Carr, for a more extensive analysis of these problems.

Also, The Khan Academy is really good mostly for kids who can learn fairly passively, as with a lecture. Sitting and watching someone go through a skill or concept does not work as well for many students as 1) actually learning themselves through investigation, 2) working with a small group and discovering learning as they go, or 3) building a project, whether alone or with a group. Many students learn better through active engagement with new material.

I will say that I personally like the Khan Academy stuff a great deal. I think it's one tool that is useful and engaging for a lot of learners.

[seebs]

There are a lot of adults who wish they'd gotten educated, who didn't want to go to school as kids. I suspect that purely-voluntary education would fail a lot of people simply because you can't know in advance what an education would be like. Lots of people believe that math isn't useful -- but very few people who have learned it feel that way.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

The Khan Academy is popular with kids because youtube is so popular. One inherent weakness is that students are extremely distracted while using the internet generally. They tend not to remember or integrate information online as well as in some other mediums. It's also a matter of dispute as to whether consistent video-watching decreases attention spans. You might read The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, by Nicholas Carr, for a more extensive analysis of these problems.

Also, The Khan Academy is really good mostly for kids who can learn fairly passively, as with a lecture. Sitting and watching someone go through a skill or concept does not work as well for many students as 1) actually learning themselves through investigation, 2) working with a small group and discovering learning as they go, or 3) building a project, whether alone or with a group. Many students learn better through active engagement with new material.

I will say that I personally like the Khan Academy stuff a great deal. I think it's one tool that is useful and engaging for a lot of learners.

So you are saying that there is a group of students that greatly benefit from something like Khan Academy because they are "passive" in some way. But that it doesn't do much for your active students.

Have you heard about the experiment in California where they are using Khan Academy to "flip" the classroom. By having the students watch the assignments as homework the kids now do their homework in class, often in groups where the better students lead each group.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

The Khan Academy is popular with kids because youtube is so popular. One inherent weakness is that students are extremely distracted while using the internet generally. They tend not to remember or integrate information online as well as in some other mediums. It's also a matter of dispute as to whether consistent video-watching decreases attention spans. You might read The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, by Nicholas Carr, for a more extensive analysis of these problems.

I haven't read the book, but I remember the article it was based on as being sloppy and speculative and mostly predicated on the begged question that long-form reading and focused concentration was the ideal solution for all intellectual tasks.

So, to get all meta about it, maybe the internet makes it easier to process a lot of information quickly, reserving careful focus and memorization and such for topics that are of particular interest. I'd agree that most people don't do a very good job of processing information, but the difference is that a) I don't think people ever have been all that good at it, and b) I think the biggest issue is people's ability to reason critically, rather than simple attention span.

I'm not a fan of video as a medium for learning in many cases simply because it's too rigidly linear and you can't easily skip around and adjust your speed depending on your comprehension or interest; but generally speaking, the greatest value of using the internet for learning is that you have an unprecedented ability to easily skip around and find exactly the information you want or need.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

naturalist.atheist and lisarea --

Carr's book, while sloppy at points, does point to some fairly solid research about retention rates and the internet. Some studies he references put retention at almost double for the average person when reading from text as opposed to the internet.

This thread isn't really about the use of the internet or Khan Academy as opposed to other mediums for learning. The bottom line is that there is no one perfect method for learning for everyone. Students need differentiation because they all learn differently. Some will need a textbook, some the internet. Some will need a project-oriented hands-on approach. Others will prefer rote learning. As long as the skills and concepts are mastered and the student gets maximized individualization, I think learning has occurred. That's why I argue for removal of the stigma of grade levels. That's why I argue for self-paced learning in small classrooms with a variety of methods and media available to all students.

I would be interested in any comments about the general paradigm I set forth in my original post.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by seebs

There are a lot of adults who wish they'd gotten educated, who didn't want to go to school as kids. I suspect that purely-voluntary education would fail a lot of people simply because you can't know in advance what an education would be like. Lots of people believe that math isn't useful -- but very few people who have learned it feel that way.

I'm not really trying to make the case for "purely voluntary education" (if indeed you were attributing that to me). I think students still should have to show mastery of a broad variety of subjects in order to graduate onto college. I do think mandatory attendance laws are detrimental to most systems, however, and I would opt for "opening up" the system for any age at any level.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

naturalist.atheist and lisarea --

Carr's book, while sloppy at points, does point to some fairly solid research about retention rates and the internet. Some studies he references put retention at almost double for the average person when reading from text as opposed to the internet.

This thread isn't really about the use of the internet or Khan Academy as opposed to other mediums for learning. The bottom line is that there is no one perfect method for learning for everyone. Students need differentiation because they all learn differently. Some will need a textbook, some the internet. Some will need a project-oriented hands-on approach. Others will prefer rote learning. As long as the skills and concepts are mastered and the student gets maximized individualization, I think learning has occurred. That's why I argue for removal of the stigma of grade levels. That's why I argue for self-paced learning in small classrooms with a variety of methods and media available to all students.

I would be interested in any comments about the general paradigm I set forth in my original post.

When you say "removal of the stigma of grade levels" are you saying that 18 year old kids would no longer mind being in a class dominated by 12 year olds? Or are you advocating the return to the little red school house?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

When you say "removal of the stigma of grade levels" are you saying that 18 year old kids would no longer mind being in a class dominated by 12 year olds? Or are you advocating the return to the little red school house?

I'm saying that people learn at different speeds, and that we ought to give them a chance to learn at their own pace. Yes, sometimes this means that an 18 year-old might be in a class with some 12-year olds. Certainly the desire to "keep up with the crowd" and avoid sitting in classes with younger students will be a motivating factor for some. However, I can say with experience that many students enjoy working with a diversity of ages and abilities. There might even be value in such diversity.

I am advocating for a campus-style approach to schooling, yes. I think allowing students to work at their own pace through levels requires this kind of setup. As I said in my first post, bussing back and forth across a town or city consistently throughout a day would be cost-prohibitive.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I'm saying that people learn at different speeds, and that we ought to give them a chance to learn at their own pace. Yes, sometimes this means that an 18 year-old might be in a class with some 12-year olds. Certainly the desire to "keep up with the crowd" and avoid sitting in classes with younger students will be a motivating factor for some. However, I can say with experience that many students enjoy working with a diversity of ages and abilities. There might even be value in such diversity.

I am advocating for a campus-style approach to schooling, yes. I think allowing students to work at their own pace through levels requires this kind of setup. As I said in my first post, bussing back and forth across a town or city consistently throughout a day would be cost-prohibitive.

There is one thing that concerns me about your approach as I understand it. I can see initially tailoring the program to students specific modes of learning in primary and to some extent in middle school. But by the end of middle school and certainly by secondary school students should have mastered the skills needed to learn in the media and data rich world that the internet provides. And for the most part I would expect the students to be able to learn almost entirely on their own. I understand this can be as daunting as drinking from a fire hose, but that is the world they will find themselves in. Just as in the past societies went from almost no books to huge libraries of books, and the successful scholar needed to master this world if they were to be self learners, we are entering a new age where that library will be on the internet along with all sorts of new ways of conveying information like video, audio and interactive applications along with lots of data of all kinds.

IMO, as long as the student has the basic skills for making use of the internet, then later in life if they find that they didn't learn a subject like mathematics, history or whatever as well as they needed to, and they find that they need to start over at a very basic remedial level, they can do so in the privacy of their own home without having to go to some campus to learn the subject. Frankly, I think the days of the educational campus as we have known it are numbered.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

There is one thing that concerns me about your approach as I understand it. I can see initially tailoring the program to students specific modes of learning in primary and to some extent in middle school. But by the end of middle school and certainly by secondary school students should have mastered the skills needed to learn in the media and data rich world that the internet provides. And for the most part I would expect the students to be able to learn almost entirely on their own. I understand this can be as daunting as drinking from a fire hose, but that is the world they will find themselves in. Just as in the past societies went from almost no books to huge libraries of books, and the successful scholar needed to master this world if they were to be self learners, we are entering a new age where that library will be on the internet along with all sorts of new ways of conveying information like video, audio and interactive applications along with lots of data of all kinds.

IMO, as long as the student has the basic skills for making use of the internet, then later in life if they find that they didn't learn a subject like mathematics, history or whatever as well as they needed to, and they find that they need to start over at a very basic remedial level, they can do so in the privacy of their own home without having to go to some campus to learn the subject. Frankly, I think the days of the educational campus as we have known it are numbered.

If only it were this easy. I agree with you that the internet can be a great educational tool. I use it nearly every day in my classes, and I'm certain that I'll use it even more often as additional apps and technologies develop for teachers and students.

You say, "But by the end of middle school and certainly by secondary school students should have mastered the skills needed to learn in the media and data rich world that the internet provides." But this assessment really doesn't fit the facts, nor does it fit my experience. I work mostly with talented and gifted high school juniors and seniors, and even they aren't usually ready simply to drop traditional schooling for an exclusively online experience.

The internet is not a panacea. It's naive to think that any one tool will solve all of our educational problems, or that everyone can learn every concept or skill from the internet alone. Much of learning involves highly socialized interaction, which can be impossible online. Individualizing instruction often requires the knowledge and assessment abilities of a trained teacher. The internet distracts students (and most people) a great deal, often times getting in the way of learning. People often retain what they learn on the internet less efficiently than with other types of instruction. Small group, project-oriented, constructive, or hands-on approaches, which are often the best methods for learning skills, are difficult to achieve on the internet. Teachers have been incorporating the internet into instruction since the mid 90's, and yet we generally do not see a correlating improvement in achievement. In fact, we find that countries that score the highest in various areas of achievement often times primarily implement very traditional, non-technological methods. Students also benefit from having human role-models, and teachers can provide that in a way that the internet cannot.

This is not to say learning should go without technology or the internet. I would never advocate that, and indeed I would be at a loss without these tools. But because instruction requires so many different kinds of tools, there is little chance that any one tool -- even the internet -- is likely to replace them all in the near future.

[naturalist.atheist]

ThreeLawsSafe, I don't know where you've been hiding, but the internet is becoming synonymous with social interaction on a scale never seen before in human history. As for your hesitation about technology I would just like to remind you that just about everything a teacher does revolves around technology, reading the written word is a technology, using mathematics is a technology. It's not that the internet is a panacea, it is the new book, the new way of writing, the new way of expression one's self. It is way beyond something that can help a somewhat backward teacher do their job.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

ThreeLawsSafe, I don't know where you've been hiding, but the internet is becoming synonymous with social interaction on a scale never seen before in human history. As for your hesitation about technology I would just like to remind you that just about everything a teacher does revolves around technology, reading the written word is a technology, using mathematics is a technology. It's not that the internet is a panacea, it is the new book, the new way of writing, the new way of expression one's self. It is way beyond something that can help a somewhat backward teacher do their job.

The internet, like books and other media, is an excellent technological tool. It is not, however, the only tool. Nor is it the best tool for every educational circumstance, nor for every learner in every situation. I list the reasons why in my previous post. If you'd like to talk about the educational research regarding each of those problems, I'd be happy to get into specifics.

In the meantime, I think we can improve our educational system through the methods I suggest. Part of the reason that you like the internet so much is because it allows for some level of individualization and self-pacing. That's the fundamental principle in my proposal. And certainly engagement with the internet would be central to that larger approach. The internet can be an excellent tool for all teachers (not simply backwards teachers), and I think it's an important component (though by no means the only component) of creating a more self-paced, individualized educational system for learners.

[naturalist.atheist]

ThreeLawsSafe, it's very simple, when new forms of the book were invented the old forms were abandoned. We don't read scrolls or stone tablets. One of the main goals of an education it to make the student comfortable with the modes of information storage and retrieval common to the times. That means computers and the internet. Maybe there are students who can't make the leap without going through the scroll stage, but I doubt there are very many of them.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

ThreeLawsSafe, it's very simple, when new forms of the book were invented the old forms were abandoned. We don't read scrolls or stone tablets. One of the main goals of an education it to make the student comfortable with the modes of information storage and retrieval common to the times. That means computers and the internet. Maybe there are students who can't make the leap without going through the scroll stage, but I doubt there are very many of them.

With what in my original post do you disagree?