In Why School? Will Richardson presents two models of education reform. The first, more conservative model relies on making students "better" at "passing the test." Richardson argues that this model is the one championed by "corporate reformers," whose interests according to him are competing with other nations, profiting off the education industry, and protecting their outdated economic-education model. The second model, which Richardson supports, espouses radical reform based "around doing school 'differently.'" The radical reform model relies on constant learning, unlearning and relearning on the part of teachers and students. It uses technology and more democratic models of education to these ends. Richardson argues that the latter reform is necessary in an increasingly technology-driven, globalized world where information and the ability to access it are now in superabundance. The conclusion I draw from Richardson's book is that the model we choose will come down to whether we continue to view information as a scarcity. Richardson argues that proponents of the first model miss, or choose to ignore, the importance of information abundance, treating it as if there was still a scarcity of information access as there was in the past, where teachers in (and only in) the classroom were the transmitters of knowledge. I cannot see how Richardson could be wrong, viewing abundance in this way as the least common denominator. However, the issue to my mind does not come down to abundance versus scarcity. I would contend that such an argument is settled already. Rather, the contention now is how to teach the abundance. Solutions to this problem represent where Richardson ends up in this argument. The six ways of unlearning/relearning for educators that he proposes are: (1) Share everything (or at least something, (2) Discover, don't deliver, the curriculum, (3) Talk to strangers, (4) Be a master learner, (5) Do real work for real audiences, (6) Transfer the power. I feel comfortable about everything but (2) and (5). I believe these two are the most challenging for how classrooms currently run. They will require a lot of work and years of experience. As far as the ways with which I feel more comfortable, I am learning a lot about how to do (1) through building my Personal Learning Network. I think (3) works very much along the same lines as (1), but the purpose is more aimed at students in addition to teachers. (4) and (6) are critical to my pedagogy. I do not think an educator can be effective without constant revisiting, relearning and, thanks to Richardson, unlearning what s/he knows. I also believe that transferring power to students is one of the most critical ways of making education relevant to them. Believing as I do that Richardson is correct about abundance, I think it is critical that teachers embrace the evolution of their position in students' acquisition of knowledge. We are a vital part of how they acquire what they know, but unless we adapt to how they learn our position will become marginalized. (2) and (5) are extremely important to making sure teachers remain relevant in the ever-evolving educational environment that Richardson presents. I hope to find more resources for how to deliver on these two crucial solutions. Richardson. W. (2012). Why school?: How education must change when learning and education are everywhere [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
5 Comments
|
Archives
May 2016
Categories |