Schools should be changing but are they? Check out this article http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1568480,00.html. Enter your reaction to this article in the comments section. You are encouraged to react to your fellow scholars' comments.
I liked the idea that we as educators give “useless” homework assignments. What IS the point of making kids memorize periodic tables or math formulas when, in real life, they won’t use them on a regular basis? If we need the information, we can just look it up. What “real knowledge” do our students need to know? Tough question… In my field of language arts, there are conversations going on about grammar instruction. It has been proven not to work, there are grammar checkers available anyway, and no one (not even the national news anchors) use correct English. Are we wasting student’s time on it then?
The first thing that caught my attention was the statement that said public schools were "originally designed to educate workers for agrarian life and industrial-age factories." While many of the students were destined to that life, I'm not sure the purpose of education was to prepare them for that. I think the author exaggerated a bit to point out that education needs to be more than just reading, writing, and arithmetic.
The other thing I took from this article was the concept of curriculum needing to be simplified so we are not speeding through all year, but have time to explore and get deep into learning. I can do this by connecting concepts and subjects instead of having math, reading, science and so on.
I found the most intriguing part of the article is the same that Becky talked about. I don't think that learning things like rivers in South America and the periodic table of elements are bits of information that we don't need. I think there just needs to be a better way to teach them than just rote memorization. That's where I agree with the articles idea of "portable skills." We should be encouraging students to make connections between these things in order to better understand the world around us. If I have a general idea of the periodic table of elements, then I can better understand why water is capable of changing its form. Rather than just saying, "Here, memorize this," we need to be seeing, "Look at this. How do you see this fitting in to the world around you?"
I liked the ideas the John Stanford International School in Seattle is implementing. It makes perfect sense to teach students about technology at a young age because they learn things much faster in that developmental phase. The earlier children can be exposed to technology and global education, the better it will be for them. However, is this really possible in all the schools across the country? I don’t understand why our government isn’t making changes to our curriculum. It seems we are watching other countries get ahead and not making the necessary changes to keep up. We are focusing too much on standardized tests and the core subjects of the curriculum.
I thought the article was so interesting in looking at many different aspects of transforming current teaching trends, where the authors state that kids spend much of the day as their great-grandparents once did: sitting in rows, listening to teachers lecture, scribbling notes by hand, and reading from textbooks that are out of date by the time they are printed. I completely imagine teachers who I have observed who clearly look just like this; and what we need is more creative and innovative strategies to suit our brand new generation of children. I thought the lessons on global student instruction were so appealing, as students solve problems, critically think, speak fluent in different languages and complete real world service projects. I believe that new ways of teaching are amidst us, and we as educators must teach kids to be discerning consumers of information and to research, formulate and defend their own views; in addition, show respect for others as well as to be punctual, responsible, and work well in teams!
This article was very eye-opening. I especially agreed with the need for interdisciplinary combinations. Very rarely do real-life situations fall neatly under one subject area. Even study at the college level demonstrates this. Undergraduates earning English, History, Mathematics, etc. degrees usually must go on to higher degrees in order to be considered marketable due to their single subject nature. Whereas, majors like engineering, education, architecture, etc., which are combinations of subject areas, tend to be in high demand. The disjointed nature of our schools could be hurting our students, making them unable to see how different subjects relate to one another, and blocking their ability to be innovative and creative with their use of new and existing knowledge.
I agree with you guys on everything. I think that we all know that school should be changing to meet our children's needs and they have not yet met that challenge. Knowing what I need to know for the future and to teach myself, I feel that I was left out on "real world" and having to catch up fast. I only hope that my own children are getting the knowledge they need so they are better off!
The most obvious thing that I saw in the area that hit me was that schools need to develop along with the rest of the world. With the technology we see and use in our daily lives we should be able to afford it in our schools. In my experiences I have seen the opposite ends of the spectrum where there has been no technology and where they have had so much they don’t know what to do with it all. I feel the technology in our schools needs to be spread out more evenly. If we were to do this I believe it would slim the achievement gap that we see between classes and races. I like the term globalize our education. I feel that America is on the cutting edge in many different industries but education isn’t one of them.
I agreed with the author when s/he stated students need to become masters in communication skills, be able to work in teams, and do so with people from different cultures. Technology can be a useful outlet to reach this goals. Our economy requires collaboration, team work, and people of different ethnic backgrounds to work together for common outcomes. Through technology and classroom experiences, we can expose our students to those preliminary steps. The more frequent these issues are addressed and built upon, their chance of future success is more likely.
I agree with TJ on the idea that schools need to develop along with the rest of the world. As the article said, school is very similar to the way it was in 1906, with the comparison of children still sitting in rows, writing notes with a pencil and teachers using a blackboard. Technology is the forefront to success for our students and children. Many schools have ample amounts of technology but fail to use it efficiently. For schools that do not have the resources to provide their students with 21st century skills, districts as well as states should look to see how this can be improved, although that statement is much easier said than done. Our world is ran on technology and having our students memorize the periodical table is not helping them, showing them how to use a computer to look it up or develop some type of interactive activity that requires the use of technology will not help them learn but prepare them for their future.
Forgive me if I sound close-minded and anti-technology (which is weird for me). I disagree with the whole idea of "If we need it we can just look it up." Yes, many resources are at our disposal, but what if we don't have technology? What if we are on the street, walking in an area where there is no wireless, no cell phones, no digital media, and we want to know what 30ยบ C is in Fahrenheit because we're in Spain and we're accustomed to US measurments? I just use that as an example when people tell me to just look something up. I would like to know that I can function without a computer, even if I currently don't have to. I know that it might not apply with every subject, but it's the best example I think of when people make that statement.
I also am immediately struck with the feeling that our students not only need to see how to find information on their own, but how to be creators. Sure, they can look it up on Google, but can they create a program comparable to Google so that they are leaders in the industry rather than just a user of a program? It's one thing to be a software user, but it's another to be a software engineer. What should our aim be for our students? (Yes, I know not everyone will be a software engineer, but I just think had I known that there could have been an opportunity for me to learn the fundamentals of Markup Language, maybe I would better understand XML in my job now!)
I really agree with Christopher's statement that we need to take the information and give it real-world connections so students can realize why it is important in their lives.
I was able to watch a great video when I was student teaching in Millard. I think you should check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K04o2ic4g-A
I also worry about our country's state of monolingualism. I am so glad that in some schools, bilingual education is starting in elementary schools. Our mandated world language education starts so late in life that it makes it harder to learn a language through school. Just like every subject, I think world language in the United States needs to also critically examine the curriculum. Should we be teaching more the grammar and syntax of the language, or building the language based on the ideas and events around us? Then again, I'm against the fight for English-only education and English being the national language, and I probably just rambled my entire comment.
I really liked this article right from the beginning. In school we learn so much about using technology in our classroom but it is often impossible to do so due to lack of resources. Upon graduation we have so much to offer our students through technology but because of little funding we are unable to impart that knowledge on our students. As teachers we help shape the minds of the future and we should have the most up to date technology available to help students prepare for the "real world." As Alex and TJ said, schools need to develop at the same pace as the rest of the world. Teaching through the use of technology and interactive activities has been proven to be more effective than simply sitting and taking notes on paper. For this reason alone, we should incoporate more technology. In undergrad we were also taught the importance of teaching our children to be global thinkers. Although we are taught to do this, it can be lost as teachers fall into an old mindset of teaching. As new teachers we need to really focus on helping our students become more involved in global issues. By doing this early on students will be more prepared for their futures.
I agree with the article, that the U.S. needs to introduce technology at a younger age in order for students to be more comfortable with it throughout their lives. I think the we need to interact with other countries more than we are already in order for our students to have cultural competence and be more well-rounded; an easy way to do this is through technology. One thing I did disagree with was the idea that anything could be looked up via technology. As Jamie put it, "What happens if we don't have technology?" I doubt this will happen in our lives, but we have all been in a situation when technology has fallen through and we were left with our "plan B." Future educators, those reliant on the google searches will be at a loss in their classroom in front of twenty-five students. I realize that not all of OUR students are going to be educators, but they will still need to be technologically competent yet learn things manually or traditionally as well.
To elaborate on some earlier comments about globally educating our students, I wanted to mention that Aldrich Elementary in Millard recently reached IB status. (There may be others in the area, I'm not sure!) Their curriculum is enriched with information about other cultures. As early as Kindergarten, students are informed about people around the world, and their similarities and differences. Although I'm sure there are still many advances to made, I think this is a huge step in the right direction. One of the biggest issues of many Americans is a failure to understand other cultures, or to learn from them. By educating students from age 5 to be globally aware, they will undoubtedly become the critical thinkers and culturally responsive citizens that America needs.
I completely agree with all of your comments. The interesting part to me was the fact that students are now "global citizens". Not only should we be teaching them basic skills, but we should also be teaching them the skills they need to communicate with others. The article is not only about bringing our schools into the 21st century with technology, it is also about teaching 21st century ideas. Kids need to be thinking critically about what is happening in today's world. Our schools are lagging behind, I feel mostly because people get comfortable teaching a certain way and forget that the world and students change, so we have to change our way of teaching as well. I think teaching kids how to think is something that has been lost in education for a long time. We need to address this issue if we want our students to compete globally. We have to change to meet the needs of the students and what their role in the world will be.
I really liked this article for a variety of reasons. The quote that stuck out to me the most said that, "Today's economy demands not only a high-level competence in the traditional academic disciplines but also in 21st century skills." That is really important for teachers to realize that it is our job to implement technology in the curriculum through a variety of content areas. I also love how more schools are adopting international baccalaureate (I.B.) programs. Classes that have an international perspective is a great way to help students be more concerned and involved in international issues.
First and foremost after reading the article, it made me want to go and teach at the global school. I was so excited to read about how they are implementing real-life situations in their schools. When I reflect on what their students learn, it makes me think about how much more marketable these children will be in the future. Obviously, the biggest set back I see with these schools is that most schools don't have big corporate sponsors to create these digital life experience.
As a library media specialist, my undergraduate coursework gave me a taste of what integrating technology into the curriculum can do for students. After reading this article, I am convinced that it is a necessity. I think part of the problem or why schools are hesitating to jump on board is the training needed for teachers and staff. Technology is continuously evolving and changing, to be able to integrate it into classroom instruction teachers need to be taught how to use the technology itself and how to incorporate it to enhance lessons. I wish we had a charter school in Omaha like the Henry Ford Academy in Michigan. I love the consumer product project that incorporates so many different content subjects into one project. This really shows students how the information they are learning in school can be applied in the real world. When students understand the importance for learning content, they are more eager to learn and achievement increases. Integration of technology is the icing on the cake to provide students with the tools necessary to learn and engage them in school and how to help them connect their leaning to real life experiences.
Well I already typed this once and lost it so hopefully this makes sense. I can see all points expressed and I agree with Jamie and Christopher that students need to be able to do things without the use of technology. They still need to be able tell time on a regular clock, they should be able to make conversions on their own, and anything else that they may need in real life. I do, however, think that if all of us had access to the types of technology discussed in this article we would definately use them to enhance learning in our classrooms. Once there is enough money for technology in every classroom, everyone will not only need to know how to use it but they, in order to be our future innovators, will need to know how to make it better and more efficient.
I really liked this article. It states bluntly that schools need to change the way they teach students so that they are ready for the real world. We can't keep teaching students the same way we always have. One of the main goals of schools is to get students ready for the real world and to do that, schools need to integrate technology into the curriculum. I also really liked how the article states that technology helps students enhance their abilities to collaborate and work on teams. This is very important!! Children are our future and it is important that we give them the tools to be successful. One of those important tools just so happens to be technology!!
I think the main idea of this article was really hgher level thinking in the schools. Technology now just goes hand in hand with that concept. The real life simulations that the students were participating in were awesome. High school students would be so excited to go to class if they were able to do actvities that related directly with the real world and working. All the statistics show that students do not feel as though what they do in school relates to their lives, incorparating technology could definitley change that opinion. That Standford school is so ideal but is there really any way that one day all of our schools could be like that? Schools where there are 40 kids in a classroom and on top of that all the teacher cuts. It would be awesome if all the big corporations could donate money to support the school systems that hold their future employees.
I too like the idea that kids today are now "global citizens." In order for them to learn and function in this ever changing world, it is important that we (as educators) provide them with experiences and opportunities to do so. I think that like the NY study (World Trade) it is very important to teach kids to be critical thinking and form their own views on certain situations. A lot in the world has to do with compromise and in order to do that effectively, background knowledge is needed. This was a good article and eye opener. It stated facts very clearly and I felt it backed it up well too. I enjoyed it! I read through a few of the other blogs and there are MANY good ideas and points made. July 8, 2009 7:19 AM
I found the opening statement about schools being outdated in a high tech world to be very accurate. Unfortunately our students are living in a world that is much more advanced and high tech than the education they are receiving. In order for us to expect our students to be able to go out into the world and be productive citizens with good jobs, we cannot keep teaching them the same way kids have been taught in schools for the last century. Jobs today require a whole different set of skills! Also, I liked the comment that our students are "global citizens." Our world is changing rapidly and the contact within our world is also changing. Countries are connected within seconds thanks to technology. Interaction with peers who are immigrants is another way this statement is true.
I could not agree more with this article in that standing and teaching in front of the blackboard is no longer relevant to today's children. We are in a technology rich society and children are using technology whether we teach it to them or not. I believe that we need to teach them the correct tools and the proper use of technology so that they use it appropriately. I agree, our students today are "global citizens." We, as educators, need to provide them with experiences and opportunities to learn and function in this society.
I liked the idea that we as educators give “useless” homework assignments. What IS the point of making kids memorize periodic tables or math formulas when, in real life, they won’t use them on a regular basis? If we need the information, we can just look it up. What “real knowledge” do our students need to know? Tough question… In my field of language arts, there are conversations going on about grammar instruction. It has been proven not to work, there are grammar checkers available anyway, and no one (not even the national news anchors) use correct English. Are we wasting student’s time on it then?
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that caught my attention was the statement that said public schools were "originally designed to educate workers for agrarian life and industrial-age factories." While many of the students were destined to that life, I'm not sure the purpose of education was to prepare them for that. I think the author exaggerated a bit to point out that education needs to be more than just reading, writing, and arithmetic.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing I took from this article was the concept of curriculum needing to be simplified so we are not speeding through all year, but have time to explore and get deep into learning. I can do this by connecting concepts and subjects instead of having math, reading, science and so on.
I found the most intriguing part of the article is the same that Becky talked about. I don't think that learning things like rivers in South America and the periodic table of elements are bits of information that we don't need. I think there just needs to be a better way to teach them than just rote memorization. That's where I agree with the articles idea of "portable skills." We should be encouraging students to make connections between these things in order to better understand the world around us. If I have a general idea of the periodic table of elements, then I can better understand why water is capable of changing its form. Rather than just saying, "Here, memorize this," we need to be seeing, "Look at this. How do you see this fitting in to the world around you?"
ReplyDeleteI liked the ideas the John Stanford International School in Seattle is implementing. It makes perfect sense to teach students about technology at a young age because they learn things much faster in that developmental phase. The earlier children can be exposed to technology and global education, the better it will be for them. However, is this really possible in all the schools across the country?
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand why our government isn’t making changes to our curriculum. It seems we are watching other countries get ahead and not making the necessary changes to keep up. We are focusing too much on standardized tests and the core subjects of the curriculum.
I thought the article was so interesting in looking at many different aspects of transforming current teaching trends, where the authors state that kids spend much of the day as their great-grandparents once did: sitting in rows, listening to teachers lecture, scribbling notes by hand, and reading from textbooks that are out of date by the time they are printed. I completely imagine teachers who I have observed who clearly look just like this; and what we need is more creative and innovative strategies to suit our brand new generation of children. I thought the lessons on global student instruction were so appealing, as students solve problems, critically think, speak fluent in different languages and complete real world service projects. I believe that new ways of teaching are amidst us, and we as educators must teach kids to be discerning consumers of information and to research, formulate and defend their own views; in addition, show respect for others as well as to be punctual, responsible, and work well in teams!
ReplyDeleteThis article was very eye-opening. I especially agreed with the need for interdisciplinary combinations. Very rarely do real-life situations fall neatly under one subject area. Even study at the college level demonstrates this. Undergraduates earning English, History, Mathematics, etc. degrees usually must go on to higher degrees in order to be considered marketable due to their single subject nature. Whereas, majors like engineering, education, architecture, etc., which are combinations of subject areas, tend to be in high demand. The disjointed nature of our schools could be hurting our students, making them unable to see how different subjects relate to one another, and blocking their ability to be innovative and creative with their use of new and existing knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you guys on everything. I think that we all know that school should be changing to meet our children's needs and they have not yet met that challenge. Knowing what I need to know for the future and to teach myself, I feel that I was left out on "real world" and having to catch up fast. I only hope that my own children are getting the knowledge they need so they are better off!
ReplyDeleteThe most obvious thing that I saw in the area that hit me was that schools need to develop along with the rest of the world. With the technology we see and use in our daily lives we should be able to afford it in our schools. In my experiences I have seen the opposite ends of the spectrum where there has been no technology and where they have had so much they don’t know what to do with it all. I feel the technology in our schools needs to be spread out more evenly. If we were to do this I believe it would slim the achievement gap that we see between classes and races. I like the term globalize our education. I feel that America is on the cutting edge in many different industries but education isn’t one of them.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with the author when s/he stated students need to become masters in communication skills, be able to work in teams, and do so with people from different cultures. Technology can be a useful outlet to reach this goals. Our economy requires collaboration, team work, and people of different ethnic backgrounds to work together for common outcomes. Through technology and classroom experiences, we can expose our students to those preliminary steps. The more frequent these issues are addressed and built upon, their chance of future success is more likely.
ReplyDeleteI agree with TJ on the idea that schools need to develop along with the rest of the world. As the article said, school is very similar to the way it was in 1906, with the comparison of children still sitting in rows, writing notes with a pencil and teachers using a blackboard. Technology is the forefront to success for our students and children. Many schools have ample amounts of technology but fail to use it efficiently. For schools that do not have the resources to provide their students with 21st century skills, districts as well as states should look to see how this can be improved, although that statement is much easier said than done. Our world is ran on technology and having our students memorize the periodical table is not helping them, showing them how to use a computer to look it up or develop some type of interactive activity that requires the use of technology will not help them learn but prepare them for their future.
ReplyDeleteForgive me if I sound close-minded and anti-technology (which is weird for me). I disagree with the whole idea of "If we need it we can just look it up." Yes, many resources are at our disposal, but what if we don't have technology? What if we are on the street, walking in an area where there is no wireless, no cell phones, no digital media, and we want to know what 30ยบ C is in Fahrenheit because we're in Spain and we're accustomed to US measurments? I just use that as an example when people tell me to just look something up. I would like to know that I can function without a computer, even if I currently don't have to. I know that it might not apply with every subject, but it's the best example I think of when people make that statement.
ReplyDeleteI also am immediately struck with the feeling that our students not only need to see how to find information on their own, but how to be creators. Sure, they can look it up on Google, but can they create a program comparable to Google so that they are leaders in the industry rather than just a user of a program? It's one thing to be a software user, but it's another to be a software engineer. What should our aim be for our students? (Yes, I know not everyone will be a software engineer, but I just think had I known that there could have been an opportunity for me to learn the fundamentals of Markup Language, maybe I would better understand XML in my job now!)
I really agree with Christopher's statement that we need to take the information and give it real-world connections so students can realize why it is important in their lives.
I was able to watch a great video when I was student teaching in Millard. I think you should check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K04o2ic4g-A
I also worry about our country's state of monolingualism. I am so glad that in some schools, bilingual education is starting in elementary schools. Our mandated world language education starts so late in life that it makes it harder to learn a language through school. Just like every subject, I think world language in the United States needs to also critically examine the curriculum. Should we be teaching more the grammar and syntax of the language, or building the language based on the ideas and events around us? Then again, I'm against the fight for English-only education and English being the national language, and I probably just rambled my entire comment.
If you scrolled past my comment because it was tl;dr - basically I'm saying this:
ReplyDelete1) Pro-fundamental education
2) We need to teach our kids to think outside the box so they can be creators
3) Yay bilingual education!
I really liked this article right from the beginning. In school we learn so much about using technology in our classroom but it is often impossible to do so due to lack of resources. Upon graduation we have so much to offer our students through technology but because of little funding we are unable to impart that knowledge on our students. As teachers we help shape the minds of the future and we should have the most up to date technology available to help students prepare for the "real world." As Alex and TJ said, schools need to develop at the same pace as the rest of the world. Teaching through the use of technology and interactive activities has been proven to be more effective than simply sitting and taking notes on paper. For this reason alone, we should incoporate more technology.
ReplyDeleteIn undergrad we were also taught the importance of teaching our children to be global thinkers. Although we are taught to do this, it can be lost as teachers fall into an old mindset of teaching. As new teachers we need to really focus on helping our students become more involved in global issues. By doing this early on students will be more prepared for their futures.
I agree with the article, that the U.S. needs to introduce technology at a younger age in order for students to be more comfortable with it throughout their lives. I think the we need to interact with other countries more than we are already in order for our students to have cultural competence and be more well-rounded; an easy way to do this is through technology. One thing I did disagree with was the idea that anything could be looked up via technology. As Jamie put it, "What happens if we don't have technology?" I doubt this will happen in our lives, but we have all been in a situation when technology has fallen through and we were left with our "plan B." Future educators, those reliant on the google searches will be at a loss in their classroom in front of twenty-five students. I realize that not all of OUR students are going to be educators, but they will still need to be technologically competent yet learn things manually or traditionally as well.
ReplyDeleteTo elaborate on some earlier comments about globally educating our students, I wanted to mention that Aldrich Elementary in Millard recently reached IB status. (There may be others in the area, I'm not sure!) Their curriculum is enriched with information about other cultures. As early as Kindergarten, students are informed about people around the world, and their similarities and differences. Although I'm sure there are still many advances to made, I think this is a huge step in the right direction. One of the biggest issues of many Americans is a failure to understand other cultures, or to learn from them. By educating students from age 5 to be globally aware, they will undoubtedly become the critical thinkers and culturally responsive citizens that America needs.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with all of your comments. The interesting part to me was the fact that students are now "global citizens". Not only should we be teaching them basic skills, but we should also be teaching them the skills they need to communicate with others. The article is not only about bringing our schools into the 21st century with technology, it is also about teaching 21st century ideas. Kids need to be thinking critically about what is happening in today's world. Our schools are lagging behind, I feel mostly because people get comfortable teaching a certain way and forget that the world and students change, so we have to change our way of teaching as well. I think teaching kids how to think is something that has been lost in education for a long time. We need to address this issue if we want our students to compete globally. We have to change to meet the needs of the students and what their role in the world will be.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this article for a variety of reasons. The quote that stuck out to me the most said that, "Today's economy demands not only a high-level competence in the traditional academic disciplines but also in 21st century skills." That is really important for teachers to realize that it is our job to implement technology in the curriculum through a variety of content areas. I also love how more schools are adopting international baccalaureate (I.B.) programs. Classes that have an international perspective is a great way to help students be more concerned and involved in international issues.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost after reading the article, it made me want to go and teach at the global school. I was so excited to read about how they are implementing real-life situations in their schools. When I reflect on what their students learn, it makes me think about how much more marketable these children will be in the future. Obviously, the biggest set back I see with these schools is that most schools don't have big corporate sponsors to create these digital life experience.
ReplyDeleteAs a library media specialist, my undergraduate coursework gave me a taste of what integrating technology into the curriculum can do for students. After reading this article, I am convinced that it is a necessity. I think part of the problem or why schools are hesitating to jump on board is the training needed for teachers and staff. Technology is continuously evolving and changing, to be able to integrate it into classroom instruction teachers need to be taught how to use the technology itself and how to incorporate it to enhance lessons. I wish we had a charter school in Omaha like the Henry Ford Academy in Michigan. I love the consumer product project that incorporates so many different content subjects into one project. This really shows students how the information they are learning in school can be applied in the real world. When students understand the importance for learning content, they are more eager to learn and achievement increases. Integration of technology is the icing on the cake to provide students with the tools necessary to learn and engage them in school and how to help them connect their leaning to real life experiences.
ReplyDeleteWell I already typed this once and lost it so hopefully this makes sense. I can see all points expressed and I agree with Jamie and Christopher that students need to be able to do things without the use of technology. They still need to be able tell time on a regular clock, they should be able to make conversions on their own, and anything else that they may need in real life. I do, however, think that if all of us had access to the types of technology discussed in this article we would definately use them to enhance learning in our classrooms. Once there is enough money for technology in every classroom, everyone will not only need to know how to use it but they, in order to be our future innovators, will need to know how to make it better and more efficient.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this article. It states bluntly that schools need to change the way they teach students so that they are ready for the real world. We can't keep teaching students the same way we always have. One of the main goals of schools is to get students ready for the real world and to do that, schools need to integrate technology into the curriculum. I also really liked how the article states that technology helps students enhance their abilities to collaborate and work on teams. This is very important!! Children are our future and it is important that we give them the tools to be successful. One of those important tools just so happens to be technology!!
ReplyDeleteI think the main idea of this article was really hgher level thinking in the schools. Technology now just goes hand in hand with that concept. The real life simulations that the students were participating in were awesome. High school students would be so excited to go to class if they were able to do actvities that related directly with the real world and working. All the statistics show that students do not feel as though what they do in school relates to their lives, incorparating technology could definitley change that opinion. That Standford school is so ideal but is there really any way that one day all of our schools could be like that? Schools where there are 40 kids in a classroom and on top of that all the teacher cuts. It would be awesome if all the big corporations could donate money to support the school systems that hold their future employees.
ReplyDeleteI too like the idea that kids today are now "global citizens." In order for them to learn and function in this ever changing world, it is important that we (as educators) provide them with experiences and opportunities to do so. I think that like the NY study (World Trade) it is very important to teach kids to be critical thinking and form their own views on certain situations. A lot in the world has to do with compromise and in order to do that effectively, background knowledge is needed. This was a good article and eye opener. It stated facts very clearly and I felt it backed it up well too. I enjoyed it! I read through a few of the other blogs and there are MANY good ideas and points made.
ReplyDeleteJuly 8, 2009 7:19 AM
I found the opening statement about schools being outdated in a high tech world to be very accurate. Unfortunately our students are living in a world that is much more advanced and high tech than the education they are receiving. In order for us to expect our students to be able to go out into the world and be productive citizens with good jobs, we cannot keep teaching them the same way kids have been taught in schools for the last century. Jobs today require a whole different set of skills! Also, I liked the comment that our students are "global citizens." Our world is changing rapidly and the contact within our world is also changing. Countries are connected within seconds thanks to technology. Interaction with peers who are immigrants is another way this statement is true.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with this article in that standing and teaching in front of the blackboard is no longer relevant to today's children. We are in a technology rich society and children are using technology whether we teach it to them or not. I believe that we need to teach them the correct tools and the proper use of technology so that they use it appropriately. I agree, our students today are "global citizens." We, as educators, need to provide them with experiences and opportunities to learn and function in this society.
ReplyDelete