This is a complex question since it involves the dissection of what high theory means to education and what practical education means to the human species. It is clear our students need certain skills in order to be productive members of society. Those skills include reading, writing, doing fundamental math, understanding basic scientific functions, and so on. It is true that the skill set they need for survival is based on a very basic level. Not every student will need the skill of geometry, but we still teach it. Not every student will need to know how to analyze the characters in "Of Mice and Men" in an in depth way, but we still teach this skill. We teach this skill because we hope those very same lessons will translate into students understanding how to fix a roof, if need be, and how to recognize characteristics in human beings that will impact us in negative or positive ways. We teach to a set of theories because we are trying to disseminate important skills. If we were too focused on only the skills that children needed on the most basic level, then we would miss the proverbial boat in a sense.
New-Fist created education out of the basis of a need to serve the purpose of helping young people garner skills to lead a more productive life. The roots of education are ingrained in skill based learning, and I do not disagree with New-Fist's initial philosophy. In fact, I subscribe to his same methodology when I teach my kids the most fundamental components of an essay. Skills are essential, but how about learning for the sake of learning even if it's not associated with a skill? I can almost understand the conflict of the idea stated , "you would know that the essence of true education is timelessness. It is something that endures through changing conditions like a solid rock . . ."(7) Skills are not always timeless, but learning for the sake of learning is.
That being said, skill sets are in a constant cycle of evolution. As educators, we have to be master adapters who roll with the punches and try new things. If we stay with outdated, antiquated thinking, then our students will soon become the victims of our disservice. We have to learn how to teach the way of antelope snaring and bear entrapment so our kids can compete and function in the society we live in. That doesn't mean we can't teach them the ways of the "good old days", but it just means that shouldn't be the only thing we're teaching them.
2. Should curriculum change reflect the common goals of the community in enabling its members to function as citizens?
To an extent, I feel that curriculum change should reflect the goals of a community since the purpose of education is to serve the community. Why shouldn't we implement changes that are beneficial to our students? In the same way the younger members of the community in the article strived for a changing of services in school, so do our students. My students eat up the opportunity to use Google docs for peer editing instead of writing all over someone's paper in class. They get excited when we use silent dialogues in place of traditional conversations. Our students live in an entirely different world than we did (and that's scary because I was the same age my students are 13 years ago). I would be remiss in my beliefs if I thought curriculum should not change to meet the needs of the 21st century learner. Learning is rooted in tradition, and I respect that tradition, but our community of learners aren't always as impressed by tradition as I am. It's my job to pique their interest, and if that means changing things up to meet a new set of needs, then I'm willing to do it.
3. Should curriculum focus on skills or content knowledge as its primary focus?
I am clearly committed to building skills in my classroom, but I think I am essentially committed to building skills that eventually connect to content. You meet your class where they are. If my kids can master the idea of a thesis statement, I'm not moving past that point. At the same time, that doesn't mean I can't be helping them to recognize how what they believe in deeply impacts their reading experience. There is a way to teach for the sake of learning and teach for the sake of application. It's a delicate balance, and I wouldn't say it's easy, but if we become solely focused on skills, we leave out an essential part of the learning experience which is often the most rewarding. Yet, if our curriculum is content driven only, and we lets skill sets go by the way side, we could find ourselves in a difficult predicament with students that lack the ability to function in the society they are about to enter. I think our primary focus should be on finding a balance between the two. At the end of the article, neither the elder or younger community members were completely right in their estimations of what education should be. Between the two of them, they were on to something.
Gina, your responses were well thought out and supported. You wrote in response to question 1 "It is clear our students need certain skills in order to be productive members of society" and cited traditional things taught in schools. Why didn't you list technology or information literacy as part of that? Should technology be an essential skill in the 21st century? (I find this question especially interesting as you cite how you student love using technology as a learning tool in your Q 2 response.)
ReplyDeleteI actually think that's really interesting that I didn't list those things because, at least to me, they rank up there with the important skills kids need to be successful in the real world. Yet, tradition is so ingrained in my mind that I went right to those traditional topics before thiking of 21st century skills. That just shows, you can subsrcribe to outside of the box ways of thinking and teaching, but sometimes you can't untrain your traditional instinct. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. That's something to look out for.
ReplyDelete