Let’s have some fun with this one.
1. Watch Ken Robinson’s animated Changing Education Paradigms (approx. 11 minutes long).
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html
2. Respond personally: what do you think of what he has to say? Then, respond to the question posed by the person before you.
3. Use two references from ANY previous readings to support your opinion/reaction.
4. Pose a question for the next student to respond to.
This shouldn't be too complicated - it should be a chain dialogue in which you provide your personal response, answer the question from the person in front of you and then pose a NEW question for the next person.
First question to get the ball rolling:
ReplyDelete1. Robinson talks about public school as a factory that spits out students. How do you think this plays into social and economic reproduction? After completing this course, how viable do you think the notion of education as making students upwardly mobile is?
I found the TED talk to be very informative, particularly the portion about ADHD. To say that ADHD prescriptions have risen proportionally with the use of standardized tests in public education is an extremely heated accusation. However, as a product of the public school system, I do not have a difficult time seeing the possible truth in this theory. With the way the public school system is structured today, test scores and standards squander the creativity and passion for learning often seen in young students. Ken Robinson further solidifies this notion through the study involving the 1500 students tested every several years from kindergarten on. The older students get, the less creativity they exhibit in their responses. This is because teachers have led them to believe that there is one right answer, only one bubble will be accurate when filled in on a scantron.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if the education system continues along the same trend, not enabling students to expand and learn in a unique and effective manner that enables creativity and original thinking, our economic and social systems will continue to suffer. As seen in the Gee piece, students need to feel as active agents not just passive bystanders in their education. However, in many schools today, this is not the case. Rather than moving in a forward trajectory, our world is coming to a standstill. After spending a semester at St. Martins, I don’t see how our education system can support a student’s upward movement in hotel America. It appears as though the students are behind the average learning curve and lack the resources and support to catch-up to the norm. Students’ education is often limited by the educational attainment of their parents. Because many of the St. Martins families do not have the time or resources to significantly aid their child’s education, these students are less likely advance.
The question I would like to pose is in regards to the ADHD/standardized test theory. Do you think there is a valid connection between ADHD and standard tests? If so, how can the education system reform to divert from this trend?
Okay, so far so good - Ellie, nice job responding personally to the piece and incorporating an article and posing a question. But DON'T FORGET TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE! The first time may have been confusing, but I did pose a question about factory/social reproduction.
ReplyDeleteSo:
1. Personal response
2. Use TWO references from class.
3. Answer the question ahead of you.
4. Pose a new question.
Happy Turkey Day!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTAP TAP response ... writing now
ReplyDeletePersonal Response: I think that the video was great! I think the speaker’s main point is that our current system of education and standardization is completely backwards. While our current system stresses questions with singular answers, work that is done alone, and tests/systems that are directed toward the two pillars of economic and intellectual capacity that ultimately separate students into the academic and non academic, Robinson suggests that our system of education should support divergent thinking, collaboration, and limit the current standardized approach of the education system (such as breaking students into groups by their age, gender, ect and separating the subjects). I thought that the the information about how the kindergarden students were all basically around the same level in terms of divergent thinking and slowly faded off was exceptionally interesting. I’m interested to see what percentage of top academics vs. “non academics” would score well in the high school/college/post college level. In my opinion, some of the readings that we’ve discussed in class, specifically the “Multilingualism as funds of knowledge” section, support the idea of collaboration and less standardized methods of teaching in the our system. For example, a more collaborative approach (especially in a diverse classroom setting) would help build linguistic skills for students that may not normally view things in a particular way. This also may help rebuild the divergent thinking skills that students may have lost in the more standardized “one answer” way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to previous question:
I think that his claims about ADHD are pretty accurate. I especially like how he ties in the different factors of advertising, mass media, and other distractions (like video games, internet, iphones, ect) to distinguish recent generations from previous ones. He notes that with all of these stimuli, its hard for kids to focus on the “boring” standardized curriculum that is taught in schools. As a result, parents think that their kid has ADHD, and consequently force pills down their throats in hopes that they will focus. As far as thinking if his “claims regarding overstimulation and standardized tests as potential factors are accurate”, I would think that this is definitely true. More so for overstimulation, because there are SO many distractions for kids these days, but standardized tests with no outside divergent thinking could limit the attention that the students would want to put into learning. One thing that I think would help lower this “ADHD scare” is to incorporate some of these new literacies that modern generations are learning through these new medias. From some of our readings on new literacies in media and incorporating their function in the classroom (such as using RAP to help learn poetry, or the article about “Teaching tech-savvy kids: Bringing digital media into the classroom”), we can see that bringing in some of these modern technologies will help students actively learn.
New Question:
The video that we watched was animated with the speech - definitely not a traditional way of learning material, especially in a classroom setting. These recent “typography” videos have been on the rise these last few years to help better illustrate and connect the ideas of the speaker. How do you think this video, and videos like these relate to the points that Ken Robinson is trying to make about de-standardization or other points that he makes?
They showed this video to us in ED 190 and I remember feeling depressed at the end of the video because the speaker didn’t seem to provide a solution for the loss of our ability to think divergently. The two readings I was reminded of when I saw this video were the ones by Paulo Freire (because everything responds to Freire) and Mike Rose. When the speaker said that the ADHD epidemic was a myth, his point seemed to be that when students don’t respond to the banking model by sitting and acting as passive recipients of information, they are frequently medicated instead. With Mike Rose, I thought of the student who gave an alternant reading of the poem. Even though we discussed this reading within the context of taking a student’s background into account, I think this student’s response exemplifies how there are often multiple solutions to a problem, and that if Rose had not collaborated with the student to break down his thought process, Rose never would have discovered that the student’s reading of the poem was well rationalized and an equally valid response.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to Cody’s question
I agree that the media Ken Robinson uses is an example of how education might be de standardized because rather than just passively listening to a lecture about education, through the use of the animation, the viewer is able engage more actively with the lecture. By following the animation, the viewer is able to follow along with what the speaker has said, and to predict with the speaker is going to say. Also, the use of the animation aids those who learn more visually.
Question for next person: Do you have any suggestions for how the loss of divergent thinking can be prevented, or how it can be recovered?
ReplyDeleteSir Ken Robinson's "Changing Paradigms" really opened my eyes to seeing all of this in a different light. I really do agree that students need to be more actively engaged in order to learn most of the time. It makes the learning experience much more memorable and easier to comprehend because the information is coming from both the student and the teacher. It reminded me of the Forum Theatre Troupe's youtube video because both of them argued that students engaged learning through different methods. It is clear that textbook learning is very boring and students living in this media-active society need more visually, physically, and mentally stimulating/engaging learning to be more productive. This also goes along with the article where Gee stated that students needed to be more actively engaged in their learning instead of passively taking everything in. Personally, I know that I learn better when I am more physically engaged. Simply downloading the knowledge is never good enough because it tends to not stay in accessible long term memory; however, if paired to any kind of stimulating learning experience, it becomes much more memorable and easier to access.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question above: I think that divergent thinking will be more difficult to recover than to keep. Sir Robinson says that the more education that we receive (in the current system), the more we lose our divergent thinking and ability to be creative; therefore, a preventive measure needs to be taken instead of trying to bring back what has been lost. In order for creativity to thrive, we need to stop teaching students that things are static or that there is only one way that answers can be found. To keep the mind fresh, teachers need to stop closing the minds of their students through simple textbook learning and help them to see how things work or to learn through physical or visual experience. The mind does not need to be tied down by the textbook. Learning can happen in a multitude of ways; therefore, we need to end the era of the textbook and bring about a more stimulating way of learning.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What are some specific examples of ways that students can learn without the use of a textbook and how would they prove to be better than textbook knowledge?
Let me start out by saying how cool the artist was in this video. I enjoyed watching all the caricatures and drawings—I think it had a good flow to Robinsons lecture. After seeing this video I couldn’t agree any less with the changes that Sir Ken Robinson is proposing about the education paradigms. I liked how he brought up the differences of education in the previous centuries and compared it with this century. Times are changing, so the way we see education must change to what is applicable to students in todays world. Every day there is more to learn and it keeps adding up and is putting more stress on students. Robinsons comment of students learning better in groups sounded a lot like Vygotzkys Zone of proximal development which I believe can help expand a students learning capability. He also brought a good point up regarding how students are getting bored with school and know that getting a college degree wont provide a job for sure. Truth is that a lot of minority races are the ones who don’t make it to college. This reminded me of the text we read(forgot who its by—don’t have my book to look it up!) regarding the American dream. There are people in this world who work so hard and are mis-leaded into thinking that if they work hard they will be rich and make it big. But Robinson showed the real truth that even if you have a college degree, there is no guarantee that you will secure a job and a descent living. Many students( especially ones coming from subordinate inferior families) see their parents work hard yet cant get that American dream. In the end, this passes down to the children who don’t even bother trying. Overall, Sir Robinsons lecture really opened my eyes to the bigger picture of what needs to be done to benefit students.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to Joshuas question:
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great question and it is hard to answer because I think using textbooks is so ideal that if students don’t use it, it might throw off the curriculum and raise questions about whether those students received the “proper knowledge” they should. I liked Robinsons idea of getting the bored students to get out of their shell and find other means of engaging in school but I don’t see any true way that can be approved by the statewide curriculum. I feel like for classes that require debate, it would be easier to teach without a textbook. Maybe having the teacher stir up a discussion to get students opinions and get them engaged. I remember my Poli Sci teacher did that and It definitely works. Another method might be classes where the teacher makes his or her own lecture notes and the student learns from that( though I don’t know how it can get the student to participate more). It’s a tough question and I am not sure it is even possible, but if there is I am definitely interested in hearing more about it. Great Question!
Question for next person: What are your thoughts on ADHD medication? Good, bad, fair, unfair? And what do you think will happen to education if lets say almost all students were prescribed this drug by 2050?
I really enjoyed watching this Ted talk. I think it addresses many key structural improvements that can be made to foster a better learning environment. Specifically, I found it interesting that Ken Robinson elaborates on the subjects of: a) the conceived notions of the dichotomy between “intelligent” individuals and “non-intelligent” individuals, and b) the necessity to engage students with a curriculum that sparks the interests and creativity of students. I think it is more sensible to address intelligence in certain subjects, such as math or music, as opposed to labeling and measuring intelligence based on “book smarts” in general. In the “To Teach: the journey, in comics” piece, the teacher discusses Jose, a student that often misbehaves in the traditional academic setting but excels once the teacher allowed him to demonstrate his expertise in the area of skateboarding. As the teacher urges, “providing a space for Jose’s passion and expertise allowed him to bring his own wisdom in the room.” (Ayers and Alexander-Tanner 6). Similar to Robinson, Ayers and Alexander-Tanner argue that other literacies should be utilized into the classroom to excite students about the academics. As James Paul Gee demands,
ReplyDelete“Settings which focus on acquisition, not learning, should be stressed if the goal is to help non-mainstream children attain mastery of literacies. Theses are not likely to be traditional classroom settings…but rather natural and functional environments which may or may not happen to be inside a school.” (Gee 9).
In other words, the settings of teaching should emphasize acquisition of the material in order to enable students to develop and understand different literacies.
Answer to Nicole’s question:
ReplyDeleteI agree with the school of thought that condemns ADHD medications for being overprescribed. If students are having trouble staying focused and are exhibiting signs of having too much energy then their energy should be utilized in some form of physical activity that will allow the individuals to kinesthetically learn and exert their physical energy in a productive manner. Medicating these young children will cause unknown side effect, and, in addition, the medication is attempting to address an outcome when we should be truly addressing the root of the issue. If almost all of the students were medicated in the near future, there would be grave repercussions to society. Besides inhibiting creativity and critical thinking, society will be telling the children that it is unacceptable to be energetic, creative, and natural. What about potential side effects? What if students forget to take their medication for a day? How will educators address this issue? Moreover, there is the potential possibility of developing substance dependence on the medication. Thus, I do not agree with the current situation of ADHD medication, and I think the issue needs to be dealt with in a different manner.
My question for the following individual:
What are some possible ways you can think of that educators could foster critical thinking, and how can educators better engage the attention of students in the classroom without the use of medication?
Personal response:
ReplyDeleteWhat a cool video! I found myself pausing the video several times just to admire the details of the drawings. I agree with Robinson’s contention that “we are getting our children through education by anaesthetizing them.” I find that his descriptions of the school system as a production line, in the image of industrialization, with separate facilities, material separated by subject, and students educated in ‘batches’ based on age, are spot on. And as a result, kids’ impression of school is that it is a place where they must submit themselves to various authorities who deposit boring information into them, much like Freire’s banking model. Like Freire describes in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed, these students are trained to be passive receptacles, as the submissive—anaesthetized—student is the one who will learn the most because they resist the least. Robinson proposes that we should view education in terms of “divergent thinking,” that is, the view that there are many possible ways to answer or interpret a question, as opposed to “convergent thinking,” in which the goal is for everyone to converge to the same answer. This idea is very similar to the ideas expressed in Glynda Hull and Mike Rose’s “This Wooden Shack Place,” in which a response that is “off the mark” is still one that is reasonable and should therefore be accepted.
Response to Justin:
The reason medication is being prescribed is because the students are expected to stay focused on boring, irrelevant material in the midst of more exciting distractions. By anesthetizing their senses, the medication makes them less prone to getting distracted, leaving them with no other option but to pay attention.
One way educators can foster critical thinking as well as better engage the students without the use of medication is to design assignments which are exciting and relevant to the students—and therefore, stimulating. Distractions would still be there, but if we can make the assignments interesting enough that that the students would want to pay attention, then the distractions would no longer be a problem.
An example is the “Mathletics” program that the second grade kids at St. Martin de Porres worked with. Mathletics is an online game that matches students against each other and gives them math problems. The students compete to answer the most problems correctly within a minute. The kids loved the game; it fascinated them to see that they were on different computers, but still in the same game. They worked on math problems for an hour, and they had a blast. What’s interesting is that during the previous week, the kids did the same exact math problems on the computer, but didn’t use the online portion of the game. During that time, the kids complained the entire time, and many were distracted by other programs on the computer like KidPix; one kid, Josiah, even managed to pull up ESPN. Giving kids stimulating assignments instead of boring ones would be a significant step toward getting them to engaging their attention without the use of medication.
My question:
Robinson questions the current model of education, in its resemblance to a factory line. He mentions how there are ringing bells, “specialized facilities” like separate bathrooms for boys and girls, and separate subjects to divide the material. He also mentions how students are separated by age, and the implication seems to be that these similarities to a factory line serve to dehumanize students. Is this implication justified? Or are there good reasons for separating subjects, separating students by age, etc.?
2.)
ReplyDeleteRobinson questions the current model of education, in its resemblance to a factory line. He mentions how there are ringing bells, “specialized facilities” like separate bathrooms for boys and girls, and separate subjects to divide the material. He also mentions how students are separated by age, and the implication seems to be that these similarities to a factory line serve to dehumanize students. Is this implication justified? Or are there good reasons for separating subjects, separating students by age, etc.?
First of all I mostly agree with everything he says. The educational system, as is, is exclusive, can be harmful, and doesn’t really foster personal growth, creativity or passion. However, he doesn’t really offer solutions either. I think a lot of people can agree with what he says, but as a scholar, someone acting like an expert, he should be one to propose new modes of education.
In response to the question above—I see both the limitations and benefits of it. I think one good example of an advantage to separation by age is for building social skills. Especially at the younger levels, social development is probably best (generally) broken into age groups. But I do agree that, especially as kids get older, find talent in certain subjects and not in others, that age is not the best determinant.
3.)
Howard, We can’t teach what we don’t know.
I think Howard’s and Robinson’s views on education intertwine significantly. Howard talks about the different languages, understandings, styles of learning, and this idea that white teachers often don’t get it, or support it. And that’s kind of what Richardson talks about. This idea of education as one specific (out-dated) idea of what it means to be intellectual, smart.
Skilton-Silvester, “Literate at home but not at school”
Skilton-Silvester touches on Richardson’s idea that schools can hinder students’ individual creativity. In this reading, we saw how passionate about writing and story-telling the girls were, and then in return that they were doing poorly in school. And I think that is a major flaw of our educational system that students may never find a niche, or a joy in it because the curriculum is so strictly, rigidly, structured.
4.)
Similar to exercises we’ve done in class, what would you change or implement in our school system to go along with Richardson’s criticisms and ideas?