In this Youtube episode of "Smarter Everyday," Destin Sandlin conducts an experiment. He's given a bicycle that has been modified so that when you turn the handlebars one way, the front wheel turns in the opposite direction. In other words, the steering has been inverted. Destin quickly discovers that he can't ride it, which baffles him since he's been riding a bike since he was 6 years old. This situation leads Destin to a profound conclusion: Knowledge is not the same as understanding. He KNOWS how to ride a bicycle. He knows the necessary components of riding a bike such as balance, orientation, and weight distribution, but when the mechanical procedures are changed, he no longer UNDERSTANDS how to ride the bike. To ensure it isn't just a fluke, Destin brings his unique bike along with him to conferences and has others try to ride it. He even offers money to people if they can ride it across the stage. No one is successful. After 8 months of practice, something clicks in Destin's brain, and he suddenly is able to ride consistently on the modified bike. Destin theorizes that attempting to tweak a skill that has been solidified in the brain over years and years takes a lot of time because it has essentially been "hard-wired." When he challenges his young son to learn how to ride the bike, Destin finds that it only takes his son 2 weeks to make the adjustment. This is a wonderful example of the role neural plasticity plays in learning a new skill. Since his son's brain is more plastic, he can more easily learn or relearn a skill.
Another interesting element to the story is that after Destin became proficient at riding the inverted bicycle, he attempted to ride a normal bike and initially couldn't ride it. His brain had re-wired and then had trouble reverting back to the original wiring. After a bit of time though, his brain once again "clicked" and it was as if he had never forgotten how to ride in the first place. He did this in public and the bystanders refused to believe that he had "forgotten" how to ride a bike and then suddenly remembered. Of course, those bystanders didn't know that he had learned how to ride a bike with inverted steering but the very idea that one could forget how to do something they'd been doing their entire life is counter-intuitive. His takeaway from this experience is that we should be careful how we interpret things because "you're looking at the world with a bias whether you think you are or not." So how does this relate to my understanding of learning and teaching? It makes me keenly aware of how slowly I, and others, learn new skills. Furthermore, making an adjustment to a previously known skill is not always as easy as it seems. Just because we KNOW how to do something doesn't mean we UNDERSTAND how to do it. The key to success in these situations is repetition or continual exposure to a new idea or concept and exploring different aspects or ways to learn a concept. For example, many children have trouble with fractions. There is a wonderful website called ST Math which has games and activities to help students conceptualize fractions and other mathematical content in different ways. Digital resources such as ST Math give students the access and opportunity to practice skills like they never have been able to before. In my classroom, I will be cognizant of the fact that what is easy for one student may not be easy for another. I will utilize the technology available to me to aid my students in their understanding of the given content area. SmarterEveryDay (2015, April 24) The backwards brain bicycle - smarter every day 133 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0
0 Comments
Similar to Will Richardson's question of "Why School", Seth Godin has an essential question to ask students and educators: What is school for? In his TedxYouth speech at the Brooklyn Free School, Godin describes what schools in the U.S. used to be for in the early-to-mid twentieth century. School was a place to learn obedience and compliance along with preparation for factory work. It was a place where young people learned basic skills that would allow them to join whatever industry needed them most. Godin goes on to say explain how the ubiquity of the internet has shattered that concept of school. At any given place at any given time, we have an endless database of information available to us. Because of this, Godin suggests, schools must change what and how they're teaching. His message is summed up quite beautifully when he says, "Are we teaching kids to collect dots or are we teaching kids to connect dots?" Information is easily accessible. Critical thinking, making broader connections, developing creativity, and analyzing information are just some of the skills we should be focusing on.
Godin makes an important sociological observation when it comes to individuals participating in everyday activities. When it comes to work, people try to figure out how to do less, which certainly sounds like my high school and college experience. He goes on to say that this is why teachers so often hear, "Is this going to be on the test?" Students want to know what content is important and what isn't so they can minimize the workload while still achieving success. On the other hand, when it's art, people try to figure out how to do more. This is clearly exemplified when you try to persuade a 10 year old to stop playing Minecraft. They come up with a wide variety of excuses and pleads in order to keep playing/creating. I recently took part in an art and wine workshop which was supposed to last three hours. Even after the instructor told everyone to start cleaning up, over half the class, including myself, continued touching up their canvas. I don't even like painting, but I wished to continue because I was invested in what I had created. This is representative of the world today. We wish to only spend time, money, and effort on those things that are interesting or that matter to us. Nevertheless, that's not the way school is designed. If we are to adapt our schools to fit our modern society, Godin explains, there are several ideas we may want to consider. 1) Transform the teacher into a coach and flip the classroom so students are learning from the plethora of experts online in the evening and asking questions and being guided by the teacher during the day. 2) Make tests open book and open note because if something is important enough to put on a test, it's important enough to have a student access that knowledge using his/her resources. 3) Make education about precise, focused studies as opposed to broad, surface-level studies. 4) Isolation is outdated. Cooperation is paramount. 5) We must eliminate the idea of the "famous college" because having a degree from a prestigious institution doesn't mean you're any more prepared or well-suited for life's challenges than someone who went to an undistinguished college. 6) We must think of education as a life-long endeavor. As a teacher, I plan to make lessons that will hopefully get students engaged in the learning experience. I would definitely consider using a flipped classroom approach, but at the very least, I will use technology and the multitude of online resources to serve as teachers for my students. I wish to find ways to make learning as interactive as possible and allow students to create and investigate what interests them. I want to make sure my students are connecting the dots, not just collecting them. TedxYouth. (2012, October 16). STOP STEALING DREAMS: Seth Godin at TEDxYouth@BFS [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXpbONjV1Jc&index=10&list=PLbRLdW37G3oMquOaC-HeUIt6CWk-FzaGp Dr. Michael Wesch of Kansas State highlights in his TEDx Talk the usefulness of our modern-age technology and how the abundance of digital resources has quickly made the traditional college lecture hall archaic. He points out an exercise he did in class in which students posted poignantly honest confessions on notepads and computer screens such as "I buy hundred dollar textbooks that I never open" and "I Facebook through most of my classes." Dr. Wesch goes on to highlight some of the more innovative ways people have used social media and digital content sharing sites such as Youtube to share ideas, opinions, and information that have had a significant impact on society and culture.
Possibly the most compelling message of this talk is about the contrast between what can be learned in the classroom an what can be done in the real world. One example Dr. Wesch gives is four Kenyans who put together a website that allows individuals with a cell phone to report potentially dangerous incidences in order to warn people in those areas. That software was eventually shared for free and has helped countless people avoid potentially fatal situations. What this story is illustrating is that students can be learning skills more relevant and impactful to the real world. In other words, we should, as educators, be teaching students to be "knowledge-able" instead of knowledgeable. This idea correlates with what Will Richardson advocates for in his book Why Teach?. Students have access to an unlimited database of information via the internet. Schools should be teaching students how to efficiently sift through all of that information and, combined with their technological skills, how to use that knowledge to solve real world problems. I completely agree with Dr. Wesch's assertions and I hope to implement some of his strategies in my future classroom. I think nothing could inspire students more than creating a learning environment in which they can help change the world for the better. Wesch, Michael. [TEDx Talks]. (2010, October 12). TEDxKC-Michael Wesch-From Knowledgeable to Knowledge-Able. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeaAHv4UTI8 Dr. David White explains the Visitor/Resident theory which deals with the way individuals interact with the online community. Dr. White is quick to point out how this theory differs from the Natives/Immigrants theory, which said that those who grew up with online technology interacted differently and more naturally with the online community than those who hadn't been exposed to it. He goes on to say that this oversimplification of the issue makes it seem like older people just don't understand the digital world. The Vistitor/Resident theory, on the other hand, sees internet persona on a spectrum in which visitors do not have a well established identity online and residents are highly visible and have a contant online presence. One of the important aspects of this theory is that your status can change over time. For example, if someone is blogging regularly and consistently using various social media sites, they would be considered a resident. If that person then stopped blogging and stopped updating their social media networks, their resident status would begin to erode and they we begin being viewed more as a visitor. Dr. White illustrates this point by citing a virtual world called "Second Life" in which a tutor introduced students to the world and then left. After the students had logged a certain number of hours, the tutor came back and attempted to take control; however, the tutor's re-emergence created friction since the students saw the instructor as a resident in their virtual reality world and had trouble acknowledging his/her authority.
This theory makes complete sense to me. Dr. White is arguing that digital competency and web presence is not dependent on academic or technical skill but on culture and motivation. If one wishes to create a greater online persona, one must simply work at it and spend time and effort cultivating that persona. Also, this theory proposes that your digital presence is not binary but actually a continuum. Your status can change gradually over time and you can fall somewhere in between a resident and a visitor. As of now, I would say I fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. I have a Facebook, an Instagram, a Twitter account and a website but I don't post on a regular basis on any of my accounts. My presence has increased lately and I expect it to increase as I continue to use social media to network and as a teaching resource. I expect it won't take long before I consider myself a resident. White, D. (2013, May 31). Visitors and Residents. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFBadv04eY In Why School?, by Will Richardson, two types of school reform are presented: One that is like what we have now, only better, and one that is far different than what we have now. Richardson argues that the first type of school reform was proposed by businessmen and politicians who see school as a competitive arena where tests scores act as a accurate and necessary measurement of success. This reform focuses on the quantifiable and the fact that the U.S. has relatively low scores on international tests. Richardson points out, however, that our low test scores are reflection of our abhorrent poverty rates. If you were to take the test scores of only students from high-income homes we would lead the world in almost every academic category (Richardson, 35). Richardson also points out that this method fails to keep pace with the changing dynamic of information acquisition. With the abundance of digital resources, much of the knowledge we would gain in the classroom can be found elsewhere and taught in a way better tailored to each individual student.
This brings us to the second type of reform would change the curriculum and the way we teach. In this second theory, as Richardson writes, “The emphasis shifts from content mastery to learning mastery” (Richardson, 43). The idea is that we should be teaching students how to navigate the Internet, how to decipher between reliable and unreliable digital content, how to connect and collaborate with others on the web, how to think critically, and how to take the information we have and use it to create something useful and original. Richardson points out that there are several roadblocks on the way to implementing this type of reform. One issue is that it emphasizes the use of digital technology which is currently not available to all schools and students. As a society, we first would have to ensure that students have equal access and thus equal opportunity to succeed. Secondly, we would have to rethink the way we do assessments. For example, Richardson suggests that test questions focus on critical thinking and what students can extrapolate from easily accessible knowledge. While these hurdles are significant and need to be addressed, I think this type of reform is the direction education should and must take. Information and the way we consume information will continue to change. Because of this, it's important that students have the tools necessary to acquire information effectively and efficiently, no matter the method of acquisition. To make this school reform a reality, Mr. Richardson presents six "unlearning/relearning ideas for educators" that will help along the way (Richardson, 61). The first idea is that teachers should share their ideas. In our globally connected world, educators now have the opportunity to not only share their ideas with their students but with students all over the Earth. I completely agree with this idea and I plan to share my ideas with those in my Personal Learning Network and I will definitely be seeking out the best practices of other more experienced educators. The second idea is titled, "Discover, don't deliver, the curriculum," and is about letting the students choose how they will explore a certain content area. This method fosters student involvement, engagement, and creativity but it seems like it would make lesson planning quite arduous. I would be willing to try this idea if it was encouraged by my district or school but I think it would be difficult to adjust to. The third concept emphasizes the importance of tapping into the vast number of knowledgeable and qualified individuals on the internet. As long as students recognize what steps they should take to maintain their safety, I think the internet community is a terrific asset to student learning and exploration. The fourth idea is about being a master learner. As Richardson writes, “The world doesn’t care what you know. What the world cares about is what you can do with what you know” (Richardson, 74). Access to information may change and the importance of what we learn may change. What will always have value is the ability to learn new information and the application of what we know. I will encourage my students to be life-long learners and I will do the same in order to retain mastery in my subject matter. The fifth topic involves creating assignments and projects that have relevance to the lives of others. In other words, students should be creating something of value that will be seen by more than just their teacher. I love this idea because it will perhaps make students more invested in their school work and it will help them connect with others either digitally or within their community. This idea is connected with the sixth and final idea proposed which is about transferring power to the students. Children should have the opportunity and freedom to explore projects on their own without the interference or guidance of teachers. By handing the reigns over to students, they will learn how to think for themselves, work independently, and be accountable for their work. Richardson uses the example of students collaborating with their teacher to build a biodiesel generator. I see this as something students should already be doing. In my subject area of social science, I plan on presenting real-world problems to my students and allowing them to explore possible solutions and actions they can take to either spread awareness or help solve the issues. Why School? was a fantastic read and I would recommend it to current and/or aspiring educators, parents, business leaders, and friends. Richardson, W. (n.d). Why school?: How education must change when learning and information are everywhere. Available from http://www.amazon.com/Why-School-Education-Information-Everywhere-ebook/dp/B00998J5YQ. |
AuthorGeorge Porter, English Teacher at Sage Creek Archives
May 2016
Categories |