Chapter two explores a "new science of learning" which emphasizes active student engagement and a focus on metacognitive thinking to build student-centered approaches to thinking. As a recent graduate with a BS in Education, this isn't "new" to me, but rather was the focus of must of my coursework and case-study. Maloy, et al. further emphasize that this is not a willy-nilly approach to education. Such an approach must be carefully planned to allow students to "construct new knowledge and understandings based on what they know" (p33). "When connections exist between the known and the new," she continues, "learners are better able to contextualize new information, and in some cases, make the intellectual leap to new understandings" (p33). That to me, sounds like the opposite of Prensky's claim. In this active learning approach, students are making gains because they have solid foundations on which to build, not because they have lots of misjointed data.
For the past several years, the New York Times has been running articles which examine digital schools and classrooms, emphasizing as Maloy, et al. does, that it is not enough to simply have the technology in the classroom. Educators must use the technology as a tool to target students at their current levels of achievement and build on that new information to make further gains...very student-centered and "active learning" focused! A 2012 NYT article examines Mooresville School District in North Carolina. This school utilizes individualized software modules during math instruction, allowing teachers to portion out their time based on the needs of students, without dragging other students behind or ahead in the shuffle. Check it out HERE.
Two questions for the group:
1. If you read the linked NYT article, why do you think Mooresville Schools District has been so successful with their integration of technology? Why are they considered the model for this approach to education?
2. Chapter three explores two types of planning: starting with the means (learning objectives) and starting with the ends (enduring understandings). In you planning, which way do you find most beneficial.
In response to your second question, either of these two types of planning has its pros and cons. However, personally I would say to start with the meas. I won't deny that as teachers we may make adjustments according to the situation in class, but we should be very clear about the learning objectives when planning a lesson so that we would know wherever we expand, we are still on the main track based on learning objectives.
ReplyDelete