Will Richardson raised a lot of points in his “Why School” book that resonated with me personally. While I was fortunate enough to be successful in my own classes in high school, looking at how much the world around us has changed since I graduated in 2009 and how little teaching methods have does raise some concern. Like many of my peers, I have found that one of my most pressing concerns in my classroom is integrating technology. While my last clinical practice site had a considerable number of computer labs and chromebook carts, it seems that my current site, in spite of being double the size of my last site with over 3000 students, has only one computer lab with 40 computers. My classes are all over 40 students, and as much as I want to include more technology in my curriculum, this is a significant roadblock for me.
(Click "Read More" to continue)
(Click "Read More" to continue)
Richardson, then, addresses this eloquently when he mentions that in any situation outside of a classroom, students can use their smartphones to find whatever answers they seek. I see the same concern being addressed in the new Social Science standards being developed as part of Common Core- moving away from the rote memorization of names and dates that google can solve instantaneously and toward developing critical thinking and analysis skills that students will need as they move forward through life. This also raised a method that I have since used in class with some success: students bringing in their own devices and using those to do research online.
His juxtaposition of two primary lines of thinking about how school should work also struck a chord with me. I see this same division playing out in the social science department at my current clinical practice site. Half of the department wants to stick with the fill-in-the-blank, rote memorization that worked under NCLB, while the other half hope to start challenging students to think more critically. “Teaching to the test”, while it may sometimes be a necessity due to the flaws in our education assessment system, should never be the goal striven for. The math teachers who told all of us we wouldn’t always have a calculator with us were woefully mistaken, and now we can build off of the increased knowledge base that comes with 24/7 Internet access to encourage students to think in ways they never have before.
His juxtaposition of two primary lines of thinking about how school should work also struck a chord with me. I see this same division playing out in the social science department at my current clinical practice site. Half of the department wants to stick with the fill-in-the-blank, rote memorization that worked under NCLB, while the other half hope to start challenging students to think more critically. “Teaching to the test”, while it may sometimes be a necessity due to the flaws in our education assessment system, should never be the goal striven for. The math teachers who told all of us we wouldn’t always have a calculator with us were woefully mistaken, and now we can build off of the increased knowledge base that comes with 24/7 Internet access to encourage students to think in ways they never have before.