As far back as 1916, John Dewey said, “If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow.” Our schools run on the same schedules as they did in 1916, we teach so many of the same subjects! How can we be innovative when we’re so stuck in tradition? I do believe tradition and culture have a place in school, but not to the extent that new ideas are rejected because of them. Teachers need to become lead learners and co-learners with students. We are role models for students, we need to model excitement for learning.
So many research papers/articles have been written about how our schools are run industrial style and haven't changed for decades, to our students' detriment as a high % of the jobs now available for our students are no longer like the jobs of the past. And I fear, the students in grade school will not have jobs like the ones that our high school students will be in either when they are out in the workforce. And where does that training start? In our schools if people are willing to change.
I love John Dewey's way of thinking. I think that teachers need to change their teaching every year to meet the needs of their students. We have a teacher that has taught the same way for the 3 years I have been there in fact the same language. I think you need to change it up. I personally never teach the same because to me I would get bored with the same thing over and over.
To throw out the baby with the bath water is honestly just setting oneself up to eventually repeat mistakes. However traditions should be used as building blocks not the front door. There is loyalty in tradition, which is part of what makes it so hard to change; but Dick and Jane were once the traditional way that reading was taught and I don't see anyone willingly going back to that.
Honestly I find it pardoxical that there are teachers who get stuck on tradition. The very fiber of education is training for the future and the very definition of future is "things yet to come." If we only ever did the traditional thing then there would never really be a future, only a present that just hasn't happened yet.
I agree that some concepts that need to be taught as they are a foundation for future skills. However, those concepts do not need to be taught in the traditional way. Memorization of math facts is important for later skills, but the time spent on that in school does not to be long. The students can learn those at home and then they can be enhanced through activities at school, like in centers. Giving problems where those math facts are used in real world would help the students learn the facts, and transfer those facts into a real world problem they may encounter (adding/rounding grocery prices to make sure you don't go over a budget or to make sure you have enough money available to pay for the groceries you want).
The days of parents helping their children at home is gone, which is sad to say. I see where even educated parents are not helping their children at home. For most of the students in my school, what learning they get at school is it. People are too busy to take the time or parents can't speak the language in order to help. That's why I feel some of the traditional strategies need to stay in order for students to learn skills for life.
Deanna- I was JUST having a conversation about this with one of my teachers today. We have a kiddo who's REALLY struggling with his basic math facts. Of course, they work on this in class, but the teacher also bought some flashcards for this kiddo to have to work on at home. The day the flashcards went home, the teacher got an angry Facebook message from the mother who basically said that she sends her son to school to learn, and that it was the teacher's job to take care of this.
Oh my gosh... I just can't wrap my mind around it...
The lecture model would be a big hinderance to innovation. This method expects the students to sit there quietly, listen, take notes, memorize and regurgitate the facts. This relates more to middle school and high school, but I could see that happening at the elementary level also. Most students do not learn auditorily, which is where lectures fall. Instead, connecting what is being taught to what happens in the real world is a bigger motivation to learning. I think that is what Common Core is trying to get to. Engaging the whole child is more beneficial to learning than lecture. There are, of course, times where whole group instruction is needed, but that should not be the whole class period. The students, at every level, need that time to practice what is taught and apply it while they are in school where teachers can assist as needed. When the children get home, they may not have someone to assist them with homework and answer the questions they have about what to do on their homework. The skills build on each other so mastery is important for every skill. Giving students multiple chances to build and enhance those skills will hopefully build them into a productive citizen when they enter the work world.
I think that the traditional style of students sitting in desks while the teacher talks at the front of the room does hinder innovation. In the discussion of the first chapter, we asked if teachers still need to be the givers of information and knowledge. Since our wealth of knowledge is doubling every year, students need to know how to learn and to apply what they know. They need to be innovators with the knowledge, skills, and devices. If we train students to sit and listen only, we aren't preparing them for real life – not to be innovators or for any skill in the real world.
I am not entirely convinced that traditional styles of education hinder innovation. I think there is a place for both. I wonder how much innovation is tied to technology? (we all know technology is great when it works!) Alot of this chapter is about student led learning. Its a good idea but as a teacher I think there are many academic steps that come before student led learning; students need to be introduced to the concept and that involves alot of direct/explicit instruction, modeling, and guided practice. Maybe I am coming at it from too much of a sped teachers point of view but my students need so much "fed" to them initially that I'm not sure where student led learning would fit in? Certainly not at the beginning. I wonder do these schools mentioned in the book, are they aligned with CCRS? I am skeptical now but maybe as I continue reading it will all make more sense and I will feel more comfortable. If all innovation means is change than we really do need to be careful and not become a "flavor of the month" type of mentality. Too much change is not good, change takes time if it is to be effective!
I understand where you're coming from Carol. Maybe it is the SPED point of view, but my students in junior high and high school need fed. They need a lot of role modeling, etc. As the inclusion teacher in a couple of General Ed classes I see this across the board....very few students would be able to do student led learning in the classroom. When I taught in Colorado a group of teachers visited one of the schools that was participating innovative practices such as student led learning. The comment they made when they returned was that there seemed to be a lot of chaos in the school. Since that was over four years ago, it would be interesting to check in on that school now.
Notwithstanding the new technology that we have today I do feel that old teaching styles will work for some kids as well. There are those kids that will need pencil and paper assignments or to do their homework on. There are still a few teachers out there that will teach both the old style and the new style that kids are accustomed to as well. Even in my short time as a teacher there has been a lot of change in the school setting and yes some of it is not as effective as it should be for students.
I can see where others are coming from in that sitting behind a desk and listening does not hold much value. However, there are those who benefit greatly from auditory learning. I think that if we utilize the different learning styles in conjunction with our methods of teaching we are still able to hold true to tradition, while being innovative and forward thinking, enabling us to reach all learners. And, just as you stated, we cannot simply jump into a new way of thinking or working - we have to transition. You cannot walk without first crawling. We cannot expect to make massive changes to education and have them readily accepted and successful. We have to be prepared for the minor and major bumps and the road and to keep moving forward.
I'd agree, there is a place for direct and explicit instruction. Research shows it works. Some things, like sight words and basic facts, haven't changed, and just have to be memorized. It can be done in a fun way, but not skipped. You have to be able to estimate when your calculator is not with you, it's so much more time effective in the store :)
I know I have only been working in the public school system for a few years, but I see that traditional teaching and innovation go hand in hand at times. Teachers can take traditional teaching methods and expand on them. I also see that many teacher try to be too innovative and loose the ability to teach their students the way they are when they use traditional teaching methods. For example, when teachers use only "innovative" web based math programs to teach math. I often ask myself where are the manipulative, pencil and paper. My husband is a farmer and uses the traditional way to solve math problems and does just fine. If he would have learned using only the new web based math programs he would not have been able to relate the way he was taught math to his work today.
Traditional styles of teaching are not going to be as effective for kids because there too engrossed in the social media, video games, and the lack of effort of work that they put into school. Teachers more than ever are trying their best to think outside of the box to get kids to learn effectively. Once more kids see what adults do especially their parents and that reflects back to lack of effort and not trying their best in school. Kids lack of imagination, creativity, and looking to the future is hindering them to be a success as an adult. Kids are to accustom to living for the moment instead of looking to their future and being better preparedto go forth into the workforce and make a name for themselves.
Traditional style of teaching don't hinder innovations, at least in my opinion. In fact, I think a more traditional teaching style can encourage students to be innovative as they have to be creative and not turn to the internet for an easy answer or solution. I'm thinking of a hands-on project done through trial and error. I have a student who spends "way too much time" with video games and that students does not know how to think. Our school has switched to math books online and that has made things more difficult for this student. There is much on the page to distract them and it's too easy to switch to a different window. Our school provided each student with a Chrome book last year and there have been numerous problems: inappropriate sites, cheating, watching YouTube videos....
Ironically the topic of the technology driven information age was a topic at lunch the other day with the topics being the various ways technology has caused problems for students. Don't get me wrong! I love my technology and I think that it definitely has a place. But, many students don't know how to use their technology to learn (I think you mentioned this Carole King) and have been given no direction. They see the technology as another form of entertainment.
I was the inclusion teacher in a Senior government class where about half the class had no clue as to where the various states were on a map of the U.S. I'm talking about states like Maine, Colorado, Oregon and California! I kept thinking too bad they didn't MEMORIZE this back in grade school! I know we question the validity of memorizing, but I have observed that those individuals who have memorized states, math tables, etc have trained themselves to remember information. Often patients in nursing homes or Alzheimers units remember hymns, poems, etc that they have memorized. I have sat in the Livestock sale barn with older individuals who can keep up with the bidding and the price being bid and know exactly what they or someone else has paid for an item. Believe me that is fast paced and if you snooze, you lose, or pay more than you wanted.
Honestly, both traditional and newer styles of teaching can work for students. I think the students who have a really solid base, do better when they deal with technology, etc.
I do not believe traditional style of teaching hinders innovation! I feel there is still a place for those strategies and students continue to learn with them. I see students failing because of too much technology. They do not have to really learn anything and put it into long term memory, just look it up to find the answer! Boy would my life have been a lot easier if I could have done that in high school and college! I repeatedly see articles where all of this technology is not creating thinkers in small children. I see more students I work with that have problem solving issues, cognitive issues and language issues due to only playing games on technology.
I agree with you....so many of my students are able to visually memorize as well as rote memorization but being able to apply those concepts is difficult for them. It does make you wonder if technology has played a part in that!
I feel like education always seems to make full circle. Something comes out and seems bigger, better, or newer, but truly it is the same concept from 20-30 years ago just with a different name. We are stuck in a rut in education. Our students we work with need non-traditional ideas. They need out of their seats and the ability for a teacher to think outside the box to educate them is a better learning style for most than the traditional lecture hall style classroom.
I agree, my undergrad professors all talked about the education pendulum. It swings back and forth between techniques and ideals. Truly new ideas are few and far between.
Absolutely! Education does tend to swing on a pendulum...the new idea today may have been the new idea 15 years ago. We need to find a way to find the new ideas that work and tie them together with the traditional styles and ultimately do what is best for kids.
I believe that traditional styles of teaching hinder the opportunity for educators to try something new. Traditional styles may work, but there is always the possibility that they can be improved upon. Being open to innovation and not focused on preserving traditional teaching techniques is the first step to improving one's teaching style.
When I was in the masters program at Hays, I had a professor who had taught in Canada and he was so adamant about how their schools (and schools in other countries) were so different than ours. Is it possible that the old, traditional system isn't really the way to be anymore? Since the US and the world is so bent on comparing each others' scores on tests, maybe we should look at how achieving countries run their schools. That professor was the one who informed me about how other countries really have two school systems, one for high achievers and one for the worker-mentality students. At that time, I was so naive and only knew about traditional school settings that his declaration came as a total shock. He also informed our class that if WE were in another country only 2 of us would have been accepted into an advanced program like a masters and some would not have even made it into the teacher program in the first place. So, in this global society, we, as a country, should look at other countries who are successful and maybe share their thoughts and ideals. Since the US is so far behind others in Reading and Math, something we are doing here isn't cutting it. Traditional school settings would benefit students who are not advanced or who are just average and then an alternative system for higher students could start a change in our society. Teachers in both systems would have to be leaders and innovators to make all students achieve at high level, but allow the students to achieve at their cognitive level and train towards the specific workforce they are meant to be in. Please don't shoot me for my opinion. In my small piece of this world, I see a school system as a nation that doesn't come close to other countries, and it makes me wonder if it will ever change or if we will just continue down this path of being behind other nations that don't have the choices we have here, nor the technology or wealth that the US has.
I feel that in order to be successful in teaching you have to change with the times of today. The traditional way of teaching may work however change it in a way that it meets today's needs. The traditional ways of teaching are great because I did not graduate knowing how to use a computer or the internet to find things and had to read about it in a book to find out information, however now the internet is a resource that kids use and are going to continue to use so they need skills in what is happening in today world because this is going to give them life skills outside of school no matter the age level you teach. How many of you know how to look up in a phone book who you need to get ahold of? How many of you now search it in your phone because it is easier, faster, and most people always have a cell phone in hand to be able to use the resource. Even though looking up names in a phone book teaches a lot of things such as alphabetical order and thinking skills to look the name up, however this is not reality to the children today. So teaching to what is in the world today is something that teachers need to be able to mentally change. Even though it worked for us growing up does not mean that is what is going to work for today's children. Phone books may be a past thing when the children in kindergarten today graduate from high school. Education is always changing because times are changing.
I feel like an effective educator is able to find a good balance between what one would consider "traditional" as well as "futuristic". There has to be some consistency and predictability in what is taught. Students must understand concepts and know how to apply them to be able to take those skills to the next level (such as manipulation, innovation). One must have an understanding of the basics to be creators. I think technology is a great tool but should not replace the brain power of each child. To truly be innovators and life long learners, the foundation must be strong.
I don't believe that the traditional model of education is what is hindering education. In fact, I believe that the "traditional" model of education is the key to innovation in that it is what we learn from and what we adapt in order to move forward. I believe that what hinders innovation is the fear of failure. All too often we are afraid to take a risk thinking that it will either fail miserably, not be accepted, or it will jeopardize our jobs. We cannot walk without taking the first step, and we cannot learn if we do not take the risk of letting go what we thought we knew in the hopes of learning something new.
The book says that "If you are not willing to change, you should not be a teacher. It is now part of the job." I think this statement goes hand-in-hand with this question.I think that there is a way to tie traditional styles of teaching and innovative styles of teaching together. There are some topics and concepts that the traditional way seems to work best...others, not so much. There are kids who learn best using traditional styles (lectures, quiet room, desks in rows, etc) and there are kids who learn best other ways. I think that in order to be effective educators, we need to find a way to combine the two theories so that we are doing what is best for kids. That should always be the ultimate goal, shouldn't it?
I believe that the traditional model of teaching can hinder innovation a lot. As an educator, you begin as a blank slate with many years of experience to obtain. As time goes by you work, and learn, gaining experience. As this experience builds, one becomes more comfortable, maybe even confident, in their teaching ability. When we bring innovation to the table, it means change comes too. EVERYONE has to be receptive to becoming uncomfortable if they are going to be able to change. A lot of the time, change is uncomfortable, sometimes even unclear, and that is the hard part about welcoming innovation and change in the traditional educational model.
We do a disservice if we are not teaching students how to learn for themselves, not just to them, but to society as a whole. Students should develop the skills to think for themselves about their jobs, politics, religion, etc. and not be led by the opinion of whoever appears most charismatic. Teachers spend huge amounts of time in a student's life and can not help but become role models as to how students view learning and their abilities. A lifelong love of learning and the "joy" in discovering new things needs to be a part of that model. Students need the opportunity to practice those skills in the school setting. The traditional schedule and lecture style can be a hindrance. My grandmother talked about the pendulum in education, where new ideas are implemented, then an old idea comes back around with a new name, and everything swings back to the middle. I see what she meant more and more all the time. However, there will always be things that must be directly taught to young learners.
I wouldn’t say it hinders it necessarily. I think, ideally, there probably needs to be a balance between the two. Traditional styles of teaching can give students a good foundation, while innovation can help to expand their skillset. I keep thinking of conversations I’ve had with students (or parents) when they make comments to the effect that they (or their student) doesn’t need to learn something because they can just Google it, or type it into a program, or etc., etc. That’s great and everything I guess, but what if (Heaven forbid) something happens, and Google’s not an option anymore. Then what??? Or, what if you’re one of those kiddos who doesn’t really use the technology that’s provided in the way that it’s intended (i.e. rather than utilizing it’s educational potential, it’s still just a Facebook machine)??? Then what???
As far back as 1916, John Dewey said, “If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow.” Our schools run on the same schedules as they did in 1916, we teach so many of the same subjects! How can we be innovative when we’re so stuck in tradition? I do believe tradition and culture have a place in school, but not to the extent that new ideas are rejected because of them. Teachers need to become lead learners and co-learners with students. We are role models for students, we need to model excitement for learning.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, modeling learning and exploring is exactly what teachers should be doing!
DeleteSo many research papers/articles have been written about how our schools are run industrial style and haven't changed for decades, to our students' detriment as a high % of the jobs now available for our students are no longer like the jobs of the past. And I fear, the students in grade school will not have jobs like the ones that our high school students will be in either when they are out in the workforce. And where does that training start? In our schools if people are willing to change.
DeleteI love John Dewey's way of thinking. I think that teachers need to change their teaching every year to meet the needs of their students. We have a teacher that has taught the same way for the 3 years I have been there in fact the same language. I think you need to change it up. I personally never teach the same because to me I would get bored with the same thing over and over.
DeleteTo throw out the baby with the bath water is honestly just setting oneself up to eventually repeat mistakes. However traditions should be used as building blocks not the front door. There is loyalty in tradition, which is part of what makes it so hard to change; but Dick and Jane were once the traditional way that reading was taught and I don't see anyone willingly going back to that.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I find it pardoxical that there are teachers who get stuck on tradition. The very fiber of education is training for the future and the very definition of future is "things yet to come." If we only ever did the traditional thing then there would never really be a future, only a present that just hasn't happened yet.
I agree that some concepts that need to be taught as they are a foundation for future skills. However, those concepts do not need to be taught in the traditional way. Memorization of math facts is important for later skills, but the time spent on that in school does not to be long. The students can learn those at home and then they can be enhanced through activities at school, like in centers. Giving problems where those math facts are used in real world would help the students learn the facts, and transfer those facts into a real world problem they may encounter (adding/rounding grocery prices to make sure you don't go over a budget or to make sure you have enough money available to pay for the groceries you want).
DeleteThe days of parents helping their children at home is gone, which is sad to say. I see where even educated parents are not helping their children at home. For most of the students in my school, what learning they get at school is it. People are too busy to take the time or parents can't speak the language in order to help. That's why I feel some of the traditional strategies need to stay in order for students to learn skills for life.
DeleteDeanna-
DeleteI was JUST having a conversation about this with one of my teachers today. We have a kiddo who's REALLY struggling with his basic math facts. Of course, they work on this in class, but the teacher also bought some flashcards for this kiddo to have to work on at home. The day the flashcards went home, the teacher got an angry Facebook message from the mother who basically said that she sends her son to school to learn, and that it was the teacher's job to take care of this.
Oh my gosh... I just can't wrap my mind around it...
The lecture model would be a big hinderance to innovation. This method expects the students to sit there quietly, listen, take notes, memorize and regurgitate the facts. This relates more to middle school and high school, but I could see that happening at the elementary level also. Most students do not learn auditorily, which is where lectures fall. Instead, connecting what is being taught to what happens in the real world is a bigger motivation to learning. I think that is what Common Core is trying to get to. Engaging the whole child is more beneficial to learning than lecture. There are, of course, times where whole group instruction is needed, but that should not be the whole class period. The students, at every level, need that time to practice what is taught and apply it while they are in school where teachers can assist as needed. When the children get home, they may not have someone to assist them with homework and answer the questions they have about what to do on their homework. The skills build on each other so mastery is important for every skill. Giving students multiple chances to build and enhance those skills will hopefully build them into a productive citizen when they enter the work world.
ReplyDeleteI think that the traditional style of students sitting in desks while the teacher talks at the front of the room does hinder innovation. In the discussion of the first chapter, we asked if teachers still need to be the givers of information and knowledge. Since our wealth of knowledge is doubling every year, students need to know how to learn and to apply what they know. They need to be innovators with the knowledge, skills, and devices. If we train students to sit and listen only, we aren't preparing them for real life – not to be innovators or for any skill in the real world.
ReplyDeleteI am not entirely convinced that traditional styles of education hinder innovation. I think there is a place for both. I wonder how much innovation is tied to technology? (we all know technology is great when it works!) Alot of this chapter is about student led learning. Its a good idea but as a teacher I think there are many academic steps that come before student led learning; students need to be introduced to the concept and that involves alot of direct/explicit instruction, modeling, and guided practice. Maybe I am coming at it from too much of a sped teachers point of view but my students need so much "fed" to them initially that I'm not sure where student led learning would fit in? Certainly not at the beginning. I wonder do these schools mentioned in the book, are they aligned with CCRS? I am skeptical now but maybe as I continue reading it will all make more sense and I will feel more comfortable. If all innovation means is change than we really do need to be careful and not become a "flavor of the month" type of mentality. Too much change is not good, change takes time if it is to be effective!
ReplyDeleteI understand where you're coming from Carol. Maybe it is the SPED point of view, but my students in junior high and high school need fed. They need a lot of role modeling, etc. As the inclusion teacher in a couple of General Ed classes I see this across the board....very few students would be able to do student led learning in the classroom. When I taught in Colorado a group of teachers visited one of the schools that was participating innovative practices such as student led learning. The comment they made when they returned was that there seemed to be a lot of chaos in the school. Since that was over four years ago, it would be interesting to check in on that school now.
DeleteNotwithstanding the new technology that we have today I do feel that old teaching styles will work for some kids as well. There are those kids that will need pencil and paper assignments or to do their homework on. There are still a few teachers out there that will teach both the old style and the new style that kids are accustomed to as well. Even in my short time as a teacher there has been a lot of change in the school setting and yes some of it is not as effective as it should be for students.
DeleteI can see where others are coming from in that sitting behind a desk and listening does not hold much value. However, there are those who benefit greatly from auditory learning. I think that if we utilize the different learning styles in conjunction with our methods of teaching we are still able to hold true to tradition, while being innovative and forward thinking, enabling us to reach all learners. And, just as you stated, we cannot simply jump into a new way of thinking or working - we have to transition. You cannot walk without first crawling. We cannot expect to make massive changes to education and have them readily accepted and successful. We have to be prepared for the minor and major bumps and the road and to keep moving forward.
DeleteI'd agree, there is a place for direct and explicit instruction. Research shows it works. Some things, like sight words and basic facts, haven't changed, and just have to be memorized. It can be done in a fun way, but not skipped. You have to be able to estimate when your calculator is not with you, it's so much more time effective in the store :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI know I have only been working in the public school system for a few years, but I see that traditional teaching and innovation go hand in hand at times. Teachers can take traditional teaching methods and expand on them. I also see that many teacher try to be too innovative and loose the ability to teach their students the way they are when they use traditional teaching methods. For example, when teachers use only "innovative" web based math programs to teach math. I often ask myself where are the manipulative, pencil and paper. My husband is a farmer and uses the traditional way to solve math problems and does just fine. If he would have learned using only the new web based math programs he would not have been able to relate the way he was taught math to his work today.
ReplyDeleteTraditional styles of teaching are not going to be as effective for kids because there too engrossed in the social media, video games, and the lack of effort of work that they put into school. Teachers more than ever are trying their best to think outside of the box to get kids to learn effectively. Once more kids see what adults do especially their parents and that reflects back to lack of effort and not trying their best in school. Kids lack of imagination, creativity, and looking to the future is hindering them to be a success as an adult. Kids are to accustom to living for the moment instead of looking to their future and being better preparedto go forth into the workforce and make a name for themselves.
ReplyDeleteTraditional style of teaching don't hinder innovations, at least in my opinion. In fact, I think a more traditional teaching style can encourage students to be innovative as they have to be creative and not turn to the internet for an easy answer or solution. I'm thinking of a hands-on project done through trial and error. I have a student who spends "way too much time" with video games and that students does not know how to think. Our school has switched to math books online and that has made things more difficult for this student. There is much on the page to distract them and it's too easy to switch to a different window. Our school provided each student with a Chrome book last year and there have been numerous problems: inappropriate sites, cheating, watching YouTube videos....
ReplyDeleteIronically the topic of the technology driven information age was a topic at lunch the other day with the topics being the various ways technology has caused problems for students. Don't get me wrong! I love my technology and I think that it definitely has a place. But, many students don't know how to use their technology to learn (I think you mentioned this Carole King) and have been given no direction. They see the technology as another form of entertainment.
I was the inclusion teacher in a Senior government class where about half the class had no clue as to where the various states were on a map of the U.S. I'm talking about states like Maine, Colorado, Oregon and California! I kept thinking too bad they didn't MEMORIZE this back in grade school! I know we question the validity of memorizing, but I have observed that those individuals who have memorized states, math tables, etc have trained themselves to remember information. Often patients in nursing homes or Alzheimers units remember hymns, poems, etc that they have memorized. I have sat in the Livestock sale barn with older individuals who can keep up with the bidding and the price being bid and know exactly what they or someone else has paid for an item. Believe me that is fast paced and if you snooze, you lose, or pay more than you wanted.
Honestly, both traditional and newer styles of teaching can work for students. I think the students who have a really solid base, do better when they deal with technology, etc.
I do not believe traditional style of teaching hinders innovation! I feel there is still a place for those strategies and students continue to learn with them. I see students failing because of too much technology. They do not have to really learn anything and put it into long term memory, just look it up to find the answer! Boy would my life have been a lot easier if I could have done that in high school and college! I repeatedly see articles where all of this technology is not creating thinkers in small children. I see more students I work with that have problem solving issues, cognitive issues and language issues due to only playing games on technology.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you....so many of my students are able to visually memorize as well as rote memorization but being able to apply those concepts is difficult for them. It does make you wonder if technology has played a part in that!
DeleteI feel like education always seems to make full circle. Something comes out and seems bigger, better, or newer, but truly it is the same concept from 20-30 years ago just with a different name. We are stuck in a rut in education. Our students we work with need non-traditional ideas. They need out of their seats and the ability for a teacher to think outside the box to educate them is a better learning style for most than the traditional lecture hall style classroom.
ReplyDeleteI agree, my undergrad professors all talked about the education pendulum. It swings back and forth between techniques and ideals. Truly new ideas are few and far between.
DeleteAbsolutely! Education does tend to swing on a pendulum...the new idea today may have been the new idea 15 years ago. We need to find a way to find the new ideas that work and tie them together with the traditional styles and ultimately do what is best for kids.
DeleteI believe that traditional styles of teaching hinder the opportunity for educators to try something new. Traditional styles may work, but there is always the possibility that they can be improved upon. Being open to innovation and not focused on preserving traditional teaching techniques is the first step to improving one's teaching style.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in the masters program at Hays, I had a professor who had taught in Canada and he was so adamant about how their schools (and schools in other countries) were so different than ours. Is it possible that the old, traditional system isn't really the way to be anymore? Since the US and the world is so bent on comparing each others' scores on tests, maybe we should look at how achieving countries run their schools. That professor was the one who informed me about how other countries really have two school systems, one for high achievers and one for the worker-mentality students. At that time, I was so naive and only knew about traditional school settings that his declaration came as a total shock. He also informed our class that if WE were in another country only 2 of us would have been accepted into an advanced program like a masters and some would not have even made it into the teacher program in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSo, in this global society, we, as a country, should look at other countries who are successful and maybe share their thoughts and ideals. Since the US is so far behind others in Reading and Math, something we are doing here isn't cutting it.
Traditional school settings would benefit students who are not advanced or who are just average and then an alternative system for higher students could start a change in our society.
Teachers in both systems would have to be leaders and innovators to make all students achieve at high level, but allow the students to achieve at their cognitive level and train towards the specific workforce they are meant to be in. Please don't shoot me for my opinion. In my small piece of this world, I see a school system as a nation that doesn't come close to other countries, and it makes me wonder if it will ever change or if we will just continue down this path of being behind other nations that don't have the choices we have here, nor the technology or wealth that the US has.
I feel that in order to be successful in teaching you have to change with the times of today. The traditional way of teaching may work however change it in a way that it meets today's needs. The traditional ways of teaching are great because I did not graduate knowing how to use a computer or the internet to find things and had to read about it in a book to find out information, however now the internet is a resource that kids use and are going to continue to use so they need skills in what is happening in today world because this is going to give them life skills outside of school no matter the age level you teach. How many of you know how to look up in a phone book who you need to get ahold of? How many of you now search it in your phone because it is easier, faster, and most people always have a cell phone in hand to be able to use the resource. Even though looking up names in a phone book teaches a lot of things such as alphabetical order and thinking skills to look the name up, however this is not reality to the children today. So teaching to what is in the world today is something that teachers need to be able to mentally change. Even though it worked for us growing up does not mean that is what is going to work for today's children. Phone books may be a past thing when the children in kindergarten today graduate from high school. Education is always changing because times are changing.
ReplyDeleteI feel like an effective educator is able to find a good balance between what one would consider "traditional" as well as "futuristic". There has to be some consistency and predictability in what is taught. Students must understand concepts and know how to apply them to be able to take those skills to the next level (such as manipulation, innovation). One must have an understanding of the basics to be creators. I think technology is a great tool but should not replace the brain power of each child. To truly be innovators and life long learners, the foundation must be strong.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the traditional model of education is what is hindering education. In fact, I believe that the "traditional" model of education is the key to innovation in that it is what we learn from and what we adapt in order to move forward. I believe that what hinders innovation is the fear of failure. All too often we are afraid to take a risk thinking that it will either fail miserably, not be accepted, or it will jeopardize our jobs. We cannot walk without taking the first step, and we cannot learn if we do not take the risk of letting go what we thought we knew in the hopes of learning something new.
ReplyDeleteThe book says that "If you are not willing to change, you should not be a teacher. It is now part of the job." I think this statement goes hand-in-hand with this question.I think that there is a way to tie traditional styles of teaching and innovative styles of teaching together. There are some topics and concepts that the traditional way seems to work best...others, not so much. There are kids who learn best using traditional styles (lectures, quiet room, desks in rows, etc) and there are kids who learn best other ways. I think that in order to be effective educators, we need to find a way to combine the two theories so that we are doing what is best for kids. That should always be the ultimate goal, shouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the traditional model of teaching can hinder innovation a lot. As an educator, you begin as a blank slate with many years of experience to obtain. As time goes by you work, and learn, gaining experience. As this experience builds, one becomes more comfortable, maybe even confident, in their teaching ability. When we bring innovation to the table, it means change comes too. EVERYONE has to be receptive to becoming uncomfortable if they are going to be able to change. A lot of the time, change is uncomfortable, sometimes even unclear, and that is the hard part about welcoming innovation and change in the traditional educational model.
ReplyDeleteWe do a disservice if we are not teaching students how to learn for themselves, not just to them, but to society as a whole. Students should develop the skills to think for themselves about their jobs, politics, religion, etc. and not be led by the opinion of whoever appears most charismatic. Teachers spend huge amounts of time in a student's life and can not help but become role models as to how students view learning and their abilities. A lifelong love of learning and the "joy" in discovering new things needs to be a part of that model. Students need the opportunity to practice those skills in the school setting. The traditional schedule and lecture style can be a hindrance. My grandmother talked about the pendulum in education, where new ideas are implemented, then an old idea comes back around with a new name, and everything swings back to the middle. I see what she meant more and more all the time. However, there will always be things that must be directly taught to young learners.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t say it hinders it necessarily. I think, ideally, there probably needs to be a balance between the two. Traditional styles of teaching can give students a good foundation, while innovation can help to expand their skillset. I keep thinking of conversations I’ve had with students (or parents) when they make comments to the effect that they (or their student) doesn’t need to learn something because they can just Google it, or type it into a program, or etc., etc. That’s great and everything I guess, but what if (Heaven forbid) something happens, and Google’s not an option anymore. Then what??? Or, what if you’re one of those kiddos who doesn’t really use the technology that’s provided in the way that it’s intended (i.e. rather than utilizing it’s educational potential, it’s still just a Facebook machine)??? Then what???
ReplyDelete