irrelevant

Do our kids really learn how to learn?

by Steve Wyckoff on December 21, 2010

One of the comments that I’ve heard several times recently is that the one thing we really do well is to teach our kids how to learn. In my opinion one of the very poorest things we do is teach our kids how learn. In fact, when I talk about school change that should be one of the first things on our agenda.

I think we confuse students sitting passively, compliantly taking in information, then giving that information back to us on the test, with learning. I’ve referred many times to my experiences speaking with the college of education students at the University of Kansas. One of the things I always ask them is, “If they took a test as seniors in high school that they got an  “A” on, that they couldn’t pass as freshman in college?” They always roar with laughter and every hand goes up.

My question to them is if you didn’t remember the information long enough to recall it less than a year later did you really learn it?

My good friends Kevin Honeycutt and Ginger Lewman talk a lot about L2L2, Learning To Love To Learn.I agree with him completely but the phrase I  chose, which is less emotional, is that our students become self-directed learners. I do absolutely agree that students who love to learn are our best learners.

This was driven home to me some time ago while I was visiting with a group of students. We were talking about learning when it dawned on me that students see the term learning, in many cases, as a negative. They associate the term learning with boredom, sitting passively, and content that is uninteresting and irrelevant.

The conundrum for educators is this. All of our educators were taught to teach just as they were taught. Yet this traditional teaching mode doesn’t engage students, nor create educational experiences, that give the student the opportunity to be either self-directed nor L2L2L.

In order to give students the opportunity to engage in self directed learning the teacher, in collaboration with the student, must create a learning experience that engages the student and at the same time leads to the learning that the teacher desires. This is a far different requirements than simply creating traditional lesson plans.

It can be done, I spent two days last week observing it. I spent one day in Stafford Kansas at the SEED center, and half a day in the Newton Kansas school district at the Walton Rural Life School. Two very different schools, one for high school students, and one for elementary students. One with the theme of rural life were kids are raising chickens and goats, and one focusing on entrepreneurship were students are actually running their own business.

What they both have in common is learning by doing experiences were the teachers are facilitators who practice excellent Socratic skills, rather than direct instruction skills.

Real school change has to include different learned behaviors on the part of teachers, that lead to learning by doing experiences for students, and real behavioral changes on the part of students. – Steve Wyckoff

{ 1 comment }

School change: The Myth of education

by Steve Wyckoff on October 19, 2010

I couldn’t have said it better … NO REALLY! I COULDN’T HAVE SAID IT BETTER! So I’m not going to try. Here is a post from my friend Deb Haneke’s blog. I will take credit for inspiring her to write this post because I placed the link to this video on our group page on Facebook, Rural Education and Community Development Collaboration. And credit Jerry Butler for sending me this intriguing video by Sir Ken Robinson. Sir Ken hits school change right on the nose!

Deb’s Post …

I’ve heard other presentations by Sir Ken Robinson, but this eleven minute video does a great job of really summarizing many ludicrous things about our current design in education. From the myth that a college degree will guarantee you a job, to the idea that the most important thing about kids is the date of manufacture (meaning we group them and run them through the system based on their birthdate) Sir Ken shines a flashlight on many myths and outdated practices, that are not serving kids nor the economy of this country.

In addition to the profound quote I included below, I also appreciated the research he shared about divergent thinking which he clarified is not the same thing as creativity, but rather an essential capacity for divergent thinking. This longitudinal study clearly showed all persons have the capacity for divergent thinking but it deteriorates over time. According to Sir Ken, education is likely a key factor in these results.

“Our children are living in the most intensively stimulating period in the history of the earth. They are being besieged with information and calls to their attention from every platform, computers, from iPhones, from advertising hoardings from hundreds of television channels; and we’re penalizing them now for getting distracted. From what? Boring stuff at school, for the most part.”

Sir Ken recognizes that it is not teachers who want things this way. Rather he refers to the “gene pool of education.” I hope you enjoy this insightful, and thought-provoking video as much as I did.

{ 0 comments }

School change: does the “classic liberal arts education” still serve a purpose?

October 11, 2010

Last week at the the Kansas Education Commission meeting one of the participants commented about “the classic liberal arts education” as if it were given how important, and appropriate, the classic liberal arts education is. As I’ve written before, the most difficult thing to do in school change is to decide what not to do [...]

0 comments Read the full article →

School change: All college degrees are not created equally

August 23, 2010

When we talk about school change there is always a discussion about preparing students for college. There is no doubt that in the 21st century those people who are the most successful tend to be those with the highest level of education. But not all college degrees are highly correlated with being successful in the [...]

0 comments Read the full article →

But what if the national standards are wrong?

March 23, 2010

There is a growing conversation about the need for national standards. But do we need national standards? And what if they pick the wrong standards? I just finished Howard Gardner’s new book, Five Minds For The Future, and as always Dr. Gardner did a wonderful job. But, everything Dr. Gardner talked about, in terms of [...]

0 comments Read the full article →

Which is most important, compliance or engagement?

March 4, 2010

Compliance or engagement, which is most important? I am often concerned when educators talk about engagement that they are actually talking about compliance. Let me give you an example. I’ve seen several surveys that purport to measure engagement but when you look at what they measure they talk about students who get to class on [...]

0 comments Read the full article →

The Mission Of Schools: What Is, What Should Be

January 27, 2010

Every school district has a mission statement, they’re all pretty much the same. In some way they all talk about preparing students to be productive members of society. But in spite of the fact that society has changed dramatically not just over the last hundred years but in the last 15 years, schools are doing [...]

0 comments Read the full article →

Standardized Tests: Causal Or Correlational?

January 25, 2010

I’ve given a lot of thought to the standardized test phenomenon. How is it that so many well-intentioned and highly intelligent people can have so much faith in such a detrimental process? I think I might have at least part of the puzzle figured out. We’ve been using standardized tests for decades, and educators through [...]

0 comments Read the full article →

Why our kids aren’t prepared for their future

January 11, 2010

One of the biggest issues that we face in education is that we are in adequately preparing our kids for their future. I recently finished Dan pink’s new book Drive, and sure enough more evidence that we’re not preparing our kids for the 21st century. Let me explain. In his book he talks about two [...]

0 comments Read the full article →