Prensky's vision is all too radical for education. If I were to share this with colleagues, I would be chided. Prensky himself is probably regarded as a radical, someone without a realistic vision of what education is really like. These type of visionaries have nice ideas, but they don't understand the everyday challenges teachers encounter, they don't understand the friction educational ideas encounter in their journey from principle to practice. And it is because of his naive idealistm that his challenge should be considered.
Prensky is valuable in that he calls schools to "get different" not "get better" at what they do. He views education in terms of what could be; a visionary model. Prensky proposes innovation as a driving force, not popular acceptance. He lets that which most benefits students guide his thinking, not established curriculum. Most educators, administrators, etc. view schools as the management of status quo, with targeted improvement goals along the way. Such thinking leads staff to "act like teachers" instead of teaching kids to learn. This type of thinking is flawed in that it focuses on what education has been as opposed to dreaming what it could be. It leads to ever-diminishing returns and reduced staff motivation.
I really like the idea of students working together to achieve a common goal. The students recognize the task at hand, and are able to work each day with a tangible goal. I also like the idea of the technology-driven 2nd semester. Students will get real-world training; they will understand why it is valuable to learn to use technology. The one area of caution is in removing a natural incentive for work. We should not ignore the merit in a job well-done. Students who are too often driven to work by some reward will eventually find themselves unfulfilled, then unmotivated.
I would hope that Prensky's value might not be in changing education to meet his challenge, but by contributing insight and innovation to an all too stagnant national curricular agenda.
4 comments:
WOW Brian Dale, well said. First, I'd like to shake your hand; the incentive of a job well is the best motivation.
Also, technology and its function in education is still cumbersome. Sometimes, I feel as if we are trying to incorporate technolgy while loosing sight of the prize--knowledge. Do you feel that we (in we, I mean educators in general) sometimes forget the true purpose while trying to create a more technological lesson or activity?
I agree that Prensky's approach to motivating students to learn represents a view of what could be instead of what is. Education needs new, even seemingly radical approaches, to promote learning in order to keep the world moving forward. Education should be the catalyst for change in every society.
Instead of doing so, education--like most instituions--seems to hold on to the status quo--particularly when teachers of many years experience are themselves reluctant innovators.
Before students can be motivated to change, teachers must be willing to do so.
You articulated your points well.I think all current accepted ideas probably started out as radical ideas. Mandatory school until 16? Core Content Standards? Certified teachers? Mandatory world language?
I see technology as a tool to accomplish the goal of learning. Certainly not the end goal.
Perhaps if radical ideas are fleshed out enough, they could become an acceptable alternative to the status quo?
Isn't there a danger in encouraging schools to "get different" rather than "get better". It is easy to say that we should try something to improve our schools, and at the very least, at least we are trying. However, we must recognize that the situation can also be worsened by new innovations that cost money, lower teacher morale, and detract from the already implemented systems in place. If a school leader is interested in trying something, there are plenty of options for sale. At my high school, I feel we have rushed into the adoption of a new, internet-based grading system that is open to parents and students alike. Problems abound and there is no sign, at least from the perspective of teachers and students, that the situation is being addressed with any level of urgency. In this way, many teachers who may have been teetering on the edge, have become resistent to what could have potentially been a positive change in our schools. Change is important. But it takes time, troubleshooting, and the inclusion of all stakeholders to make it genuine and most likely to succeed.
Post a Comment