A few weeks ago at dinner, my family and I engaged in a delightful discussion around the practicality of education. Stereotypically, academia is regarded as devoid from reality, with the professor dreamily creating scenarios up in the "ivory tower." Isn't that sad, that we take it as a standard that education is theoretical and unrealistic? How can we change that? Wouldn't you say that's detrimental to a child's learning?
According to author Malcolm Gladwell, the three things needed to make work satisfying are autonomy, complexity and a relationship between effort and reward. If students are to enjoy school and embrace learning, our schools need to contain these three principles. This work is meaningful. Theoretical, unrealistic academia is not meaningful. Take a step back and think -- does it make any sense to do pointless work; work that's meaningless? Most adults wouldn't waste their time on that. However, that sort of meaningless work is what students go through everyday. Gladwell says in Outliers, "Hard work is a prison sentence only if it does not have meaning." Basically, if lessons in school were given a practical application, a tie to the real world, students wouldn't find learning to be a drag.
I feel like Bob Rhyske from the Center of Teaching in Atlanta summed up the current state of education well when he said: "School is real life, but the process of learning in traditional schooling does not reflect process of learning in real life. In real life, I don't do worksheets, daily quizzes and multiple choice tests. My learning is organic, spontaneous and adaptive."
I think that the Internet and our current state of high technology have the power to help give schools the meaning and real-life connection needed to engage and thoroughly educate their students. Technology allows us to find resources and make connections that expand our learning database. Now, a student in Sweden can learn math from Americans online. Sample problems, extra examples, even more complex concepts for eager students all can be found at the click of a button. Teachers can also grow thanks to the many professional learning networks that are springing up via social media, Skype and more. This expanded network means that questions no longer go unanswered andboundaries can be pushed even if your teacher has to help others catch up. The Interwebs allows students to take their learning into their own hands and give it life and meaning -- they can apply their passion to what ever they choose. Now, work doesn't have to be meaningless. The world of theoretical academia should not be real life, and with technology, it's becoming more and more a thing of the past. But the question is, are the schools teaching for yesterday or tomorrow?
Follow Tara Subramaniam on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@tara_supersub
That is just too funny. Think about it, most adults have to work for a living and a lot of that work is meaningless or at the very least seems meaningless. One of the things you should learn in school is that sometimes you have to do pointless work to keep the authorities happy. Not everything in life is engaging, fun or interesting!
The way I see it is that if our schools were truly interesting, engaging and relevant, we wouldn't have a problem keeping our students involved -- or, at least, *more* of our students involved. They'd truly *want* to learn. Education is just so out of touch with the people and with technology today.
The world and its required information (for basic literacy) of reading, writing and mathematics does not, largely, change. Conversely, the sciences and history classes do change (for obvious reasons of advancement). With that said, students seem to approach ALL classes with the same "order off the menu" mentality: "If it is not interesting, then I don't want it." Thus, students cannot reason/compose/compute at the college level when entering it. Thus, colleges now have to offer dumbed down GEN ED classes in order to help students APPROACH 100 level classes.
Here's the thing: The desire to learn really IS up to the individual, but no amount of bells and whistles will make texting and talking during class less interesting to students if they do not want or VALUE the information offered beyond what the Kardashians are doing. It is important to take resonsibility for that choice rather than blame educated professionals for their inability to make school a circus.
Well played.
And, what's wrong with that? I think that, in a sense, they should -- not because teens should be working 9-5 in an office building, but because they should have mentors and employees and managers from real companies coming into the classroom to work with them and trust them to help solve bigger real-world problems. They should engage in activities and game-play that simulate real-life experiences, like balancing a checkbook with fake money or simulating congress in history class.
Students shouldn't have to wait to get experience years later in life or from other outlets; They should get experience in school, like right now, as they're learning about these other abstract concepts. They should have more of a say over what happens in school and when, and allow the process to be truly democratic.
To me, the argument isn't that the abstract isn't useful, it's that the abstract and the concrete need to be taught together, instead of separately, to really get a full picture of what life is actually like.
Perhaps this explains more why incubators, co-working spaces, and informal skillshare classes are on the rise -- because they are more realists, and tangible. Maybe that's the new education model for the future?