Buzzword vs. Substance
Last week in one of my classes, we were discussing the importance of being able to identify general relationships by looking at a graph. The example that we used was that of an inverse relationship. We also discussed the importance of supporting claims with evidence. In a completely unrelated setting, I re-discovered an important relationship. In educational writing, the number of buzzwords is inversely related to the substance of the article. The evidence, ASCD’s Education Update (February 2008).
I took interest in the President’s message, titled “Twenty-First Century Thinking,” a report from her (and the ASCD Board of Directors) attendance at the Australian Council of Education Leaders Conference (ACEL). The theme of this year’s conference was “New Imagery for Schools and Schooling: Challenging, Creating and Connecting.” According to the president, the speakers represented the theme through words like reinvent, reimagine, rethink and re-create. We must respect the past, assess the current, and look forward to the future. The keynote speaker made a convincing case for rethinking a new essential curriculum and challenged attendees to throw off the shackles of 19th century schooling and rethink how learning happens. Throughout the conference speakers echoed this sentiment, saying that the world is smaller and more interconnected. Basically, this sums up the first 3/4 of the message. So, how did this theme impact the ASCD Board? Read on–
In the Board Meeting, they discussed ways of reimagining, rethinking and re-creating ASCD. The current strategic plan is 5 years old, and they are in the process of developing a new one. The ACEL conference sparked a rethinking of their planning process. They articulated an understanding that an organization like ASCD needs to be flexible and forward thinking. The moment a plan is written down, it can become an anchor to the past rather than a pathway to tomorrow. They realized that the format of the strategic plan constrains creative thinking. The planning process continues, but in a different way than in the past. They don’t know what it looks like, but it appears there may be a new path for envisioning the future.
Yup, that’s it - re-imagine, re-think, re-invent, re-create, re-gurgitate. Is this the best that our educational leaders can do? Or, is this just a fancy cover for them having too much fun in Australia and not enough work?
Here’s my challenge to anyone that made it through the buzzwords. Stop re-thinking and start doing. What are the “shackles of 19th century” curriculum and what should a 21st Century curriculum focus on? Should the pedagogy be different, or should we start actually doing what research has told us is good teaching?
February 13th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I think that the “shackles of 19th century” could refer to teaching core subjects, mainly the 3 R’s. Perhaps what they are trying to say through all of the mumble jumble is that we need to start to teach students about the world more, how we are all interconnected. Perhaps a push needs to made toward a more progressive view in preparing students for the real world, bringing real world issues and problems into the classroom so students can become prepared. I believe the 21st century curriculum needs to focus on problem solving, mainly real world problems. Students should be given the opportunity to find out some issues, bring them to school and have meaningful discussions with classmates.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:08 am
I agree that we need to start doing. All of this re-_____ might be necessary at this time, but not to the extent that hands-on work and class discussions are. Hands-on activities and issues that are real to students will naturally spark interest. Katelyn had a very good point in saying that we should teach how we are connected to the world and have students bring real world issues into the classroom. Children, especially very young ones, think about a subject in relationship to themselves. You can’t start to teach children from the great lakes region about ocean life and salt water marine life until after they know what some different bodies of water are near them, like a river or lake. Connections are made egocentrically, depending on a person’s age. In my past experiences with science classes, I felt like teachers dove right into the hardcore subject, which is why I often found myself lost in a nonsense mixture of words within textbooks and worksheets. Sure, we occasionally discussed things, but hardly ever related them to our own lives. That would have taken time away from learning about more “new” topics, but at least I would have understood more about what I was just taught.
I feel like that relates a little to the “19th century shackles” in the fact that topics are skimmed on the surface, but teachers rarely take their students for a deeper dive. How often do students get to interact with their classmates and promote class discussion? Why are teachers still using textbooks as their bible instead of a guide? Creativity plays a big role in the development of strong lessons, but if we pay attention to students’ interests with the world and each other, we might learn from them and gain new ideas.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
The 19th century curriculum focused on creating a unified America. Different perspectives were not given any consideration; either you were white or you acted white. We have gone beyond that in education and encourage people to learn about and value other cultures. Teachnology has influenced this idea greatly and like Sheena and Katelyn already commented, it’s about being connected. We are allowed to be connected to people across the globe, and we should be using this to increase learning. No longer do we belive we can only learn from books; we can learn from each other and work toward a common goal. Maybe the 21st century curriculum should focus on figuring out what this collective consciousness, this goal, is and how we can work together to deal with so many issues at a global level. Authentic tasks, discussions, group work, and technology are all ways of creating a community where students can address global issues, but that does not necessarily mean these are the best ways.
I am not dedicated to this statement, but perhaps the research we are teaching by is outdated. It is not impossible to imagine a poular method being torn apart and proven detrimental. Although I am sure every generation says this, we are in a time of monumental change, globally, socially, and technologically. If we think about children today; they are maturing more rapidly than in the past, are exposed to different substances in their environemts, and are persuaded by an increasing number of images in the media. As things around us change, we have to take that into consideration and reevalute what we are trying to achieve in education and the best way to do that. My interpretation of the article is to be critical and never stop looking for something better, because we can always do better.