Wolves, sheep, educators
An Article in Investigate Magazine entitled “When the wolf is in charge of the sheep” (sorry there is no link to the article yet) written by Amy Brooke caught my attention today. Through her article she quotes Roy Kelley headmaster of King’s College.
She is talking about the use of technology in the classroom, perhaps the type to Online learning experience challenged by Roger Schank? but more likely, I suspect, the general implementation of laptops and computers into classroom teaching.
She says:
“But they are too conveniently replacing genuine teaching, as is the overuse of setting so-called projects – for students theoretically to teach themselves.”
I’m not sure if she is reporting from
New Zealand or somewhere else as my experience of technology in the classroom has always been an extra to, not a replacement or an enhancement of, traditional teaching. For which I have encountered resistance to this approach in the schools I have worked. The picture one paints as you read this section is of a school system on the cutting edge; latest technology, dipping with funding, hardly my experience.
She goes onto to say:
“In the hands of mediocre teachers their over-use is a smoke-and-mirrors practice, avoiding actual direct teaching, and replacing that centuries old practice of a genuinely knowledgeable teacher enthusing an interested class.”
A few points about this statement jumped up and slapped me in the face.
Firstly, she does not mention the potential of technology in the hands of gifted and talented teachers.
Secondly, the avoidance of direct teaching (or “deliberate acts of teaching” as Atol and literacy advisors would say) is impossible in the current climate of my school and no doubt schools around our nation.
Thirdly she assumes that the centuries old practice was a) good in its time and b) relevant for today.
Lastly she talks about ‘genuinely knowledgeable teacher enthusing an interested class’ with no enlightenment as to how a teacher is to achieve that ‘interested class’ because I can say from my own experience that interested classes are no-longer, if they ever were, gifted to us from the gods. It takes care, attention to the individual, thoughtfulness, concern, and a genuine love for the kids and the job in hand before you even think about what knowledge imparting we’re supposed to be doing. The old cliché will be forever true: “Kids don’t care what you know, until they know you care.”
What has that to do with whether or not a new entrant has an IWB in their room or a year three can share their work via blog or a wiki, or if a 16 year old is collaborating on a project with people around the world. Nothing is the answer.
Addressing the ‘technology in the classroom’ question is all about preparing students for the myriad of jobs they will have in their lifetime, some of which we haven’t even thought of yet. No one is saying that Literacy and Numeracy are to take a back seat to the education in computer technology, those things remain important.
What I think is being said is that remembering:
1. Finding the World’s First Dinosaur Skeleton
2.Knowing the kings of England- IN ORDER
3. Telling the legend of how the kiwi lost its wings
Are no longer required as they are only one Google search away.
This makes me think of the quote by (I think it was Trevor Bond) about ineffective teachers + technology = expensive ineffective teachers. I really value the ICTPD programme being run in NZ because the focus is on effective learning and teaching, when teachers develop a creative, supportive, collaborative classroom environment then the use of technology in that room takes on a whole new direction. It is not about technology for technologies sake but about creating and innovating and learning together. Why is it that we seem to be able to find so many articles in the negative about what is happening in our rooms, let’s celebrate the positive, the teacher who makes her first powerpoint that doesn’t have bullet points