hey all,
now that the calmail drama has subsided (for now), here is this week's blog prompt. please post a response no later than the final day of class on 12/1 by 11:59p.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html
Blog Questions:
Let’s have some fun with this one.
1. Watch Ken Robinson’s animated Changing Education Paradigms (approx. 11
minutes long).
2. Respond personally: First, what do you think of what he has to say?
Second, respond to the question posed by the person before you.
3. Use two references from ANY previous readings to support your
opinion/reaction.
4. Pose a question for the next student to respond to.
Blog week 13
ReplyDeleteI thought that the information was interesting, but I found myself getting bored. I’m glad there were interesting graphics to keep me involved and following what he said. I once heard you forget 95% of what you hear in lecture, but I will probably retain much more information when the message is reinforced with (stimulating) graphics. I appreciated that he questioned why we educate children by age groups. I suppose the answer is simple though: it’s easier. But what’s easy is not right for education. I appreciated his comments on group learning because at Cal, when you have curved classes, you isolate yourself from other students when you could potentially actually be learning a lot more due to interaction with other students. Theorists have argued that people learn best when they teach the subject in conjunction with reading and hearing a message. Why not get together in study groups and ‘teach’ each other materials for our tests? Oh that’s right, because the class is curved so we hope the person sitting next to us flunks (sad, right?).
I did not like his comments on ADHD nor his map. Here at Cal, for example, there are a LOT of people diagnosed with ADHD, whether medicated or not. His own point that children have an over stimulating environment is very true and lends itself to the argument that ADHD is on the rise and is not concentrated in particular areas.
Question: Why does the speaker refer to education as a production line?
References:
In this course we’ve discussed a lot about what is intelligence and how do we measure it? We’ve seen that classrooms use mainly the classics to evaluate, but many of the authors we’ve been reading advocate that we need to make education relevant to children’s lives. Children are more intelligent when measured on something other than standardized tests and assignments based on classics (Morell) (Hudley) (Gee) (Delpit). In this short animation, the narrator also quarrels with this notion of using the classics. He advocates more of an individualized approach and maintaining culture in the school system.
~Trinity Taylor
Watching Ken Robinson’s animated talk allowed me to gain a different perspective on the educational system. I really appreciated how Robinson went over the birth of education and how the foundations of this system were influenced by the enlightenment along with the industrial revolution. He also mentions how currently mostly every country is reforming education but they are doing it in a similar mentality as they have done it in the past where they are alienating and marginalizing certain people groups. He even takes it a step further by talking about how society promotes a belief where there are academic and non-academic people. This reminds me of one of the readings by MIke Rose titled “I Just Wanna be Average,” here we read about a man’s personal journey through the educational system. The reading reveals that many students go through the educational system where they “reject the confusion and frustration by openly defining yourself as the Common Joe”. Unfortunately, many of these non-academic are brilliant, but have been labeled by the educational system as not intellectual. Another big point that Robinson addressed was ADHD and the inability for schools to awake the senses, creating aesthetic experiences. Through readings by Tom Newkirk or even Elizabeth Ambe, we see how essential having creative and innovative educational material is to enhancing student learning. In Ambe’s reading she talks about how “to motivate reluctant readers, teachers must help students choose interesting reading materials and provide favorable instructional contexts”. Many times students do not pay attention to instructional material because the educational system does not see the importance of making the material pertain to the student’s interests; which produces more students to be identified as having ADHD.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Trinity Taylor’s question, Robinson makes this reference to the educational system being like a production line to show how often times students just go through the system as if they are on a factory line. The school itself is organized like a factory; with separate subjects, separate facilities, bell systems, and how kids are batched through age groups.
I would like to submit the question, is it possible to get out of this industrial educational model? and if so how?
Ken Robinson’s animated talk entitled “Changing Education Paradigms” does a very good job of briefly summarizing many of the main points that we have learned during the semester. The main point of Robinson’s talk is that the problem with the current education system is that it is outdated and does not meet the needs of today’s students since the education system used today was designed and conceived for a different age – the intellectual culture of the enlightenment during the industrial revolution. Robinson also compares the current education system to the model of industrialism by stating that the current education system is still organized like factory lines – ringing bells, separate facilities, students are batched by age group, and specialization into different subjects. Lastly, what Robinson means by changing the education paradigm is that the education system must go the exact opposite direction of standardization, standardization being the direction education is currently going as seen through the emergence of standardized tests.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the question of whether or not it is possible to get out of the current industrial educational model, I personally believe that the educational system will eventually grow out of the current industrial model. The more important question, however, is how long will it take for people to realize that the current education model is not working. Although there are many teachers today that are using non-traditional methodologies to create learning environments that are tailored to the needs of today’s students - such as the teachers found in Parker’s excerpt “Teaching Tech-Savvy Kids” who are bringing digital media into the classroom (756) – many teachers are still reluctant to use teaching methodologies that are different from the traditional methodologies they are used to, as seen in the “Oppression in Education” video we wrote about in last week’s blog . In addition, even if many teachers are attempting to use non-traditional methodologies in the classroom they must receive permission from the school’s administration to use these new methodologies, which may be difficult if the administrators are set on using the standardized and traditional methodologies. For this reason, it is important for people to come to a consensus that the current education system is flawed before we get out of the current industrial educational model. Furthermore, Robinson talks about the importance of allowing collaboration inside the classroom, which is similar to Freire’s argument of using the problem-posing model over the very problematic banking model that is widespread today.
Robinson also argues that the ADHD epidemic is a myth. The question I would like to ask the next student is whether or not they agree with Robinson’s views on the “ADHD epidemic”.
This video is excellent. I think it raises a lot of really great points that have long frustrated me about education. The points that most resonated with me are the ideas of education being geared toward one type of intelligence and the over diagnosis of students and children with ADHD. Many of the most intelligent people I have known have had mediocre grades because the kind of intelligence they posses is not tested in school. People can have incredible spatial perception and who really understand other people and what motivates their actions, but do not score well on the SAT. I’ve also seen people who can speak brilliantly on a topic but because they have difficulty expressing themselves in writing they test poorly. I disagree with Trinity. I really do think that many learning disorder diagnosis are a way for the education systems to avoid adapting to the student and rather label the student as abnormal and demand that they adjust to fit a single pre-cast mold. I like the speaker do not deny the existence of ADHD, but certainly agree with his critique of the way the education system diagnosis children with learning disorders and then deals with them.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Chole I think it is possible to get out of the industrial model. I think that thinkers like Freire and his proposal of the question posing model of education rather than the banking model, which is an element of the industrial model, and ideas like Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development are centered around alternatives to this model. Also many alternative schools already are trying to break the pattern of factory line education. I think though that in practical terms this would be a difficult and highly politicized shift to effect in our national education policy and if we are to see meaningful change it will come after a hard fought battle.
What do you think about the video’s discussion of divergent thinking? Do you see yourself using divergent thinking or struggling with it? Do you feel like education oppresses divergent thinking?
-Luke Edwards
I remember watching this video earlier this semester in another class and being quite fascinated by Ken Robinson's perspective on changing education paradigms. One of the things that were particularly striking to me was his comparison of students to factory workers. I do agree with him that the way school operate on a strict bell schedule is somewhat reminiscent of the way factories operate. Perhaps, it truly is time to modify our current education paradigm to something that is more fitting with modern times. If the prior education model was designed to meet the needs of the Industrial Revolution, it is only necessary to formulate new ways of thinking about education.
ReplyDeleteLuke (above me) brought up the idea of divergent thinking and I felt that this was quite a stimulating topic from this video. Since I work with preschool kids now, I know that they do have immense creative abilities that surpass that of most adults. However, the statistics in the video were still shocking to me --especially the fact that our ability to use divergent thinking diminishes greatly the longer we stay in the education system. This seems somewhat troubling, if after all, one of the main reasons for attending school is to be able to expand on the ideas of divergent thinking. I think that the education system can be oppressive of divergent thinking in some ways, particularly in situations where teachers act as "bankers" depositing knowledge into students, or "banks". As Freire puts it in his article "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", the banking model inhibits creativity and resists dialogue between teachers and students. Thus, it is important for teachers to have good communication with their students and allow for two-way dialogue in the classroom, so that students can express their own creativity. Also going along with a point that Robinson made that students are being forced to shut down their brains in a society that is as stimulating as ever, I think it is important to utilize modern ways of teaching by bringing digital media into the classroom. In Parker's piece on "Teaching Tech-Savy Kids", teachers are encouraged to introduce digital media into their instruction, but also to be conscious of ways that it can be used unproductively as well.
For the next person to answer: How do you feel about Ken Robinson's suggestion that student learning should mostly be in groups? Do you personally feel like you learn better when you work in groups or perform better working independently?
(Joyce Park)
When I first saw this video, I didn’t know what he was saying so I had to watch it again. I finally understood it and what he is trying to say is that public education fails to equip children for the present and the future with a system that revolves around the ideals of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. If we change the educational paradigm, more children would be more interested and prepared for the world. The educational system has a standard way of teaching, where only one answer is right. This does not allow other students who have different answers be right, therefore degrading their intelligence and labeling them as “stupid”. This video really brought together everything we’ve been learning in our class, and I can finally see what the education system fails to administer. The old way of learning does not work in today’s age, and therefore I can see that many teachers in our readings are trying to find ways that will make learning fun and interactive. On of our readings called, “ Teaching Tech-Savvy Kids” by Jessica K. Parker reveals ways of how teachers incorporate media production and technology in the curriculum. This allows more students to be critical analyzers rather than “receptacles” of information. Students need to be free agents of their learning, that way they are more involved in the curricula rather than being filled with information that they cannot relate to or make no sense of. That being said, Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” grasps the idea of the “banking” concept of education. Teachers teach the standard way of teaching, while students retain information without applying it to themselves or the real world. Therefore, Parker shows ways on how teachers can change that. To respond to Joyce Park’s question, I think that students learning in groups should be an option. I don’t always like working in groups because sometimes I feel like I am not on the same page as the others, and their ideas may be so grandiose that it's almost intimidating. I personally work better independently, but I would work in groups if I knew the people that way I am more comfortable sharing my ideas.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Robinson mentions that we should wake students up, how do you think we should wake them up?
We do live in a world that is over stimulated and loose attention easily. It is crazy that kids are so over medicated that they are diagnosed with ADHD. I think it’s interesting theory that most of this only comes from kids not being stimulated in school. Teachers are so concerned with teaching them the right way and teaching them things that will benefit them in the future and help our future as well, yet they loose sight what the kids need. It is not too surprising that kids cannot stay interested in. The arts are the things that give ascetic experience, rather than what the drugs give by shutting off senses. I like what he says about not letting them sleep. It goes with Freire’s theory of the banking model. In the classrooms information “filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation and knowledge is a misguided system” (Freire) and there is nothing to do with stimulating senses or creativity. Hull also gives examples of experiences that kids respond more to interactive things, not simply cramming in information. I think this is part of what will help children stay engaged.
ReplyDeletePrevious Question: Robinson mentions that we should wake students up, how do you think we should wake them up?
We need to wake students up by giving them information and activities that are engaging and they are interested in rather than giving them more information. They will wake up when they learn abou the world around them rather than information.
Question: What can we do to keep children more stimulated in a world buzzing with technology?
- Cassi Hoyt
I found this video to be extremely enlightening! The graphics illustrated the meaning of his message in a interesting way, and helped illuminate the idea that literacy and learning are not based on reading and writing, but are multi-modal in nature. Moreover, Robinson exposed a number of issues present in all schooling systems in a way that can be comprehended by and reflected upon by a variety of different people. Even those people who has deemed to be “non-academic” and “non-smart” based on their lack of academic success in a system that degrades them and their personal abilities.
ReplyDeleteI especially appreciated the moments in the video when he discussed students as “manufactured products” that are divided not by ability, but by age. This is not an aspect of the schooling system that I have ever thought to question. Why is it that students should be placed into categories based on their age, but no aspect of their maturity, creativity, or academic ability? Who does this system benefit?
Much like Trinity, I found Robinson’s stress on collaboration to be a poignant comment on the backwards system of learning here at Cal. As human beings, we learn and benefit most from working with our peers, yet in a college that is supposedly viewed as liberal and “forward-thinking” this type of collaboration is considered cheating. This point is reflected in Vygostsky and his concept of scaffolding. Working together in groups allows us the assistance and aid to surpass our current achievement to find our zone of proximal development.
I think we can turn to Parker’s article, “Teaching Tech-Savvy Kids” in order to keep children more stimulated in a world buzzing with technology. Implementing these different forms of technology in the classroom transforms them into arenas that are more relevant and increasingly fun, which I believe would encourage students to be more stimulated in the classroom.
Question: Robinson proves that standardized tests are not only unhelpful, but also detrimental to student success and overall well-being. Do you think there is a possible replacement for standardized testing? If so, what is it/are they?
This is about the second or third time that I have seen this video of Ken Robinson, but nonetheless it never gets old. I think what he says has a lot of relevance to the current issues with education. It covers some good key points that we have covered in class, the issues of the banking model of education and how it is outdated and dysfunctional for the current age. The education of today still follows the same paradigm as those first proposed in the Enlightenment period and the Industrial Revolution. However, times have changed and the incorporation of modern technology is often seen as a distraction rather than a form of literacy. Children are put on an assembly line, losing their own individuality. His argument renounces standardized testing as he examines divergent thinking. It is interesting to note the changes in genius level of kindergarteners and their future counterparts as teenagers. Robinson makes a good point that we all start at the same level, but what is to explain the gap between the age of five and the age of fifteen? His answer is the current educational system.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Robinson proves that standardized tests are not only unhelpful, but also detrimental to student success and overall well-being. Do you think there is a possible replacement for standardized testing? If so, what is it/are they?
I think there is a possibility of replacing standardized testing. As our readings have pointed out, there are many different forms of intelligences and the job of the teacher is to tap that potential within each of his or her students. Giving kids an outlet, such as dance in Katz’ article shows a change in children’s attitude about themselves and the way they handle tough situations. As Katz mentions, any form of activity besides the monotonous work that children in the classroom can work. Incorporating more of these ideas where knowledge is shown through action and body language rather than rote memorization can be a key unlocking children’s interest in education and the world around them. Furthermore, Rose’s own literacy autobiography shows that an inspirational teacher can garner divergent learning as Rose came to love writing. Testing students on these interests, rather than setting a “standard” or “average” can be another way of demonstrating a child’s intelligence. However, I feel it would be hard to implement since our education is so heavily rooted in a complex series of bureaucratic barriers that prohibit any kind of drastic change to the education system.
Question: ADHD has become a complex issue not only in psychology, but also in education. Do you agree with Robinson that aesthetic experience is the cure to the problem? If so, why and how can we implement it into the educational system?
After watching Ken Robinson’s animated Changing Education Paradigms, the first thing that interested me was the structure of his presentation. Similar to William Ayer’s “To Teach – the Journey, in Comics,” Robinson presented his lecture with both verbal and visual communication. Like Ayer’s piece, Robinson created a more, well rounded argument for his audience by catering to different forms of literacy. If someone is unable to understand the verbal aspect of his piece, they will be able to comprehend his argument by following his drawings and visa versa. In addition to the aesthetic characteristics of his presentation, I thought his argument was quite good. I liked how he addresses the idea that the old practices, methods, and incentives of our educational system need to be reformed in order to prepare students for a globalized economy. I agree with his thoughts about students working in groups rather than individually. As mentioned by Vygotsky in his “Interaction Between Learning and Development & the Prehistory of Written Language,” students increase their ‘zone of proximal development’ by working in groups. Through my experiences, I have noticed this theory to be accurate and I believe schools need to incorporate group work more in academia. As mentioned by Robinson, in the ‘real world’ group learning is called ‘collaboration’ not ‘cheating.’
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Robinson that ADHD can be solved with aesthetic experience. Although some students may be wrongly diagnosed with ADHD, those that have it cannot simply be cured with proper mental stimulation. For those students misdiagnosed, the teachers can actively engage them in the educational experience to ‘wake’ them up and get them excited about learning. This engagement may be done with either physical or mental, academic exercises.
Question: As Ken mentioned in his presentation, we educate children in batches, following a “production line mentality.” Ken believes we should not stress student standardization, but go in the ‘complete opposite direction.’ Do you agree or disagree with his argument? If you agree, how would you change the current educational system to incorporate Ken’s ideas? If you disagree, state why Ken’s argument needs revision?
I found Robinsons take interesting/unique. He related school to a production line, children are grouped according to age and separated to learn, placed in different areas for different subjects. The system is flawed. His notion of divergent thinking was particularly interesting. The study showed 98% of 5th graders were tested at the genius level of the divergent thinking scale and with time this has decreased dramatically. In school we are taught the “right answers” when there are multiple ways of interpretation. Thus this study illustrates we all have the capacity to excel in divergent thinking but education has hindered this by placing us in the confines institutionalized schooling. On this same line of thinking he mentions school forces us to learn alone, claiming group work is cheating. His stance on ADHD is something I would agree with. Children, uninterested and unchallenged often do act out, this doesn’t necessarily mean they have an attention disorder, maybe these children just need to be approached in school with a different method.
ReplyDeleteRobinson mentions that we should wake students up, in which I think he meant, engage them in learning. To use the things some discredit as distractions, like TV, technology and games in ways to harness education for students who are bored in the classroom. Newkirk illustrates how male children are often uninterested in much of the material at school, but shows how the use of games can be used to entice interests. Parker, further illustrated in her piece how various forms of digital media can be harnessed in the classroom to foster learning like youtube, various games, and even plays. Waking students up is a crucial matter current education system has not been able to resolve, students are unengaged and therefore unmotivated. We need to teach to their interest and to make learning fun, breaking form the model of school as mundane.
Question: Robinson mentions “the current system was designed and conceived for a different age” what do you feel are the most outdated aspects of the current education model? how could these aspects be transformed for the current time?
JoyceH
I found this video an interesting and stimulating one. Firstly I really liked the animation that went along with his talk. I found it much easier to engage with the material than if it had just been a clip of him standing in front of a podium speaking. I think before even delving into the subject matter that he covers it should be pointed out how even doing something as simple as adding animation to a lecture can make it so much easier to connect with, especially for visual learners. Robinson’s talk connected a lot with what we have been discussing in the class throughout the semester, and I think he makes a lot of interesting points about problems in the education system. Going along with comparing education to a production line, there is a parallel that can be draw with the banking system of education that the Freire article discussed. A system of education that seeks to pop out ‘finished products’ would certainly only need information to be dumped into students’ heads without any regard for the student really understanding the material at a deeper level. Also, he touches early on in his talk the topic of how students now are much more overloaded with sensory input than other generations. He talks about TV and video games and how students shouldn’t be punished for not being able to focus. Connecting back to the Parker article about bringing digital media into the classroom I think that Robinson would agree instead of considering students’ access to so much of this media a negative, a new system should be developed teaching students to learn to use it to their advantage in education.
ReplyDeleteI’ve heard before about how our education system was designed for a different time. Much of the time the argument is about how it was designed for a ‘traditional’ student with very little capacity to change to fit different students’ needs. It was created to educate the masses efficiently and produce people who could then perform in the professional world. I think that this is what is at the root of the problem of education now and is what needs to be changed. Education systems shouldn’t be designed for only one type of student since in reality there are many different types of students who learn different ways at different paces.
Question: Robinson talk about how now students are having difficulty seeing the point of going to school since a degree doesn’t assure students jobs in the future like it once did. This is a sad but true reality, and one that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Faced with this, could you recommend how to motivate students and help them to realize that education is still an important thing?
Interestingly, when I heard about how poor schools were performing or how kids were underperforming, I’ve wondered why the educational system has not changed. I asked myself the same questions Robinson asks. I asked who creates the questions that appear in standardized tests, and how can they (those in charge of assessments) expect kids nationwide to answer questions they are or are not familiar with? For instance, if a question talks about musical instruments, whether a piano has a string or not, how can a student who has not even seen or come close to a piano know that it is a string instrument? They won’t. And chances are it has not been discussed in school either. I guess Moll and Amanti’s article regarding “Funds of Knowledge for teaching is a good reference for educators to keep in mind when designing assessments in urban schools. Why are kids grouped by age when it does not mean they mature or learn the same way? As a parent, we don’t want to compare our own children so why do we compare one student with another? Also, the educational system can learn from Vygotsky’s concept that learning is social and using ‘play’ to learn. Learning will be so much more fun with play that students won’t find schooling boring. Kids have so much fun in after school programs because there is more play involved but at the same time they are learning.
ReplyDeleteHolly Porter posted before me. Although some kids may think that getting an education does not guarantee a job today, then what more if one is not educated? We live in a very competitive world and education definitely gives a person the edge. I’m a non-traditional student as they call it, but in reality, I realized that my 20 years of work experience will no longer get me a job I want because I am competing with college graduates. Now, combine a degree with the experience plus the network I make while in school, then I can be confident I’ll get a job after college.
After watching the video, as an aspiring educator, what changes in the system will you implement if you have the power to do so?
After watching Ken Robinson’s Changing Education Paradigms, the information provided was interesting not just for its content but also for its presentation. The historical background he gave of education, at first not being public because it was seen as a waste of time to teach people of the working class to read and write shows the connection between literacy and oppression. He furthered the comment by saying children of the working class were thought up as being “incapable of learning to read or write.” This comment closely resonated with the autobiography of Frederick Douglas. The political power endowed in literacy is seen as a way to marginalize members of society on the basis of race, class, gender, orientation...etc. The distinction he makes between there being two types of people: the smart and non-smart shows this division of people that justifies structures that oppress. In regards to Rosalie’s question, if I had the power to change something in the education system it would be to rid standardized testing. Standardized testing functions on the assumption that there aren’t differences present in the classroom. The power given to scores makes them a further detriment when they decide what schools you can/cannot get in or whether you can even get a high school diploma. I would also put more emphasis on education keeping up with changing times. Jessica Parker’s “Teaching Tech-Savvy Kids” shows the benefits of technology in the classroom in a way that has the potential to bring different results in students engagement in school. Ridding standardized testing would allow flexibility in the curriculum to where technology and other forms of literacy could be integrated without having to abide by the traditional way of teaching that is not relevant to our changing times.
ReplyDeleteQuestion:
Robinson brings forth a critique of divergent thinking decreasing with the student’s age, what would be a way of retaining this form of thinking in education?
I found “Changing Education Paradigms” very intriguing, and I thought Robinson posed some relevant questions about the current education system. The first point he made that stuck with me was regarding how to keep cultural identity within educational systems in different countries while also trying to bring in elements from other places in order to globalize. This reminds me of “Border Discourses and Identities in Transnational Youth Culture,” in which Lam discusses the contact zone proposed by Pratt in “Arts of the Contact Zone.” This is considered “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other.” Lam shows that literacy is something that can move across contact zones and that can involve various countries and traditions. The author talks about Willis, a Chinese boy living in America who loves reading Japanese comics and how he experienced multiculturalism.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point was what Robinson said regarding the most important thing being kids’ “date of manufacture,” and how we group students on age. I hadn’t thought about this before, but it does seem intriguing how grade level is emphasized, while other factors, such as intelligence level and emotional maturity aren’t. Honestly, I don’t see another way to go about grouping kids, other than by year, as other methods such as those mentioned prior would be way too subjective and likely to classify many more students incorrectly.
To answer Celene’s question, I think divergent thinking can be stressed in school by continually showing various methods to go about achieving a solution. Teachers should demonstrate that no one way of thinking is necessarily the right one and that thinking outside the box is a key component of growing and understanding the world. Though Robinson stresses that creativity and divergent thinking aren’t synonymous, I think that incorporating creative aspects of learning, hands-on experiments, new types of problem-solving, collaborative projects are all great ways to inspire students to retain this form of education.
Question: What do you think about Robinson’s claim that “education is modeled on the interests of industrialism?” Do you agree that learning shouldn’t start with the “production line mentality?”
The “Changing Education Paradigms” video brought a surprising and sad light to our educational system. The video gave a creative presentation on Ken Robinson’s talk that would have easily lost my attention had I listened to it in a lecture hall type setting. Ken Robinson, just like Paulo Freirie in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, reveals how ineffective the current education modern system, but Robinson does not just focus on the teacher student interaction. Instead, he cleverly shows how our system was once effective (so it was not just purposely made to advantage just a few) but only really for the beginning of the Enlightenment era, becoming an “industrial model”. This has created serious consequences for us now, as there is a very big gap between the rich and poor here. Robinson’s talk parallels nicely with Vgostky’s “zone of proximal development” by highlighting that some students do work in different settings (from big groups, to small groups, to just individual attention).
ReplyDeleteIn response to Samantha’s question about Robinson’s point of how education is modeled on the interests of industrialism, I think questioning it is a good point. What does he actually mean? After watching it again trying to get more of a hint, Robinson sort of mentions it, but does not really get into much detail. It could be that that particular education model caters to what a society about to enter an age of industrialization needed; perhaps at that time, it meant understanding some math, reading, and writing. But as society progressed, the standard bar rose, but still continued to be taught in a similar fashion. Robinson’s point about “production line mentality” made me realize even more that school’s do indeed do that, and I think it holds back much of the potential that many students have to learn many great things. That sort of mentality almost degrades students to simple robotic parts to a bigger machine, as if this was some sort of car manufacturing factory.
Question: What impact will this video have on people’s view of education? Will it spark any change? Are the “right” people even watching it?
From watching Ken Robinson’s video, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I was reminded of the Frantz Fanon’s article “Black Skin, White Masks,” and also of Frederick Douglas’ excerpt from his book, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, An American Slave. This stems from where he talks about how many people did not see a point in educating poorer children, because they believed they did not have the capacity to learn. This stemmed from the enlightenment type of thinking, that real intelligence derives from a certain type of deductive reasoning. They believed that there are academic, and non-academic people, which leads many smart people to believe they are not. Robinson’s video reminded me of of Fanon’s article because in Black Skin, White Masks” the the people from Africa were thought of as inferior intellectually because they did not fit into the standard of what Europeans, especially French Europeans considered to be traits of intellectualism. It also reminded me of Frederick Douglas’ except because he is a prime example of how anyone has the capacity to learn. Many people said that black people were naturally less intelligent that white people, but that obviously isn’t the case. Douglas’ except shows not only the capacity of person in his position to learn, but how extreme that capacity is. He was able to not only learn, but it was mostly self motivated and required a great deal of literacy of being able to navigate the world around him.
ReplyDeleteI think this video can and will change people's view on education. I felt that it nicely brings together many of the issues faced in education, and can greatly inform a person who has never questioned of thought about education in a critical manner. I think that the people watching it will usually be people with some sort of interest already in the area, however I think it's a video that can be easily spread to others on the internet.
Do you feel that having children of different ages in the same grade can bring about feelings of inferiority or self-doubt in children who are older than their peers?
Ken Robinson’s video is very compelling as well as it accessible. I really enjoyed it and was also able to show it to friends who aren’t taking a course on education and they were able to enjoy it and see the logic of it as well. One of the ideas that I found to be most crucial to the discussion of public education was the fact that it is basically structured in the same way it has been for a very long time, that being like a “factory.” He describes how one purpose of education, at least one that people are concerned with currently, is to show our kids how to “take their place” in the economy. This is of concern to most parents, though it is not always a question of just money issued, such as the parent quoted in The Silenced Dialogue: “My kids know how to be black—you all teach them how to be successful in the white man’s world.” This is why programs such as Kidnet that deal with literacy in the “new media age” are so important; our economy is globalized, and it’s an absolute necessity that students be literate in internet skills and things like social media, arguably the fastest growing marketing tool to date.
ReplyDeleteI have seen some of this during my volunteer hours with the kindergarteners, where there are a couple of children who were sent back to kindergarten and it doesn’t seem to be an issue at that young of an age. However I believe that it is possible that children who were older than their peers in the same grade could bring out feelings of inferiority, but I also agree with Robertson in that students should be grouped differently and according to their needs.
What do you think about the fact that the education system is so antiquated when compared to the ways that technology, communication, and competition have progressed so rapidly?
I think the TedTalk was very intriguing in that he mentioned how schools were not meant to be fit this day and age; the educational paradigm we have now was meant for the time period of the Industrial Revolution. It just really emphasizes how just our approach and philosophy towards education isn't the most beneficial towards are kids, not because it was never right in the first place, but because our times are changing. I thought it was also very interesting how he brought up that one of the ways that our times are changing is that kids don't have ADHD; rather, the environment we now live in is just so stimulating. We have to really get rid of the banking model of education that we see in schools nowadays and use the stimulants of the environment to create a more interactive environment. Like Vygotsky said and the video confirmed, education can't just be an individual effort; it must be collaborative and interactive.
ReplyDeleteI think that the education system is so antiquated even though our times are so modern and technologically advanced is because of the educational paradigm that has been set. People don't realize that the educational paradigm set in the 1700's don't apply as much anymore, and thus, people are more apt to try to stick to the old ways of education rather than try to adapt to times we now live in.
How do you think the educational paradigm has changed since the Industrial Revolution and why?