Paul W Bennett, a former Headmaster of the Halifax Grammar school, and director of Schoolhouse Consulting, has a pretty serious critique of 21st century learning. You can read his argument here.
It’s pretty clear that Mr. Bennett has done very little research on the topic of 21st century learning and is lumping all activities and people who do these activities into the same group. I’ve responded to his critique (which has to be moderated and so will not show up on his article any time soon) and will share my critique of his critique here:
Your chief complaints with the push toward 21st century learning seem to be with:
1. The assumption that more technology is necessarily a good thing in education.
2. That our education system is discarding that from its heritage which is good.
I am going to agree with you on the first of these complaints. There is lots of technology being pushed in schools which has no business being there. More technology does definitely not mean better teaching or learning is going on. To ignore technology completely in schools though is foolish. Pencils, paper, overheard projectors, photocopiers, all of these were once outlandish and new fangled technologies that eventually got adopted by schools. Computers are nothing new in this respect.
On the second complaint though, we disagree intensely. Heritage is never a good enough reason to keep a system intact. Our current education system was designed after the Prussian model of strict conformity and indoctrination of the working class to accept their lot in life, to be industrialized workers in a factory.
Where are the factories that we need to prepare our populace for? They are almost all gone, sent overseas. The vast majority of our populace will not work at jobs which require the kind of numbing of self that the industrialized age required. Instead, they will likely work at jobs which require them to use their creative abilities and ability to collaborate with each other.
Why are you fixated on teaching content over skills? Some content is incredibly useful, and needs to be in place to give context to the world. However, much content is radically transforming. How many planets are there orbiting our sun now? What elements are necessary for the formation of life? Both of the answers to these questions have changed in the last 3 years, but most sources of content still contain the incorrect answers 9 and "carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur" to the previous question.
If you do not have the ability to learn and process new information yourself (ie. you have the SKILL of learning new things independently) then you will never keep up with the changes that occur naturally (and more frequently) in our knowledge base.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that these three issues: "soft student-centred pedagogy, classroom info-tainment, and nurturing the self-esteem of students" are not necessarily all nicely packaged up together as you suggest, and to assume that they are necessarily intertwined is illogical.
I would like to make it clear that you do not speak for all independent educators. We have been teaching the International Baccalaureate PYP, MYP, and DP for a few years now in our small independent school, which are all based on "soft" student centred approach to education, and have a history of 40 years behind them. Oh, and they are favoured by most Canadian Universities, as they produce kids who are successful at university.
In many ways, Mr. Bennett’s critique is quite insulting, as he somehow assumes that we are all marching quite blindly forward without consideration to the path we are on. He also makes the very strange assumption that a historical adherence to what we did in the past in education is better than looking at making changes in education to keep current with a very rapidly changing world. If we continued to teach like the "good old days" then we’d still be beating kids with wooden paddles and chanting out multiplication tables in unison, to help prepare our kids for the drudgery of the factories.
Michelle Baldwin says:
Thank you SO much for writing this response! I skimmed through Bennett’s article and had the exact same reaction. It’s interesting to me how short-sighted and critical some people are, yet they seem to be the ones who make the most noise.
April 15, 2011 — 9:46 pm
Chris K says:
I really wish more schools would adopt the Student-Centred approach that the IB (PYP,MYP and DP) program does. My wife teaches grade 6 in a PYP program, and I must say that the critical thinking and problem solving skills of students that come from these programs are exceptional. Teaching kids ways of approaching problems and independently figuring out personal strategies is SOOO much a better life skill than the rote instruction and “I am the expert” approach that is still, unfortunately, prevalent in our schools – ESPECIALLY in Div III and IV. I had an interesting discussion with my Grade 10 daughter taking a junior-level AP Biology class. They were studying the Carson-Benson cycle and Photosynthesis. The teacher “instructed” them on the cycle. All of the required information was passed on to them. Everyone obediently sat and took notes – this is, after all, just something you need to memorize – right? My daughter, being the type that needs to know “Why”, went the the instructor after class and launch a number of questions at him related to why certain chemical reactions were taking place, etc. Exasperated, he finally told her that she was asking questions that would be covered in a University Level course and, if he answered her questions, it would just confuse her for her upcoming exam. Isn’t this the very type of thinking that we want from our students? Is the memorization of a cycle that can be looked up in a plethora of books important, or is opening up the inquiring nature of our students minds and encouraging them to look toward a deeper understanding more important.
In terms of the use of technology, it is here to stay. The computing power of the cash till at the local McDonalds is greater than the computers many of us were using when we were students. The use of technology in our classrooms provides a way of tapping into a medium that students of today are familiar and comfortable with. The last thing that we, as educators, need to be doing is powering down our students when they walk into our schools! The world is an open book to kids – until the walk into a school, and that is a shame. However, we still need to address the needs of each student. Not all are comfortable working in that medium – student differentiation becomes even more important. If a student needs to use lower-tech approaches to be successful in their learning, then those tools should continue to be considered and offered. I like to use the example of forcing a student to use a calculator, when that student can solve complex math problems in his/her head – crazy. I have witnessed schools, in their haste to maximize the use of technology, looking at the tools they have available and then try and “crowbar” student instruction. Truly, the adage from the Assistive Technology world that I come from of “Task before Tool” applies here as well.
April 15, 2011 — 11:16 pm
Agnes says:
A great rebuttal to Bennett’s article. A debate on student vs teacher centered articles is also taking place here: http://www.ourkids.net/blog/why-classrooms-should-be-teacher-centred-9646/ What are your thoughts on which is better? Should classrooms be focused on adopting to every child’s individual needs, or do students need to work on learning.
Just a note, the original Paul Bennett article has been moved to this location:http://www.dialogueonline.ca/the-case-against-21st-century-schools/1869/
@AgnesStawicki
@OurKidsNet
May 3, 2011 — 12:16 pm