Farson, R. (1996). Management of the Absurd. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Summary: Like life, management is a series of paradoxes, according to Richard Farson. In Management of the Absurd, Farson discusses the many assumptions about management and leadership, and then contradicts each assumption. He begins by discussing that the any one truth may have an opposite that is also true, and goes on from there. His general opinion seems to be that leaders are born, not taught, and that no amount of training or technique can necessarily help a person lead. However, an education, rather than training, can mold a person to become more visionary and to have a greater perspective, and therefore be a better leader. He cites the paradox that although “participative management,” where the workers are involved in the decision making, “is widely agreed to be effective, [but] is seldom put in to practice.” He also cites that “most often what gets organizations in to trouble are the faulty leadership styles, poor internal relationships, and managerial blind spots.” Yet, he goes on to discuss that all leadership styles really do work because most people will try their best to get their jobs done no matter what kind of leadership they have. He leaves us with no answers, just more questions- intentionally.
Reflection: Being a very analytical and practical thinker, this book was very difficult for me to comprehend at first. It wasn’t until I finished the book, and “let it simmer” that it began to make any sense to me. It took several perusals of my highlights and notes, before I was fully able to make the connections I needed to relate Farson’s strange ideas to my personal situation, as a member of an organization and as a potential leader. In his very round-a-bout way, he still mentions the qualities of a great leader:
• the ability to elicit the intelligence and participation of group members
• serves rather than dominates
• helps the group stay focused
• humility
• a counselor and confidant
• confident in their institution
• trust their gut reactions
• Visionary
• Strategic thinkers
• Caring community builders
Quotes:
“Ultimately, people discover who we are and come to regard us as we regard them.” (37)
Effective leaders “see a bigger picture. They trust the wisdom of the group. Their strength is not in control alone, but in other qualities—passion, sensitivity, tenacity, patience, courage, firmness, enthusiasm, wonder.” (38)
Re: communication: “It’s crucial that we listen to the music as well as the lyrics.” (58)
Re: invisible lessons: “We never forgot these lessons, because they were taught not as part of the actual curriculum but rather by the ritual or form of education.” (59)
“…people are more likely to change when we reverse the flow of communication, that is, when people are not talked at but when they themselves have a chance to talk.” (62)
“But to learn from experience means that we have to process it in some way that makes it available to us. We have to analyze it. …. Many “who have been on the job for thirty years don’t necessarily have thirty years experience--- they have more like one year experience, thirty times.” (116-117)
“I bet the people who do that job best leave rake marks.: (165)
Questions:
1. If there are no techniques that work for management, or, if all techniques for management work, why have management at all?
2. What is the point of this book, really??
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The End of Education, Neil Postman, Random House, 1995
The End of Education, Neil Postman, Random House 1995
Neil Postman discusses education based in two aspects; narratives and “gods”. Narratives drive our underlying belief systems while the gods are the invisible leaders driving the education system. He discusses how the gods have misled us down the wrong roads in our American education system. He states that” our public schools are state run agencies and have no license to reconstruct society on their own authority.”(59) He discusses how schools reflect society but yet are lacking due to the gods of Economic Utility, Consumership, Technology, and Separatism. It is the narratives, he states that drive today’s educational belief system and can lead to the destruction of schools as we know it if we are not cautious and attentive.
He offers his solutions and his suggestions for change through five separate narratives; The SPACESHIP Earth, The Fallen Angel, The American Experiment, The Law of Diversity and The Word Weavers/ The World Makers. Throughout each narrative he uses anecdotes to stimulate the reader into imagining student learning happening within a variety of scenarios and how it connects with societies.
Reflection- Even though Postman had me intrigued at many different points, I had a difficult time grasping the idea behind the gods and narratives. At times he would go off onto tangents it was difficult to stay focused on his main point. I loved the fact that he challenges his reader to question, or almost argue against his point of view. He forces you to imagine a very non traditional world where learning takes place, but always brings you back to his motive. He wants people to question why we do what we do in our schools and what purpose does this serve. He keeps reminding the reader that educations must be about more than the classroom, that it serves a more important purpose in creating a globally aware citizen.
Quotes-
“…our public schools are state run agencies and have no license to reconstruct society on their own authority…Schools, we might say, are mirrors of social belief, giving back what citizens put in front of them.”(59)
“…America is not so much a culture as it is an economy, and that the vitality of any nation’s economy rests on high standards of achievement and rigorous discipline in schools.”(28)
“Students should not play life or merely study it, while the community supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from beginning to end. How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living?”(Thoreau, 94)
Questions- If schools mirror society, what does this say about the current state of education and where the future might be going?
What do we need to do to change education so that we can balance the experiment of living with our nation’s capitalistic drive?
Neil Postman discusses education based in two aspects; narratives and “gods”. Narratives drive our underlying belief systems while the gods are the invisible leaders driving the education system. He discusses how the gods have misled us down the wrong roads in our American education system. He states that” our public schools are state run agencies and have no license to reconstruct society on their own authority.”(59) He discusses how schools reflect society but yet are lacking due to the gods of Economic Utility, Consumership, Technology, and Separatism. It is the narratives, he states that drive today’s educational belief system and can lead to the destruction of schools as we know it if we are not cautious and attentive.
He offers his solutions and his suggestions for change through five separate narratives; The SPACESHIP Earth, The Fallen Angel, The American Experiment, The Law of Diversity and The Word Weavers/ The World Makers. Throughout each narrative he uses anecdotes to stimulate the reader into imagining student learning happening within a variety of scenarios and how it connects with societies.
Reflection- Even though Postman had me intrigued at many different points, I had a difficult time grasping the idea behind the gods and narratives. At times he would go off onto tangents it was difficult to stay focused on his main point. I loved the fact that he challenges his reader to question, or almost argue against his point of view. He forces you to imagine a very non traditional world where learning takes place, but always brings you back to his motive. He wants people to question why we do what we do in our schools and what purpose does this serve. He keeps reminding the reader that educations must be about more than the classroom, that it serves a more important purpose in creating a globally aware citizen.
Quotes-
“…our public schools are state run agencies and have no license to reconstruct society on their own authority…Schools, we might say, are mirrors of social belief, giving back what citizens put in front of them.”(59)
“…America is not so much a culture as it is an economy, and that the vitality of any nation’s economy rests on high standards of achievement and rigorous discipline in schools.”(28)
“Students should not play life or merely study it, while the community supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from beginning to end. How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living?”(Thoreau, 94)
Questions- If schools mirror society, what does this say about the current state of education and where the future might be going?
What do we need to do to change education so that we can balance the experiment of living with our nation’s capitalistic drive?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Disrupting Class
Christensen, C., Horn, M., Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting Class. New York: McGraw-Hill
Summary:
“Why haven’t computers brought about a transformation in schools the way the have in other areas of life? “ The authors question really is the basis for many of the theories and ideas brought forth in this book. The computer only been used as another tool or station but has not made teaching or learning advance in any significant direction. The text also theorizes about how new technologies should be customized to fit students various learning needs through software and hardware.
Disruptive innovation is also a major discussion and how it applies to the public education system. This is a process in which companies create products that may already exist but they tweak them to fit to consumers who are not yet buying into the market. The process works so well because it begins to offer choice to consumers whom otherwise would have non other. The book discusses how to connect this idea with the current educational system and what the roles of teachers, administrators, and districts would ultimately become.
Another main topic discussed is how changing the role of technology can affect public schools. The theory is that technology will replace the monolithic methods of teaching with computer-based and student-centric learning. Assessments will come from the amount of material a student understands and covers at their own pace and learning style, not on standardized assessment. The teacher will then be able to facilitate rather then dictate lessons, spend more one on one time with students, and manage a larger number of students within the classroom.
Reflection:
With the current budget crisis on hand and no end is sight the idea of this student-centric technology sounds wonderful and intriguing. I think that the authors have many valid points and that they show useful tools to begin this reform effort within our public education system.
We know that students learn better at heir own pace and style but I didn’t see any hard evidence that his disruptive innovation will take over our schools any time soon and relieve the situation of individualizing a students education.
One idea I really thought was concrete in the book was the thought of power and separation. We can begin to customize leaning for students through other roles and means if not through the immediate means of disruptive innovation. For example: by using charters, schools within schools, inter-district transfers (with out the hassle of fighting over student attendance and monies lost), students can have a choice of what school to attend according to their own needs, necessities, and interests.
What also came to mind while reading the text was how long and hard people have been fighting against the traditional system and how unwilling they are to change it. A business would have never succeeded under the same plan that schools operate under. Students, parents and communities need to continue to support the demand for innovating schools and ideas as we are beginning to see a shift in the system. Students are reaching their goals through online classes in areas that their district fails to offer because of budget, size, need, etc. No one is saying eradicate the traditional school structure entirely but be open to new ideas and concepts that might actually improve student learning and intelligence (refer to the quote by Gardner below] at the same time, what a concept that would be.
Quotes:
What is unique about public schools is that laws and regulations make them a virtual monopoly, which makes it difficult and sometimes impossible for new business models to compete on new measures. (51)
How Gardner defines intelligence:
The ability to solve problems that one encounters in real life.
The ability to generate new problems to solve.
The ability to make something or offer a service valued within the community. (25)
Schools use computers as a tool and a topic, not as a primary instructional mechanism that helps students learn in ways that are customized to their type of intelligence. (81)
We estimate that at least 80 percent of the typical teacher’s time is now spent in monolithic activity preparing to teach, actually teaching, and testing an entire class. Far less than 20 percent is available to help students individually. (111) Aaaah! Break that own between thirty students and individualism is virtually obsolete!
“At every crossway on the road that leads to the future each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past.” (112) I love this quote!
Innovative charter schools could answer a problem that districts have left unaddressed-finding school models that fit particular students’ circumstances. (210)
Questions:
If this type of student-centric learning does become available what does it do to the socialization of the classroom and student interactions with the teacher?
Wouldn’t a large gap of inequality exist within districts that can’t afford the new student-centric technology as soon as others?
How would this technology affect teachers who are veterans and don’t have extensive technological training?
The problem now is that textbooks and software programs are already selected by “certain” learning types of individuals, would this be the same process for selecting student-centric learning modules?
Summary:
“Why haven’t computers brought about a transformation in schools the way the have in other areas of life? “ The authors question really is the basis for many of the theories and ideas brought forth in this book. The computer only been used as another tool or station but has not made teaching or learning advance in any significant direction. The text also theorizes about how new technologies should be customized to fit students various learning needs through software and hardware.
Disruptive innovation is also a major discussion and how it applies to the public education system. This is a process in which companies create products that may already exist but they tweak them to fit to consumers who are not yet buying into the market. The process works so well because it begins to offer choice to consumers whom otherwise would have non other. The book discusses how to connect this idea with the current educational system and what the roles of teachers, administrators, and districts would ultimately become.
Another main topic discussed is how changing the role of technology can affect public schools. The theory is that technology will replace the monolithic methods of teaching with computer-based and student-centric learning. Assessments will come from the amount of material a student understands and covers at their own pace and learning style, not on standardized assessment. The teacher will then be able to facilitate rather then dictate lessons, spend more one on one time with students, and manage a larger number of students within the classroom.
Reflection:
With the current budget crisis on hand and no end is sight the idea of this student-centric technology sounds wonderful and intriguing. I think that the authors have many valid points and that they show useful tools to begin this reform effort within our public education system.
We know that students learn better at heir own pace and style but I didn’t see any hard evidence that his disruptive innovation will take over our schools any time soon and relieve the situation of individualizing a students education.
One idea I really thought was concrete in the book was the thought of power and separation. We can begin to customize leaning for students through other roles and means if not through the immediate means of disruptive innovation. For example: by using charters, schools within schools, inter-district transfers (with out the hassle of fighting over student attendance and monies lost), students can have a choice of what school to attend according to their own needs, necessities, and interests.
What also came to mind while reading the text was how long and hard people have been fighting against the traditional system and how unwilling they are to change it. A business would have never succeeded under the same plan that schools operate under. Students, parents and communities need to continue to support the demand for innovating schools and ideas as we are beginning to see a shift in the system. Students are reaching their goals through online classes in areas that their district fails to offer because of budget, size, need, etc. No one is saying eradicate the traditional school structure entirely but be open to new ideas and concepts that might actually improve student learning and intelligence (refer to the quote by Gardner below] at the same time, what a concept that would be.
Quotes:
What is unique about public schools is that laws and regulations make them a virtual monopoly, which makes it difficult and sometimes impossible for new business models to compete on new measures. (51)
How Gardner defines intelligence:
The ability to solve problems that one encounters in real life.
The ability to generate new problems to solve.
The ability to make something or offer a service valued within the community. (25)
Schools use computers as a tool and a topic, not as a primary instructional mechanism that helps students learn in ways that are customized to their type of intelligence. (81)
We estimate that at least 80 percent of the typical teacher’s time is now spent in monolithic activity preparing to teach, actually teaching, and testing an entire class. Far less than 20 percent is available to help students individually. (111) Aaaah! Break that own between thirty students and individualism is virtually obsolete!
“At every crossway on the road that leads to the future each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past.” (112) I love this quote!
Innovative charter schools could answer a problem that districts have left unaddressed-finding school models that fit particular students’ circumstances. (210)
Questions:
If this type of student-centric learning does become available what does it do to the socialization of the classroom and student interactions with the teacher?
Wouldn’t a large gap of inequality exist within districts that can’t afford the new student-centric technology as soon as others?
How would this technology affect teachers who are veterans and don’t have extensive technological training?
The problem now is that textbooks and software programs are already selected by “certain” learning types of individuals, would this be the same process for selecting student-centric learning modules?
The End of Education
Postman, Neil. (1995). The end of education: redefining the value of school. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Summary:
Neil Postman offers a discussion of what the value of the American public educational system is and should be. Postman refers to these values as “narratives”. He begins by evaluating the purpose of values or “gods” in life, culture and schools. Postman argues “without a purpose, schools are houses of detention, not attention” (Postman, 7). According to the book, the current three “gods” of education are: Economic Utility, Consumership, and Technology. The gods of Economic Utility and Consumership prepare students for the life they will have as an adult (to make money, to buy things) and the god of Technology creates an educational world outside the classroom that schools fail to utilize as a powerful resource. Postman offers his own suggestions about what the value of school should be by focusing on a narrative that speaks to the true value of humanity. In part two of the book, he discusses what he believes should be the fundamental teachings of public education. One of these includes viewing the world as “Spaceship Earth” which Postman explains would elicit a since of world ownership in students. If our youth saw themselves as part of a collective whole, they would be more willing to work together towards environmental issues, peace, etc. Postman also offers a curriculum based on the “Fallen Angel” approach: teach subjects by first teaching their histories. Through an examination of human trial, error, and ever changing thought, we can truly examine what “humanity” is and learn that mistakes are inevitable. Postman addresses the issue of diversity in education by communicating the importance of teaching culture through the history of American English and concludes his discussion with thoughts on the English language in general.
My Response:
Honestly, it took me a while to “get into” this book. Postman frequently switches back and forth between deep philosophical discussion and sarcastic comments which caused me to stop a few times and examine whether he was being serious or offering commentary on a current (usually political) situation. Style aside, I was struck by Postman’s ability to pinpoint the current value of our public educational system. During this reading, I asked a few students what they felt the purpose of education was… all responded in some way that echoed Postman’s theory: school is about job preparation and getting kids ready to make money. My concern with the solutions offered in the book is that these are passions of Postmans’, but not necessarily matters that most people would find essential or even necessary. I am curious to know how he envisioned public schools operating from a management level to better understand his ideas of how schools would function. Postman’s book reminds me of a recent conversation our entire staff had about a decision to “go charter”. After discussing many concerns over job security, etc., we finally started to talk about the meat “charter”: what could we do differently? Although the charter conversation was quickly dropped, it brought up a huge question, what was the vision for our school? I feel in many ways that although I’m not in total agreement with Postman, he brings up the same question, what is the vision for our schools?
Noteworthy:
“All children enter school as question marks and leave as periods… Someone obviously feels that the American Creed is an exclamation point, a finished product, a settled issue… I propose, then, the story of America as an experiment, a perpetual and fascinating question mark… The only thing we have to fear is that someone will insist on putting in an exclamation point when we are not yet finished” (70-74).
“I would suggest a different metaphor: teachers as error detectors who hope to extend the intelligence of students by helping them reduce the mistakes in their knowledge and skills” (120).
“There is nothing more human than the stories of our errors and how we have managed to overcome them, and then fallen into error again, and continued our efforts to make corrections- stories without end” (124).
“I am keeping in mind that the purpose of public education is to help the young transcend individual identity by finding inspiration in the story of humanity” (171).
Questions:
Clarifying: Why did Postman choose to refer to the values of education as “narratives”? I suppose he wanted to reinforce the idea that they are an ever changing “story”, however the term confused me…
Postman writes “Free human dialogue, wandering wherever the agility of the mind allows, lies at the heart of education” (27), however he recommends/suggests/demands that students learn certain things presented by specific people… won’t his suggestions simply become the new set of “standards”? Where does he propose “wandering minds” fit into his picture of education?
Summary:
Neil Postman offers a discussion of what the value of the American public educational system is and should be. Postman refers to these values as “narratives”. He begins by evaluating the purpose of values or “gods” in life, culture and schools. Postman argues “without a purpose, schools are houses of detention, not attention” (Postman, 7). According to the book, the current three “gods” of education are: Economic Utility, Consumership, and Technology. The gods of Economic Utility and Consumership prepare students for the life they will have as an adult (to make money, to buy things) and the god of Technology creates an educational world outside the classroom that schools fail to utilize as a powerful resource. Postman offers his own suggestions about what the value of school should be by focusing on a narrative that speaks to the true value of humanity. In part two of the book, he discusses what he believes should be the fundamental teachings of public education. One of these includes viewing the world as “Spaceship Earth” which Postman explains would elicit a since of world ownership in students. If our youth saw themselves as part of a collective whole, they would be more willing to work together towards environmental issues, peace, etc. Postman also offers a curriculum based on the “Fallen Angel” approach: teach subjects by first teaching their histories. Through an examination of human trial, error, and ever changing thought, we can truly examine what “humanity” is and learn that mistakes are inevitable. Postman addresses the issue of diversity in education by communicating the importance of teaching culture through the history of American English and concludes his discussion with thoughts on the English language in general.
My Response:
Honestly, it took me a while to “get into” this book. Postman frequently switches back and forth between deep philosophical discussion and sarcastic comments which caused me to stop a few times and examine whether he was being serious or offering commentary on a current (usually political) situation. Style aside, I was struck by Postman’s ability to pinpoint the current value of our public educational system. During this reading, I asked a few students what they felt the purpose of education was… all responded in some way that echoed Postman’s theory: school is about job preparation and getting kids ready to make money. My concern with the solutions offered in the book is that these are passions of Postmans’, but not necessarily matters that most people would find essential or even necessary. I am curious to know how he envisioned public schools operating from a management level to better understand his ideas of how schools would function. Postman’s book reminds me of a recent conversation our entire staff had about a decision to “go charter”. After discussing many concerns over job security, etc., we finally started to talk about the meat “charter”: what could we do differently? Although the charter conversation was quickly dropped, it brought up a huge question, what was the vision for our school? I feel in many ways that although I’m not in total agreement with Postman, he brings up the same question, what is the vision for our schools?
Noteworthy:
“All children enter school as question marks and leave as periods… Someone obviously feels that the American Creed is an exclamation point, a finished product, a settled issue… I propose, then, the story of America as an experiment, a perpetual and fascinating question mark… The only thing we have to fear is that someone will insist on putting in an exclamation point when we are not yet finished” (70-74).
“I would suggest a different metaphor: teachers as error detectors who hope to extend the intelligence of students by helping them reduce the mistakes in their knowledge and skills” (120).
“There is nothing more human than the stories of our errors and how we have managed to overcome them, and then fallen into error again, and continued our efforts to make corrections- stories without end” (124).
“I am keeping in mind that the purpose of public education is to help the young transcend individual identity by finding inspiration in the story of humanity” (171).
Questions:
Clarifying: Why did Postman choose to refer to the values of education as “narratives”? I suppose he wanted to reinforce the idea that they are an ever changing “story”, however the term confused me…
Postman writes “Free human dialogue, wandering wherever the agility of the mind allows, lies at the heart of education” (27), however he recommends/suggests/demands that students learn certain things presented by specific people… won’t his suggestions simply become the new set of “standards”? Where does he propose “wandering minds” fit into his picture of education?
C. Christensen, M. Horn, & C. Johnson (2008). Disrupting Class. New York: McGraw-Hill
Summary:
In this book, the authors examine why our schools are not doing well in their journey to educate our students. Various factors were presented, and despite measures to improve schools, there has been limited or no gains academically as measured by standardized tests. The authors believe that the root causes are based on the way schools teach their students, that we must move away from monolithic instruction towards a more modular, student-centric approach. To do this there must be an innovative disruption. We cannot improve upon what is already in place rather there must be a completely new and different way to customize instruction. Adding more to an already existing structure, rather then having a new model of education in place, will not allow for the change that needs to occur. They believe this change can happen if software is developed that takes into account the learning styles and intelligence of the students.
Reflection:
While many of the ideas presented have validity, that students learn in different ways and need to be taught in their learning style, I find it difficult to see a school where students sit at computers most of the day, and the teacher’s role is only to coach. So much more goes on in a day, coaching, counseling, problem solving, nurturing, etc.
The idea that an innovative disruption must occur to improve our system, rather than sustaining innovation that currently exists, makes sense. Schools currently add more to their existing structures rather then approaching them in a completely new way. This tends to overburden teachers and the expectations rather then motivating them, which is the catalyzing ingredient for every successful innovation.
Quotes:
“Motivation is the catalyzing ingredient for every successful innovation. The same is true for learning.” (7)
“Because there are so many points of interdependence within the public school system, there are powerful economic forces in place to standardize both instruction and assessment despite what we know to be true – students learn in different ways.” (34)
“… here is the dilemma: because students have different types of intelligence, learning styles, varying paces, and starting points, all students have special learning needs.” (34)
“… society has moved the goal posts on schools and imposed upon them new measures of performance. …. Society has asked schools to pursue the new metric of improvement from within the existing organization, which was designed to improve along the old performance metric.” (51)
“Disruptive innovation requires targeting not those courses that the public schools want to teach in house. They must instead focus on courses that the public schools would be relieved not to have to teach, but do feel the need to offer.” (103)
“ … schools similarly acquired the character of ‘fixed time, variable learning’” (110)
Questions:
How are you using technology in your classroom? Do you feel it is effective?
Do any of your students take courses online? If so, what are they taking and why?
In this book, the authors examine why our schools are not doing well in their journey to educate our students. Various factors were presented, and despite measures to improve schools, there has been limited or no gains academically as measured by standardized tests. The authors believe that the root causes are based on the way schools teach their students, that we must move away from monolithic instruction towards a more modular, student-centric approach. To do this there must be an innovative disruption. We cannot improve upon what is already in place rather there must be a completely new and different way to customize instruction. Adding more to an already existing structure, rather then having a new model of education in place, will not allow for the change that needs to occur. They believe this change can happen if software is developed that takes into account the learning styles and intelligence of the students.
Reflection:
While many of the ideas presented have validity, that students learn in different ways and need to be taught in their learning style, I find it difficult to see a school where students sit at computers most of the day, and the teacher’s role is only to coach. So much more goes on in a day, coaching, counseling, problem solving, nurturing, etc.
The idea that an innovative disruption must occur to improve our system, rather than sustaining innovation that currently exists, makes sense. Schools currently add more to their existing structures rather then approaching them in a completely new way. This tends to overburden teachers and the expectations rather then motivating them, which is the catalyzing ingredient for every successful innovation.
Quotes:
“Motivation is the catalyzing ingredient for every successful innovation. The same is true for learning.” (7)
“Because there are so many points of interdependence within the public school system, there are powerful economic forces in place to standardize both instruction and assessment despite what we know to be true – students learn in different ways.” (34)
“… here is the dilemma: because students have different types of intelligence, learning styles, varying paces, and starting points, all students have special learning needs.” (34)
“… society has moved the goal posts on schools and imposed upon them new measures of performance. …. Society has asked schools to pursue the new metric of improvement from within the existing organization, which was designed to improve along the old performance metric.” (51)
“Disruptive innovation requires targeting not those courses that the public schools want to teach in house. They must instead focus on courses that the public schools would be relieved not to have to teach, but do feel the need to offer.” (103)
“ … schools similarly acquired the character of ‘fixed time, variable learning’” (110)
Questions:
How are you using technology in your classroom? Do you feel it is effective?
Do any of your students take courses online? If so, what are they taking and why?
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Book of Learning and Forgetting
Smith, F. (1998). The book of learning and forgetting. New York: Teachers College Press.
Summary:
Smith argues that the “official view” of learning as hard work has resulted in classrooms where the emphasis is on rote memorization, strict adult control, and punitive testing. These practices result only in short-term memorization, such that any knowledge gained is quickly forgotten. Worse, these practices undermine student motivation and confidence, resulting in learned hopelessness and anger. In contrast, Smith argues for the “classic view” of learning as a social process that occurs naturally through the company we keep. Practices that stem from the classic view—collaborative engagement in interesting activities—result in permanent learning that is actually more akin to growth.
Reflection:
I found Smith convincing on many points, most notably, the distinction he makes between long-term and short-term memory. I definitely agree that learning is most powerful and long-lasting when we are actually interested in what we are learning and are able to relate new information to a framework of knowledge that we already possess.
I also agree with Smith’s point that people tend to overlook how much students learn from the behaviors and attitudes of the people around them. I’m fascinated with his proposition that “the basis of all permanent learning is identification with people who are more experienced in what we would like to learn” and wonder about the implications of this idea for the way we organize our schools. I love how this point ties in with our Advanced Project-based Learning course and Jesse’s emphasis on bringing experts into the project development and critique process.
Quotes:
“Because of the way they are trained and expected to teach, teachers often believe that it is possible for students to learn something even though the students don’t understand it or aren’t interested in it—provided they try hard enough, of course. But we can only learn from activities that are interesting and comprehensible to us; in other words, activities that are satisfying. If this is not the case, only inefficient rote-learning, or memorization, is available to us and forgetting is inevitable” (87).
“Paradoxically, the effort to memorize interferes with memorization because it destroys understanding. Rote memorization puts things in the wrong place, in short-term memory (where you can only hold something for as long as you continually rehearse it) rather than in long-term memory (where things are organized and retrieved on the basis of the sense they make to us. And there is no direct route from short-term to long-term memory. The way to hold something in long-term memory is to relate it to something you already know” (88).
“I would (if I could) propose a radical change to the way we talk about schools. Abolish the words learning and teaching altogether, and talk instead about doing. One thing is clear from the classic view—that people always learn from what they are doing. If they are doing something worthwhile they are learning something worthwhile. If they are engaged in a boring, confusing, or irrelevant activity, then they are learning something that is boring, confusing, or irrelevant” (94).
Questions:
1. I wonder if the learning process is as absolute as Smith makes it out to be. He claims, for example, that “we can only learn from activities that are interesting and comprehensible to us” and that “confusion indicates wasted effort.” Is this always the case? Is there really no room for confusion in the learning process? Is there really no route between short-term and long-term memory?
2. Given their varying interests and abilities, different students will always find different activities boring and confusing. As such, how can teachers personalize education for their students so that most of the students are doing something interesting and comprehensible to them most of the time?
Summary:
Smith argues that the “official view” of learning as hard work has resulted in classrooms where the emphasis is on rote memorization, strict adult control, and punitive testing. These practices result only in short-term memorization, such that any knowledge gained is quickly forgotten. Worse, these practices undermine student motivation and confidence, resulting in learned hopelessness and anger. In contrast, Smith argues for the “classic view” of learning as a social process that occurs naturally through the company we keep. Practices that stem from the classic view—collaborative engagement in interesting activities—result in permanent learning that is actually more akin to growth.
Reflection:
I found Smith convincing on many points, most notably, the distinction he makes between long-term and short-term memory. I definitely agree that learning is most powerful and long-lasting when we are actually interested in what we are learning and are able to relate new information to a framework of knowledge that we already possess.
I also agree with Smith’s point that people tend to overlook how much students learn from the behaviors and attitudes of the people around them. I’m fascinated with his proposition that “the basis of all permanent learning is identification with people who are more experienced in what we would like to learn” and wonder about the implications of this idea for the way we organize our schools. I love how this point ties in with our Advanced Project-based Learning course and Jesse’s emphasis on bringing experts into the project development and critique process.
Quotes:
“Because of the way they are trained and expected to teach, teachers often believe that it is possible for students to learn something even though the students don’t understand it or aren’t interested in it—provided they try hard enough, of course. But we can only learn from activities that are interesting and comprehensible to us; in other words, activities that are satisfying. If this is not the case, only inefficient rote-learning, or memorization, is available to us and forgetting is inevitable” (87).
“Paradoxically, the effort to memorize interferes with memorization because it destroys understanding. Rote memorization puts things in the wrong place, in short-term memory (where you can only hold something for as long as you continually rehearse it) rather than in long-term memory (where things are organized and retrieved on the basis of the sense they make to us. And there is no direct route from short-term to long-term memory. The way to hold something in long-term memory is to relate it to something you already know” (88).
“I would (if I could) propose a radical change to the way we talk about schools. Abolish the words learning and teaching altogether, and talk instead about doing. One thing is clear from the classic view—that people always learn from what they are doing. If they are doing something worthwhile they are learning something worthwhile. If they are engaged in a boring, confusing, or irrelevant activity, then they are learning something that is boring, confusing, or irrelevant” (94).
Questions:
1. I wonder if the learning process is as absolute as Smith makes it out to be. He claims, for example, that “we can only learn from activities that are interesting and comprehensible to us” and that “confusion indicates wasted effort.” Is this always the case? Is there really no room for confusion in the learning process? Is there really no route between short-term and long-term memory?
2. Given their varying interests and abilities, different students will always find different activities boring and confusing. As such, how can teachers personalize education for their students so that most of the students are doing something interesting and comprehensible to them most of the time?
The Book of Learning and Forgetting
Smith, F. (1998). The book of learning and forgetting. New York: Teachers College Press.
Summary:
Smith argues that the “official view” of learning as hard work has resulted in classrooms where the emphasis is on rote memorization, strict adult control, and punitive testing. These practices result only in short-term memorization, such that any knowledge gained is quickly forgotten. Worse, these practices undermine student motivation and confidence, resulting in learned hopelessness and anger. In contrast, Smith argues for the “classic view” of learning as a social process that occurs naturally through the company we keep. Practices that stem from the classic view—collaborative engagement in interesting activities—result in permanent learning that is actually more akin to growth.
Reflection:
I found Smith convincing on many points, most notably, the distinction he makes between long-term and short-term memory. I definitely agree that learning is most powerful and long-lasting when we are actually interested in what we are learning and are able to relate new information to a framework of knowledge that we already possess.
I also agree with Smith’s point that people tend to overlook how much students learn from the behaviors and attitudes of the people around them. I’m fascinated with his proposition that “the basis of all permanent learning is identification with people who are more experienced in what we would like to learn” and wonder about the implications of this idea for the way we organize our schools. I love how this point ties in with our Advanced Project-based Learning course and Jesse’s emphasis on bringing experts into the project development and critique process.
Quotes:
“Because of the way they are trained and expected to teach, teachers often believe that it is possible for students to learn something even though the students don’t understand it or aren’t interested in it—provided they try hard enough, of course. But we can only learn from activities that are interesting and comprehensible to us; in other words, activities that are satisfying. If this is not the case, only inefficient rote-learning, or memorization, is available to us and forgetting is inevitable” (87).
“Paradoxically, the effort to memorize interferes with memorization because it destroys understanding. Rote memorization puts things in the wrong place, in short-term memory (where you can only hold something for as long as you continually rehearse it) rather than in long-term memory (where things are organized and retrieved on the basis of the sense they make to us. And there is no direct route from short-term to long-term memory. The way to hold something in long-term memory is to relate it to something you already know” (88).
“I would (if I could) propose a radical change to the way we talk about schools. Abolish the words learning and teaching altogether, and talk instead about doing. One thing is clear from the classic view—that people always learn from what they are doing. If they are doing something worthwhile they are learning something worthwhile. If they are engaged in a boring confusing, or irrelevant activity, then they are learning something that is boring, confusing, or irrelevant” (94).
Questions:
1. I wonder if the learning process is as absolute as Smith makes it out to be. He claims, for example, that “we can only learn from activities that are interesting and comprehensible to us” and that “confusion indicates wasted effort.” Is this always the case? Is there really no room for confusion in the learning process? Is there really no route between short-term and long-term memory?
2. Given their varying interests and abilities, different students will always find different activities boring and confusing. As such, how can teachers personalize education for their students so that most of the students are doing something interesting and comprehensible to them most of the time?
Summary:
Smith argues that the “official view” of learning as hard work has resulted in classrooms where the emphasis is on rote memorization, strict adult control, and punitive testing. These practices result only in short-term memorization, such that any knowledge gained is quickly forgotten. Worse, these practices undermine student motivation and confidence, resulting in learned hopelessness and anger. In contrast, Smith argues for the “classic view” of learning as a social process that occurs naturally through the company we keep. Practices that stem from the classic view—collaborative engagement in interesting activities—result in permanent learning that is actually more akin to growth.
Reflection:
I found Smith convincing on many points, most notably, the distinction he makes between long-term and short-term memory. I definitely agree that learning is most powerful and long-lasting when we are actually interested in what we are learning and are able to relate new information to a framework of knowledge that we already possess.
I also agree with Smith’s point that people tend to overlook how much students learn from the behaviors and attitudes of the people around them. I’m fascinated with his proposition that “the basis of all permanent learning is identification with people who are more experienced in what we would like to learn” and wonder about the implications of this idea for the way we organize our schools. I love how this point ties in with our Advanced Project-based Learning course and Jesse’s emphasis on bringing experts into the project development and critique process.
Quotes:
“Because of the way they are trained and expected to teach, teachers often believe that it is possible for students to learn something even though the students don’t understand it or aren’t interested in it—provided they try hard enough, of course. But we can only learn from activities that are interesting and comprehensible to us; in other words, activities that are satisfying. If this is not the case, only inefficient rote-learning, or memorization, is available to us and forgetting is inevitable” (87).
“Paradoxically, the effort to memorize interferes with memorization because it destroys understanding. Rote memorization puts things in the wrong place, in short-term memory (where you can only hold something for as long as you continually rehearse it) rather than in long-term memory (where things are organized and retrieved on the basis of the sense they make to us. And there is no direct route from short-term to long-term memory. The way to hold something in long-term memory is to relate it to something you already know” (88).
“I would (if I could) propose a radical change to the way we talk about schools. Abolish the words learning and teaching altogether, and talk instead about doing. One thing is clear from the classic view—that people always learn from what they are doing. If they are doing something worthwhile they are learning something worthwhile. If they are engaged in a boring confusing, or irrelevant activity, then they are learning something that is boring, confusing, or irrelevant” (94).
Questions:
1. I wonder if the learning process is as absolute as Smith makes it out to be. He claims, for example, that “we can only learn from activities that are interesting and comprehensible to us” and that “confusion indicates wasted effort.” Is this always the case? Is there really no room for confusion in the learning process? Is there really no route between short-term and long-term memory?
2. Given their varying interests and abilities, different students will always find different activities boring and confusing. As such, how can teachers personalize education for their students so that most of the students are doing something interesting and comprehensible to them most of the time?