Are Schools to Blame?

The article “Rigor Redefined”, by Tony Wagner from Educational Leadership criticizes schools and the way students are learning.  He claims that the schools are not preparing students for 21^st century jobs.  Wagner spoke to many high authorities in common jobs and asked them what they look for in a person when considering hiring them.  The majority of people answered they were looking for people who could ask good questions, problem solve and work with others.  After speaking to many people he kept drawing the same conclusions; our schools are not teaching students the right skills.  Wagner developed a list of seven critical skills needed in most jobs.  Wagner’s list named:  critical thinking, collaboration and leadership, adaptability, entrepreneurialism, effective oral and written communication, analyzing information, and imagination.  After Wagner collected all of his information from interviewing people he set out to see if schools were teaching students any of the seven skills on his list.  He concluded that most classes were not doing an adequate job of preparing students for jobs.  He found that even AP classes failed at preparing students.  Many classes he observed did not teach a single skill on his list.  The classes did not incorporate group work; many times students sat in silence working on worksheets or papers.  The students were very bad at analyzing information and had little or no imagination when answering an open ended question.  If the question did not have one correct answer the students were incapable of answering.  Throughout the article Wagner stresses that “our students’ futures are at stake.”

I completely understand where Wagner is coming from, but I think it is easier said than done.  Many people would agree with Wagner’s point, but taking action is the hard part.  How do you teach critical thinking or problem solving?  Schools do not purposely try to under prepare students for jobs; it is difficult to teach the important skills and keep the structure of school.  The seven skills are not the only skills needed for jobs.   If a person wanted to become an engineer they would not get hired if they had good leadership skills, and no math knowledge.  The basic subjects of school are still crucial to obtaining a job, but now students are held accountable for more than just knowledge.  How do we combine both groups of skills?  Teachers need to be able to hand out grades and tests to determine a student’s understanding level, but how do they give a test on leadership and collaboration?

Teachers can be held accountable for teaching group work, collaboration, written communication, and oral communication, but they cannot be blamed for not teaching skills like problem solving and interpretation.  A students mind set is also a fraction of the reason they seem unprepared for jobs.  If a student has a positive mind set and wants to learn more and take thinking farther, then they will be more successful.  A student that does not care about learning and does only what is asked of them or even less will be less successful in their personal career.  The student eager to learn is able to apply the basic skills they learn in school to outer world activities.  The engaged student develops more skills and takes them farther in their life.  How does a student become an engaged learner though?   I believe that this type of student develops the skills to apply information early in life.  In early school years a student must want to go to school to learn more and be creative because this mind set will stay with them for the rest of their life.  How will schooling change to prepare students for their future?  How much can really be changed if it is not completely the schools fault?

We Are The Machine

The video “The Machine is Us/ing Us” by Michael Wesch, makes a point of how the web is created by us.  In the video his first main point is that we have put many different kinds of text into the web to create shortcuts.  The shortcuts are located in the web but they were originally created by us.  Wesch explains the specifics of the text associated with using the web, from HTML to hyper links to short cut symbols, such as <p> and <b> that stand for paragraph and bold.  He goes on to say that the text in the web is the best way to share information and he proves his point with many examples.  Wesch shows the use of quickly deleting text and copying text indirectly and claims that digital text can do more than we know.  Digital text is more flexible and movable.  In the last section of the video, the specifics that Wesch talks about are summarized into a main point.  Overall the main point is that we created the machine, we are teaching the machine and we are the machine.  Wesch believes that every time we tag and post pictures, create a link and use the web we are teaching the machine.

I agree with Wesch on his idea that we are the machine.  This not only applies to the web but other devices as well.  Man created every machine we use, the web, cell phones, and I-pods.  We also created tractors, cars and, bulldozers.  Even though we created these machines, how can we be machines?  Or, are the machines part of us?  We are not literately a machine but we are the creators and part of the machine.  A machine can only be used by us, programmed by us and taught by us.  When we link, chat to people and research people online we are controlling the computer, we are the computer.  The machine cannot function without a human being.

I think that the title of the video is very important.  Does it say “The Machine is Us”, or does it say “The Machine is Using Us”?  I look at the title as saying “The Machine is Us”.  The machine cannot use us because it does not have a mind of its own.  It is not possible that a man-made object can rule over man.  We control what can be put on the web whether it is a video, essay or blog, but a blog cannot control us.  The Web 2.0 world is displaying more and more information created by humans.  If we keep advancing in the Web 2.0 world will there be a Web 3.0 world?  What would the new web world look like?  When that point comes in the future will we still be a part of the web; will the web still be a part of us?

Students or Learners

The article “You Know This Is True” by Will Richardson from his blog Weblogged tests our traditional school teaching system.  The blog starts with a powerful quote from an article in the Washington Post, “ ‘We’re not really motivated to learn to gain knowledge... We just want to memorize it and get a good grade and get into a good school.’ In a sense, she said, the educational process has been corrupted. ‘Especially after the final exam, you just forget it afterward.’ ”  Richardson then goes on to elaborate on the fact that students just study and try to learn to get a good grade on the test.  He says that many kids are not motivated and don’t have the drive to be learners.  The fault is not entirely the students; they are not the ones making the tests, they just do what they are told.  The suggestion in some schools is to eliminate tests.  It will reduce the stress on kids and maybe it will result in students becoming better learners.  The change is a scary thing; parents and teachers are skeptical of the new idea.  Teachers are not positive that the budget cuts, lack of time and technology will allow them to change the traditional ways.  Parents are afraid of change and don’t what their kids to suffer if the learning style changes.  He finishes with saying that the big problem is the lack of vision and we are too afraid to change.  It is easy to make schools a little better, but hard to make schools different.

I know that Richardson’s statement is true, do you?  Many kids study for tests, quizzes, and finals so hard, but then forget everything just weeks after the test is over.  The topic in the quiz is forgotten sometimes because it is not mentioned again or it is not important to the student.  Students tend to remember important information if it is interesting to them; if they don’t find it interesting they often think is not important to know.  For example, I just finished a giant history midterm today that my friends and I studied for extremely hard, but the fact is that we are going to forget the information.  The hundreds of names we learned are not going to come up in class probably ever again, plus we find history to be the worst subject.  How can we change the typical habits of students though?  The problem is that most high school teens are students and not learners.  Learners take the learning to a different level, retain the information, and engage themselves in learning.  Students on the other hand learn to get good grades, and do just what they are told to do.  How do you change a student into a learner?  I believe most students are learners in at least one of their classes; the one that they are the most interested in.  I don’t think that a student needs to be a learner in all subjects.  If you become a mathematical engineer you do not need to know the name of a rebel that started a revolt in Cuba.  Everything depends on what you are working towards, what you what to do with your life.

If schools want to change into not giving tests what are they going to do instead?  How can you test a student’s progress without specific questions on a test?  How will they change students’ learning styles?  It could be a good idea to limit tests in classes, but where is the alterative?  Will schools start giving tests in the form of a game?  How would that help students become learners?  I personally think tests will stay in teaching techniques, mostly because we don’t have another way.             

New Planets? What if...?

“How Astronomers Hunt for New Planets” by Michael D. Lemonick from Time Magazine explores the use of science technology in discovering new Earth-like planets.  New technology has allowed us to perform more advanced tasks in the vast area outside the planet we call home.  We now can find the mass, size and density of a planet; but, the hard part is that we don’t have the technology to find all these pieces of information together.  A new radial velocity strategy permits scientists to determine the mass of a planet but not how physically large it is.  One planet that has been found using the radial velocity strategy is known as Gliese 581.  This planet is very much like Earth.  It is a reasonable distance away from its star that is not too hot but is close enough that is not too cold.  Scientists believe that there is a high possibility of life existing on this planet.  The problem is that we don’t know what the size of it is to determine the material from which it is made.  Gliese 581 could be larger than Earth and made of rock or about the same size and made of marshmallow cream.  Opposite of the radial velocity strategy problem, a spacecraft was launched last year to find the size of certain stars, but it cannot gauge a planet’s mass.  The spacecraft launched is known as the Kepler Mission; this mission is said to be a huge success.  Geoff Marcy, the person who has found more distant worlds than anyone said, “the best thing I can tell you about the Kepler is that we sequestered 400 stars, and you can bet the implications of some of them are profound.”  The search for new planets is on, will we find life?

This article reminded me of my peer Lauren’s class presentation last week about science and how much fact and guessing is involved with science.  At that point it seemed to me that science was a lot of guessing and hypothesizing based on little fact.  This article showed me that science does use very advanced technology to base their opinions; of course this also depends on what type of science is being studied.  In the discovery for new planets the technology backs up scientists’ thoughts, but only to a certain degree.  The statements such as this planet is very Earth like is backed by facts.   Technology allows us to observe the gravitational pull on the planet from its star to tell how far away the planet is from the star.  On the other hand a statement made by Steve Vogt was a guess that cannot be backed up.  Vogt said, “he was almost 100% sure Gliese 581 has at least primitive organisms living on it.”  This claim can in no way be supported with facts; just because the planet is like Earth does not mean it has living organisms.  I am sure that many scientists would disagree with Vogt’s statement.  These scientists that disagree with theories come up with their own and lead to other discoveries.  We should be able to establish our own thoughts too.  Science should not control our lives.  How do we know that the universe in never ending; maybe we are extremely small and in reality we live in a box kept by a superior creature.  My thought may be a little far out, but science should be questioned.  Questions lead to answers, and answers lead to discoveries including the discoveries of new planets.      

Why does this article relate to your life, and my life?  Why should we care that scientists we don’t know are on a mission to discover planets?  Well what if they did find a planet with life on it?  Our lives might completely change if other forms of life are found.  Technology is advancing so fast I believe scientists could find life on a distant planet in the future.  The far out fact may very likely become true, who knows?  What would happen if other life was found?  Could the life forms be more advanced than us, or would they be hundreds of years behind use in terms of advancement?  If the life forms discovered are superior to us we would learn so much from them.  They could have the answers to our unsolved questions.  They could help make our lives easier and more efficient with the technology that we don’t have.  Would it be a good thing to jump ahead and not go along the process of discovering ideas or technology?  I believe that it would end up to be a bad idea not follow the scientific process.  We would not learn by ourselves we would just be told what to do.  What if the new planet was not as far along as we are?  Would we try to take over the planet, or would we help the life forms advance?  What if the life forms were mean and wanted to totally wipe out humans?  What if they were nice and taught us to not have any more wars?  On the other hand, what if Earth’s countries went to war over other planets?  Instead of wars over territories in countries we would now be fighting for the planets.  War would take on a whole new meaning.  Would we be fighting in space?  We definitely would.  Why would we fight on Earth for land that is light years away?  New weapons would be made causing many deaths just like what happened in World War I.  In the first world war so many new weapons were made that massive amounts of deaths occurred.  Would this same situation repeat?  Is it possible that we did not learn from the mistakes of your ancestors in World War One?  We would have to form new ways to travel because planets are light years away.  What if part of your family lived on a different planet?  Instead of saying your family lived out of state you would say they live out of planet.  Is this all possible?  I believe it is; someday we will find life.  How can we not in the “never ending universe”?  How long will it take to make these discoveries?  No one has any way of knowing.  There are so many what if’s in the possibilities of discovering new life that the path splits so many ways.

WHAT IF…

Are You "Googleable"?

Will Richardson’s article “Footprints in the Digital Age” from Educational Leadership explains the importance of having a well based knowledge of technology.  Richardson believes it is important to post information on the web in addition to reading and searching the web.  Computers are becoming a huge influence on kids’ lives, so they need to be taught how to use them.  Richardson thinks teachers should be playing a part in helping students become engaged learners in technology.  He knows that kids learn a large amount of information outside of school, but thinks we can still improve and advance our understanding of technology with the help of teachers.  The challenge that he sees though is, “figuring out how to help students create, navigate, and grow the powerful, individualized networks of learning that bloom on the Web and helping them to do this effectively, ethically, and safely.”  Kids need to be able to navigate the Web so they can become “Googleable”.  “Googleable” is a term used by Richardson that means being worthy enough that someone will want to look you up on Google. Richardson sees that if students post information like blogging and creating their own network then they will be on their way to becoming “Googleable”. 

We live in the 2.0 web world, meaning the ordinary person is creating material to put on the Web not just reading facts.  I agree that students should know how to publish their own thoughts so they can share their opinion.  A classroom would be a great place to teach this skill.  Teachers should not spend all their teaching time focused on this topic though; one class should be devoted to teaching kids about the Web.  Although the classes would have to advance to a higher level than the typical computer class in a school I am confident we could figure out a way to make it work.  Instead of the class being centered on Power Point, Microsoft, and Excel the focus should be around the internet, blogging, chatting, having conversations online and getting a jump start on creating learning networks.  This would be an important class because the way we use the internet is changing.  The internet if often used for meeting people, consequently if you don’t have any sort of account providing you access to do this task many will not consider you “Googleable”.  How important is it to be Googled though?  To some it may be a big deal, to others they couldn’t care less, and many people are not sure how much they desire to be Googled.  I am one person who is not really sure.  I do not have a Facebook page, MySpace, or a twitter account, (like Richardson suggests having to start a personal learning network) yet I am in the Google search engine.  All of my soccer teammates have a Facebook page so my name shows up often in their comments and conversations.  My old basketball club also had a website with the players’ names on it so this also shows up when my name is searched in Google.  I think it is overrated to have a Facebook page and MySpace to be ‘known’ and Goggled.  If you are involved with activities and sports, it is most likely the activity has some sort of a website, and almost every website shows up on Google.  It may be important to be known and Googled, but there are other ways to become known. A person’s focus should not be making blogs and posting random information just so their name shows up on the Google search engine.  Blogs and post should be meaningful and made for a purpose, if you are meant to be “Googleable” then you will be.

Can Video Games Teach?

Everyone loves games, especially when they are video games.  Well what if our school education was based on video games?  Will Richardson’s article “School as Video Game” explains just this type of school.  His resources were an article in the New York Times Magazine called “Learning by Playing: Video Games in the Classroom” by Sara Corbett and a video linked with the New York Times Magazine (supplied very good information).  The one year old middle school is called Quest to Learn.  It was created by Katie Salen and is funded by the Gates Foundation.  Al Doyle one of the game design teachers said, “Schools change very slowly… and technology changes ever so fast,” explaining why the school is based around so much technology.  Salen believes that bringing a laptop into schools is not teaching kids to use technology; it takes much more than that.  Recording films, podcasts and videos, along with blogging, and playing video games are actives often included in Quest to Learn.  The video games are a way to teach the students lessons while keeping the students interested.  In the short video about Quest to Learn many students said they loved this way of teaching.  The parents agreed and said their kid was totally engaged while learning every subject.  Not only do the students play the games, they also invent their own and edit the pre-made games.  While the curriculum is based on games, the teaching does follow New York state standards.  Another very important fact mentioned was that “1-1 classroom computing isn’t the best scenario; 1-4 requires kids to work together and collaborate.”  The students attending Quest to Learn constantly work together when designing and solving games, teaching them team work.

I am not sold on the ‘school based on games’ idea.  I think group collaboration is important but designing games is not the only way to obtain that skill.  If a school is based too much on technology then kids will lose the core basics.  Now, for a high school, I definitely think a school like Quest to Learn would be a bad idea.  High school is so complex it would be too hard to base every class around games.  High school is about discovering what you want to do with your life, and what career will you head towards.  If you wanted to be a video game designer, then Quest for Life would be a great idea; but not everyone chooses that career path.  What about the people who want to be journalists, photographers, scientists, or professional athletes?  Games are not going to be the best choice for every class; I don’t even see how kids in Quest for Learn are learning writing or science by playing games.  Elementary schools could be a good choice to employ the video game learning style, but then again maybe not.  It would be good idea because little kids love playing games and it would keep them engaged.  It would be a bad idea because elementary school is where students are taught the basic learning skills; and I am not sure all those skills can be taught in games.  I also don’t understand why Quest to Learn is teaching their students to invent a video game.  When would this ability be used in life if you were not a game designer?

Obviously there are certain positive and negative aspects about this new learning style.  I have never played the video games so I have no understanding what they are like; therefore, I cannot fully state that the games are not teaching students what they need to know.  The style in Quest to Learn is very complex and still needs more research, as confirmed in the video; but when more research is done, what will they conclude?  Will this style become popular in every school?  What will be the consequences if video games run every class room?           

Google Changes Our Lives

Google is a helpful tool to most people but Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” challenges how helpful it really is.  There are many points in this article, but only two points stood out to me.  The first idea Nicholas Carr proposed was that the internet is changing the way we read, interpret, and gather information.  Many people can no longer withstand long readings because they find themselves getting bored.  The internet posts information to fit the needs of everyone and informs the reader quickly without multitudes of unwanted knowledge.  Researching in present day is a lot faster and effective then in the past, therefore we become impatient if the wait is too long.  The article states “they[the internet sites] supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought,” meaning that the web is changing the way we think.  The second point that struck me was mentioned at the end of the article.  It talked about how Google is a huge search engine and way smarter than people.  The greatest solution to this issue would of course have to be that human brains are changed to be more like computers.  This thought is greatly desired by Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google who believe “… we’d all be better off” with artificial intelligence.

            I believe that this article is taking the reading and attention span issue to an extreme.  It is true that many people get their information on the internet now and it is easier to find but is it really causing us to lose focus?  I think a lot of this issue has to do with will power. If you really wanted to find good information you would sit down and read the whole long article, but many of us are too impatient or in a hurry that we just don’t have time to read. The reason I get bored or distracted when I am reading is that the writing is uninteresting or I am too tired to keep my attention span up.  Everyone is still thinking the same as they did before, but the way they obtain the facts is different.  I personally find that I can still read log articles and stories along with the short snippets on the internet.  Is this because I am a part of the younger generation and I was brought up around computers and internet search engines from the beginning?  Am I adapted to both ways?  Does this part of the article pertain to mostly older people who were not raised with search sites so it is newer to them?  Although it seems humans usually have a hard time changing, so wouldn’t it make sense that the older people would keep their ways and be able to read extensive papers and articles?  

            The last part of Carr’s article infuriated me.  Google is a smart and helpful tool but it does not have to operate our brains.  Brin states, “Certainly if you had all the world’s intelligence directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.”  I disagree and think that an artificial brain is the worst idea I have ever heard!  It would fix the issue of reading long articles, I guess, because you would already know the information; but the cons out weigh the pros by thousands.  If we all had artificial brain we would all be the same.  We wouldn’t have to work towards becoming what we want to be because there would be no motivation; we know everything.  There would be no experts in fixing cars, teaching math, or flying planes; anyone and everyone could have any job they wanted.  Teachers would not have a job because kids have everything imbedded into their brain already.  Everyone could fix up their house causing home repair men to be out of a job.  Do you really think artificial brains are a good idea?    Another sentence in this article that made me extremely angry was when it said “the human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and bigger hard drive.”  HUMANS ARE NOT COMPUTERS!  We invented the computer; we can’t be computers at the same time.  Humans are not outdated, we constantly learn as we go through life that’s the point.  Not everything has to be fast paced; sometimes we have to slow down and think.  Reading about people haing artificial brains made me think of the science fiction book Uglies.

            In Uglies by Scott Westerfeld the character’s brains are basically computers when they turn 16.  At this age they get an operation that ‘re-wires’ their brain.  The characters cannot think for themselves and lose all of the personality that they had before the operation.  Every person acts the same looks like everyone else.

Do you want to be like everyone else? Do you really want to know everything there is to know so you have nothing to look forward to?  Do you really want everyone to be the same person?  I certainly hope not.     

21st Century Learning

Technology seems to play a big part in our learning today, but what is the right technology? I have recently read “Technology for 21st Century Learning: Part 1’’ and “Technology for 21st Century Learning: Part 2(but is it a Literary Machine?)” both written by David Warlick. In his two blogs he ponders at the use of the iPad for learning purposes. In one school they are handing out iPads to every 8th grade student which seems unnecessary to Warlick. He has the opinion that “21st century learning has nothing to do with iPads, iPod Touches, or any piece of technology.” Learning is about the experience and the advancement to prepare students for the next years of their life. In “Technology for 21st Century Learning: Part 2” Warlick focuses more on the fact that the iPad is useful but it is not a literacy machine. He believes that the iPad is a “great device to watch” and that it is a great product for many uses, but not for learning. “… I see little indication that education was one of the aims in its [iPad] design. They didn’t build a literacy tool…” is a statement that best explains how Warlick feels.


My learning greatly depends on technology when I type papers or blog for class; not every piece of technology can perform these tasks though. The iPad does not seem like an adequate tool to use when typing papers or typing anything for that matter. You have to use your thumbs if you are holding it in your hands or try to type with it laying flat on a table (difficult). Not only do iPads seem to be a questionable educational tool, but so do many other technologies. How much technology should be used in classes? Where is the line? I am brought back to what Warlick said, “21st century learning has nothing to do with…any piece of technology.” High tech gadgets may be over pushed in that it is emphasized too much in some classes. Technology is good, sometimes great, but it does not need to be used for everything. Hand writing is still a first-class tool to have in your arsenal, along with basic math skills and researching skills. We are not going to have computers everywhere to type; kids need to know how to write. We do not carry around calculators everywhere we go; kids need to have math skills. Now, of course kids are still being taught how to write and add, and always use the mechanics in class; but what if? What if some day we depend on technology so much that later generations don’t know how to write, only type? It reminds me of I book I read call Uglies by Scott Westerfeld. In the futuristic novel only a few select characters knew how to hand write. When a secret note had to be written it was a good thing the character treasured the past and learned how to write by hand. Technology is good for many things and should not be excluded in a class room, but the classic learning styles are also fantastic.

Am I taking this too far? Can class room obsession with technology lead to basic problems in learning in the future? Maybe? Maybe not?

College Learning Today

Learning and technology go hand in hand but recently I have watched a video called Vision of Students Today by Michael Wesch that questioned technology and the college student learning environment. The video explained that on average college class rooms consist of hundreds of seats where students sit and listen to a teacher lecture. Students found that only 18% of their teachers know their name which means 82% don’t. Students spend thousands of dollars on text books every year, some of which are not even opened. College is made to prepare students for jobs and the life ahead of them but they are not practicing careers or getting firsthand experience. Michael Wesch asked the question “What are they [the students] learning sitting here?”


This video is very relevant to me and many other students that plan on attending college. What are students learning sitting in a classroom? Not very much is the answer. Students in college should be learning by doing hands on activities. Sure the occasional lecture is okay and may very well be needed for notes and preparation purposes; but every day? Even if the lecture kind of class is needed the class size should be reduced. The amount of students (one hundred fifteen on average) in a class room is way too many. A smaller class size results in teachers having a closer connection with students and a better learning environment. If only 26% of reading assignments are relevant to life then why are we doing them? The assignments given in college should have to do with the jobs students are striving for, not just to get a grade. “Some have suggested technology can save us…” but can it really? I have seen two videos now that say many students are preparing for jobs that do not exist today. The careers that are being talked about have a great chance of dealing with technology, so of course technology should be used in class – but to what extent? Books on line can save money in the long run and pictures, blogs, and quick conversations can be seen on the internet. Communicating, sharing thoughts with peers and accessing information is all very important in education and can all be done with the technology we have. What about the use of technology in class though? It can be used to take quick notes look up words and write papers, but what else is it used for? Students in Vision of Students Today said they Facebook through class and bring a laptop but don’t work on class related work. The side activities in class on lap tops are probably occurring in class because of boredom. So what is the happy medium? Students should have smaller class sizes that are more interactive and meaningful. Hands on classes should be established to build up skill in their line of preferred profession. Technology should be used, but not over used to the extent that everyone’s life is based on it. I hope that by the time I reach the age of college years these problems have been attempted to be fixed and that I will be able to learn without attending a lecture.