From TRU Participants

Will: Redefine “Better”:

willrichardson:

I’m constantly provoked by Umair Haque’s essays in the Harvard Business Review, and his bit on “Declare Your Radicalness” is no exception. The whole essay is definitely worth the read, as are many of the comments, but as is often the case, there was one line that really jumped out:

“…We…

The notion from Haque’s essay quoted by Richardson about restoring to the state of the past caused me to reflect on our current situation in education. One thing that seems unstated about the need for education reform is that we cannot go back specifically BECAUSE a recaptured dynamic from the past would not work in the present we find ourselves in and the future we seek to prepare our students for. It is very important for us to recognise that we are not about restoration of some formerly-held ideal, but about
ressing forward into unexplored territory we are, most emphatically, NOT re-forming education to what it was (or even should be). We are casting something brand new; perhaps we should not even call it education. In that we are talking about that thing we do that prepares people for full and satisfying participation in society, we are obviously educating, but the break we need to make with authority, standard core, and assessment is so radical, we should consider whether even to keep the former label. Perhaps our given task is so disruptive, so subversive, that we need a name change.

I’m talking to Corwin about a 4th Ed, but it wouldn’t come out until next spring I think. If you have any suggestions for additions/deletions, I would love to hear them. I’ll probably add a Tumblr section, but I’m pretty sure I would keep Blogger in there…more ways to administrate who sees what.

Have you thought of going more interactive with the ideas? What if you set it up as an interactive wiki (my suggestion would be via wikieducator.org, but that’s mainly because I am trying to work solely in open education resources)?

Will: Someone’s Getting It:

willrichardson:

According to Marc Tucker, education leaders at the 2nd International Summit on the Teaching Profession are telling a much different narrative of learning than here in the States.

Singapore:

They reminded themselves that what they do in education is for the learner, their needs, their…

I think it could be a mantra well used: I want to prepare students for the test of life, not a life of tests.

Will: The Real Shift is Not Technology:

willrichardson:

From the “I Know I Keep Saying This But I Just Can’t Stop Dept.” comes yet another example of how out of whack our language is when talking about what student learning should be. In this long, celebratory piece from the Las Vegas Sun today we learn that students at a Nevada charter school have…

I so agree, Will. It’s like I’m in a china shop (with really disgusting pieces that the public, for some bizarre reason is ‘oohing’ and ‘aahing’ over), and I just want to grab an available baseball bat and ‘swing away’ till it’s all gone and we can start anew.
Then I remember that it’s really people’s lives and not just china, and I travel on, trying to make the system change from within…

I watched the video here yet again today…

Am I perpetuating the insanity of ‘education’ that is goal-driven rather than path-oriented? What path(s) should I encourage students to take? How should class time be spent, so as to nurture students selecting and traveling the path that is right for them?

Will Richardson posted this item on Tumblr:

Automated assessment programs do not respond as human readers. While they may promise consistency, they distort the very nature of writing as a complex and context-rich interaction between people. They simplify writing in ways that can mislead writers to focus more on structure and grammar than on what they are saying by using a given structure and style.

Here’s what I know will happen once we move to the machines: we’ll help kids learn how to write what the machines want instead of focusing on the power and beauty and uniqueness of human communication. I can name a slew of brilliant writers who would probably fail the test because they wrote in a unique, compelling style that went far beyond our traditional thinking around “good writing.” Sure, in the name of efficiency we can choose to set the bar low and reward kids for putting together a sentence that’s barely readable but conveys a simple thought regardless. But why wouldn’t we choose something better? 

He was presented with the notion that a developer is working on a software application that would machine score English essays. It is interesting to reflect upon the nature of humanity that would preclude this happening in written communication. At present, we believe quite strongly that computers cannot grasp fine elements of reflection, creation, synthesis, and other capacities as well as they may be programmed to assess punctuation, spelling, basic structures, and similar features of communication. 

What do you think about this?

Will: What Qualities do “Bold Schools” Share?:

willrichardson:

First, let me thank everyone who commented and Tweeted examples of “bold schools” over the last few days. Very much appreciated, and over the next few weeks I’m planning to dig into the list and make some connections and inquiries around the learning that’s going on in those places….

This is excellent groundwork! You might add “Collaborative” to the list Will has provided. This would be the practice of learning while engaged with other co-learners on a project oragnised and completed jointly. I think issues of relative “autonomy” should be addressed; this would be _innovation_’s flip side, where learners are empowered to direct their own learning agendas.