What Business are we In?

I'm re-reading Clay Shirky's book Here Comes Everybody. I whizzed through it when I first got my copy in June and now need to go back and put more effort into actually digesting some of what he has to say.

".... the scarcity of the resource creates the need for a professional class..."

this quote is taken from a section where Shirky is discussing institutional changes. Specifically about newspapers, he is moving towards an argument about information itself. Libraries require librarians. Newspapers require editors. Schools require teachers.

But this is all in the face of "resources" being in scarce supply. What is our resource in education? What is the one, most important thing that we are about?

Schools used to be seen in many communities as the place with information inside of its four walls. Schools often had the largest (or many places, the only) library for example. Teachers were seen as beacons of enlightenment and knowledge. They were "educated." Schools were places where people came to get that knowledge. "School knowledge" or "book learning" was seen as being deposited inside of schools and if you wanted it, you had to come there to get it.

And now?

Now we are one source of information; but only one among many. We also do ourselves and our students a great disservice when, instead of teaching them to be their own filters and responsible users of information, we do it for them thinking we are protecting them for the world. Even the type of knowledge schools can supply is often in doubt as many studies have shown there is often little correlation between success in school and success in life.

So if we view our resource in education and schools as being information, we will find ourselves more and more as one option among many. So I think that we need to ask the question: what is our core mission? What can we offer in classrooms and schools that can be gained nowhere else? What makes our spaces different?

Can we survive if we are about information? Is this how we are of the most benefit to society?

Tags: Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, schools, information, learning

Comments

[Dean Loberg]

Very good question. I hope that we are not only about information (or even mostly). I have been told that my chem students should be memorizing the first 20 elements of the periodic table. Why? If you use the periodic table regularly you will memorize those that are relevant to you, otherwise there is no need to memorize them, you can look them up. I want my students to be able to look at the periodic table and 'read' the information hidden inside it. That is much more useful and involves skills that can be transfered to other tasks.

[Ian H.]

Great questions! I have not read Clay Shirky's book (perhaps it should be on my list, as it seems more than ½ of the edublogosphere has read it), but I posted on this very subject back in April: http://www.marturia.net/blog/?p=3234

[David Truss]

Take away the importance of 'information' and what's the purpose of schools? Babysitting?

I say that in tongue-and-cheek because I know many teachers that give so much more to students than just information... but you questions really gets to me... "What is our core mission?"

I don't pretend to have an answer, but I think that in itself is a hint to what we need. We need to promote inquiry and a love of learning. And that involves empowering students in many ways!

Are we assigning movie projects, paragraphs, Powerpoints or poster boards or are we asking students to present and demonstrate their learning?

Are we assigning information-based tasks or problem solving tasks?

Are we assigning content or examining process?

Are we asking our students the right questions? And are we asking ourselves the right questions?

I think "What is our core mission?" is a great starting place!

[Clarence Fisher]

David;

Content and information is important, but I argue on and on that these things cannot be at the core of what we do. I like your distinction of assigning a powerpoint or presenting their learning. This is an important distinction that needs to come through in all that we do. I think the content has to be a vehicle to get us involved with the deeper skill sets of learning and thinking. Transmitting sometimes outdated information is not how schools and classrooms can be of the most benefit to society; we can be better than that.

[Jerry]

We certainly need to change our way of thinking. It's very easy to forget that, with this awesome technology, comes a responsibility to our students to expose them to the rest of the world and what it has to offer them. It's frustrating to me that so many teachers still have this "4 wall" mentality and are so unwilling (or scared) to share the great things they are doing in their classrooms with the rest of the world. Stop thinking that you, as the teacher, are the end all, be all when it comes to knowledge for your students. Take a step out of your comfort zone for a change, introduce your students to all of these amazing things and let them TEACH US! Just because we are teachers, does it mean we cannot learn anymore? Does it mean that our students CANNOT teach us or are we just UNWILLING to let them?

[Meghan]

You shouldn't go to school to learn what to think, instead you should go to school to learn HOW to think. That's what we're selling, the problem solving methodology that will help students in the real world.

[Carl Anderson]

I have thought for a long time that schools were going to face the same identity crisis the field of painting did shortly after the invention of the camera.

In the end, the camera did not make painting an extinct activity. Instead, it became something else and is now used to express that which a photograph cannot.

I do see schools as having a role in our future. Schools will most likely become more like community centers but with the added function of making sure resources are equitably distributed. They will still exist as institutions of learning but their value will be weighted more toward the assessment of resources than the direct instruction of pupils.

In 1968 B.F. Skinner wrote that in the future, diagrammers will have more influence over a child's education than teachers. I believe we are on the cusp of this coming to fruition. If we think about programming and curriculum writing as being synonymous this is sure to be the case.

These predictions I am almost certain of for the future of secondary education. Elementary education I am not so certain. At the very least, elementary ed will grow more project-based and instruction mo differentiated so as to prepare students for their own future as self-motivated independent learners.

[Silvana]

I long ago abandoned the idea that as a teacher I am the transmitter of information. It is not about longevity so much as pertinence.....am I relevant in a classroom if all I am going to do is transmit? No ...as you say I become one of many options....so if I really want to teach and develop 21st century learners I model and develop problem solving and thinking skills.....not so much this is a triangle but more how do we know this is a triangle?

The 21st century require learners who are taught in a very different way, instead of focusing on them delivering a product, it is now a requisite that they can develop the processes required to create new learning in an everchanging, multimodal and multi dimensional world. This of course provokes a fundamental challebge to teachers who are locked into a more traditional pedagogy...these teachers need a new paradigm of learning if they are to be successful Success for teachers only truly begins when we recognise the world we shape in turn shapes us!

I enjoyed the post most interesting sir!
Silvana