Nakkula vs. Campoy

The beginning of the first chapter of Michael J. Nakkula’s “Understanding Youth” included several thought-provoking concepts and ideas that struck me as an interesting way to understand how adolescents learn.  Later in the chapter, I started getting a little frustrated with some of Nakkula’s ideas, but once I put them in the proper context, I began to understand where he was coming from, even though I didn’t quite agree with his reasoning.

I remember being bewildered in high school.  I was over-stimulated and didn’t know what was going on half the time.  The idea that adolescents learn through ‘theoretical thinking’, made sense to me. I still sometimes learn through the idea that “assumptions … are tested through real-world, trial and error experimentation” (2).  I’m a trial and error type person and I could understand where the author was coming from with this idea.

Tested knowledge was another concept that resonated with me.  Tested knowledge occurs when students are “constructing implicit theories about their classroom, the adults in their lives, their peers, and, by extension, forming theories about themselves” (3).  I liked how Nakkula noted how complicated students’ lives are in this period of their growth.  There isn’t one simple equation with students.  Each need carefully calibrated algorithms in order to help understand them.  This is one of the major challenges as a teacher, a concept that Nakkula attempts to build on later in the chapter.

I enjoyed reading Nakkula’s ideas on the construction of adolescence.  This idea includes students’ process of “creating themselves and the worlds they inhabit” (5).  I thought it was important in this part that Nakkula includes the point that this process is THEIRS and it’s THEIR world.  I think, as teachers, we sometimes forget that part about adolescents.  We’re merely another figure in their world.  I sometimes lose track of this idea and think that students should treat my classes as the most important part of their day.  That’s not reality. 

                Considering I’m (supposedly) a writer, I had already thought about Nakkula’s concept of making and co-creating narratives out of our lives.  However, Nakkula is able to eloquently translate this concept into an easily communicable idea:  “[t]he construction of one’s life…occurs through and gets held together by the evolving stories we tell ourselves and the ways in which these stories become internal guideposts for ongoing decision-making, everyday behavior, and self-understanding” (6).  I think Nakkula nails this concept here, something that English teachers can take advantage of, when necessary.

I started getting a little less gung ho about Nakkula’s ideas when he started writing about Vgotsky and the meeting of the minds.  The idea of interpyschological  development makes sense: “each individual mind develops within the context of other minds by which it can be influenced” (9).  This idea seems logical enough.  However, Nakkula and Vgotsky start to lose me with the ideas on ‘scaffolding’ and ‘zone of proximal development’.  How can we accomplish these concepts of ‘reading students’ minds’?  That seems like an incredibly idealistic goal.  When there are 20-25 students in the class, it seems hopeless to categorize or determine where students land.  Every student is so different, so dynamic, so complicated, that there just isn’t enough time in the world to analyze each one.This is a nice theory, yet it’s incredibly hard to gauge a whole class. 

I reread this part of the chapter again after writing this part of my post.  I think Nakkula and Vgotsky might be trying to write about practicing these concepts with individual students as opposed to the entire class.  If this is what they’re getting at, then I can understand their point of view. 

I always try to gauge the knowledge in my classes, through pretest activities and discussions.  However, there are always going to be students who don’t quite have the same background knowledge.  I think we need to expect these students to speak for themselves if they’re having trouble.  Self-advocacy is an important element to learning.  We aren’t mind readers.  We can read the room, read body language, and just use our instincts to get there.  But we have to be met half-way by our students.  I've found that exit slips are incredibly helpful to get inside my students' minds.  

Campoy’s first chapter from “Case Study Analysis in the Classroom” was less thought-provoking but I did have a few comments on a few of hisideas.  Campoy was discussing a troublesome student, and a teacher not successfully dealing with the student’s behavior.  The teacher discovered the student was having trouble at home and “it caused [the teacher] to wonder how children with horrendous home lives (several in that same classroom) ever learned anything at all” (4).  I’ve had students that fit this description and I’ve found that some of them flounder, while others find solace in school.  It’s a break from their tumultuous home lives.  They see their friends and aren’t at risk of being yelled at by their parents.  With the rise of cell phones, this distancing is much harder.  

Campoy crossed over with Nakkula in some parts.  Campoy discussed the idea that of constructing our own narratives: “[f]rom the earliest times, life stories have been important in understanding ourselves and relating the importance of what we do (MacIntyre, 1984)” (5).  These ideas certainly resonate with me, both on an educator level and on a student level.      

I believe strongly that the best way for new teachers to learn their craft is by doing it.  I think case studies can be a helpful tool in the classroom, yet nothing can replace good ol’ experience.  Campoy somewhat edges towards the idea that case studies will completely help new teachers become better.  I disagree – I think new teachers already have too much on their minds.  Reading this now is much more appropriate, since I actually have brain energy to process the ideas. 

The last quote from the Campoy chapter that resonated with me was his idea that “[t]his is just the beginning for you, because, as teachers such as Vivian Paley (1990) and Parker Palmer (1998) describe, the journey to becoming a teacher can also be a journey to discover your truest self as a human being” (9).  This reminded me of Ayers’ book and one of the overall themes that I’ve taken from this course so far.  As much as we want to think that it’s our students that control our fate, in the end it really is up to us and how we want to fashion our worlds, whether it’s our classroom or our real life.  

Ayers Part 2

On page 74, Ayers writes: “So here’s my dilemma: I need to reconcile two opposing ideas within a limited space.”  He is referring to the Sisyphus-like struggle of attempting to be creative while teaching while also sticking to the standards.  The quote reminded me of this famous F. Scott Fitzgerald line:  

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

                So how do we reconcile these difficulties?  Do we give up and only do creative assignments and forget about the standards, consequences be damned?  Or do we go straight for the standards, ignore the engaging personalities in the room, and satisfy administration?  Obviously, we have to find a happy medium, a place where we abide by the standards, and yet have a dynamic approach to teaching those standards.  This reminds me of the course I took last summer with Lesley Bogad.  We discussed how to use new technology in the classroom while also walking the standards line.  I actually haven’t experienced any problems so far with this, since the Common Core curriculum seems to be driven towards using technology and media.  But this is something I’ve been thinking about this past summer and during this new school year.   

On p. 79, Ayers writes “The thing to do I have discovered is to learn from the bees themselves.”  This is from the anecdote about a beekeeper needing to be aware of the variety of how bees work, and how different hives work in different ways.  Ayers was making the analogy that caring for bees is a lot like caring for students.  I appreciated the metaphor and have been attempting to use that philosophy in my classroom.  In fact, I’ve been using exit slips and have been finding them to be incredibly useful, especially the questions students ask that I’ve missed.  They help fill in the gaps.  For example, I was teaching about a bare-knuckled fighter, John L. Sullivan, who was an Irish immigrant’s son in the 1880s.  I told the students that the Irish were discriminated against because they were immigrants, which is common in our history.  I didn’t explain further.  There were a few questions about this on the exit slips, and I realized I had under-estimated their background knowledge on the subject.  Exit slips have been an easy way for me to see how my students have been learning and what else they want to learn about the subject. 

  

On p. 87, Ayers greets his administration with a good ol’ “Boy Howdy!”  This phrase is most likely a sarcastic remark to them entering his classroom.  “Boy Howdy” was the tagline for a 1970s semi-popular rock n’ roll magazine, Creem.  The editors and writers are considered pioneers of what we now call alternative/progressive-minded culture.  What does this have to do with teaching, Corey?  Well, I’ve been hesitant to look at teaching in the alternative/progressive way that I’ve learned about from alt magazines like Creem.  Yet, it seems like students do respond positively to assignments when they’re more hands-on and creative, or ‘alternative’.  I have to strike a balance with this, as well.  I’ve been hesitant about going in this direction, I’m but am making my way there.

On p. 97, Ayers writes “Greatness in teaching, too, requires a serious encounter with autobiography.  Who are you?  How did you come to take on your views and outlooks?...Of all the knowledge teachers need to draw on, self-knowledge is most important.”  This quote resonated with me more than anything else in the book and is one of the major points I’ll try to take away from this reading.  I’ve been avoiding telling students about my personal life in any capacity.  I thought that being impersonal was a smart way to keep an arm’s distance away from students, to avoid being their ‘friends.’  In fact, I’ve found giving away small tidbits about my personal life makes it easier to build a bridge to my students, to connect with them, and therefore make them comfortable with me.  I think building these relationships will help improve the learning that goes on in my classroom.  Students won’t hesitate to talk to me if they have questions.  All in all, I hope keeping this in mind will help my overall teaching habits.

To Teach: The Journey, In Comics Part I

      I was pleasantly surprised when I opened page one of "To Teach: The Journey, In Comics" by William Ayers.  I started reading the "Advance Praise" for the book and saw quotes that supported the book from legendary avante-garde artist Laurie Anderson (married to Lou Reed), graphic novelist Harvey Pekar, and comic artist Peter Bagge.  I included a couple pieces of their artwork, found below.  You can see that their work is a little out of left-field.  I hope that these examples demonstrate how strange it was to see their names in an education book.

(By Peter Bagge)

(Harvey Pekar)

     What was most interesting was that these artists never seemed to write about teaching and education in their work.  However, they do have much wisdom to share about life, and I think their progressive sensibilities match up well with William Ayers.

     

     I had heard of Ayers from the 2008 and 2012 elections.  President Obama has been linked to Ayers, due to Ayers' inclusion in The Weather Underground, a radical student leftist group that were founded in the 1970's.  I think they had crossed paths in Chicago at some point.  I had no idea Ayers was an educator, only that he was a feature on many Fox News and other right-leaning programs.

     

     Ironically, he writes about the myths of teaching, and he has his own myth about him.  On page 3, he compares teaching to an Odyssey, "an epic, solitary quest."  I thought this metaphor was right on target.

     

     Students don't learn everything all at once.  We must teach them throughout the year, a little at a time, while wacky challenges are thrown in our direction, much like Homer trying to make his way home to his wife Penelope in The Odyssey.  "The teachers trudges toward an uncertain future without easy rewards."  Yet, he also points out "it's often the myths themselves that the young teacher must fight against."

     I picked up on this idea of myths when I first started in education.  I was substitute teaching where I had attended high school and thought I was more aware than I had been when I was a student there.  I observed how the teachers and students both bought into many myths and labels, whether it was about someone's reputation or how the real world actually worked.  Ayers writes "labels are lazy, static" (21).  I always had this thought in my head, yet I could never quite pull it into words. I think this is an important part about teaching and learning: we have to look past these easy labels and myths and try to "open our eyes, always, to the true children before us: dynamic, 3-dimensional, trembling, and real" (19).  When my former teachers were buying into these same labels, I was disappointed, and swore I wouldn't teach that way.  When I first became a credit recovery teacher, I had to put this into practice, which was harder than I thought.

     In Chapter 2: "Seeing the Student," Ayers introduces us to a young student named Quinn.  He shows the student in class, enthusiastically learning and treating his fellow students with respect.  From the outside, to administrators, he looks like a typical A.D.D. student.  However, on pages 27-29, Ayers shows how Quinn is learning in all sorts of ways that are not seen by the common eye.  He points out how paying attention to details are important to learning how a student learns.  I thought this went along well with Ayers' decision to publish this graphic novel.  He could've taught us how he thought details were important via the written word.  However, the comics demonstrated this point in a more visceral way.  I especially thought this about the comic on page 29, when Quinn was helping a student he had accidentally bumped into.  The image was much more powerful than the words.

     I had a little more trouble connecting with Chapter 3 "Creating an Environment for Learning."  I don't doubt the importance of the space students have for learning.  However, it struck me as more driven towards an elementary or preschool teacher.  In my experience, I just don't see the difference with high school students.  I had a U-shaped classroom the past two years.  This year, my new room is too small for a U, so I have the traditional rows.  I haven't seen much of a difference.  I wonder if I haven't thought about this enough?

     The building bridges metaphor in Chapter 4 was another analogy that Ayers nailed.  I thought it was interesting that Ayers cut the first story, about building a bridge for his class turtle, into two parts.  The story was interrupted by another story, about a friend of his who teaches high school.  The teacher had been attempting to have a dialogue about race that back-fired.  He admitted he hadn't quite built the bridge for his students to be able to speak about such a tricky subject.  I've been attempting to do that exact thing in one of my classes this year.  I am attempting to build a bridge to more higher conceptual discussions about race, sex, and gender in the country.  Instead of jumping in the deep end, I'm attempting to start slow.  I think students learn better this way when learning about complicated, controversial subjects.

     Last spring, the English department were debating the upcoming summer reading selections.  I suggested we read a graphic novel, and I was nearly laughed out of the room.  I was relatively insulted, considering I had a decent grasp on how graphic novels could help students learn.  However, I lacked the language to argue for graphic novels.  Ayers' Introduction resonated with me.  I think graphic novels do have the potential to teach and help students learn.  Graphic novels don't only have words and pictures: they're part of a "third, all-new form - sequential art and a dazzling dance of dialectic" (XIV).  In a world where images are increasingly influential (Instagram and Snap-Chat, the newest technology fads, are mostly image-driven) and students read less and less, I would hope that an emerging resource would be sought after, not laughed at.

     "Teaching at its best is not a matter of technique - it's primarily an act of love" (11).  This quote particularly resonated with me and I hope I will keep it in mind the rest of the school year!

   


     

     

      

Final Thoughts

My project is a website for my American Sports Literature class.  I taught the class last year for the first time and am teaching it again in the fall and spring.  American Sports Literature is a junior/senior English elective course.  Students learn about American history through the rise in power of sports.  We study its influence and how it affected the lives of Americans. Whatever was going on in society was reflected in the popular sports of the time.  We start in the late 1800’s by studying immigration and race relations and work chronologically throuh the years up to modern times.  I try to put the events of history in the context of today in order for students to connect to the subject matter.  By the end of the course, students understand how sports play a crucial role in modern times, and how this huge influence was predicated on past events. 

In order to reach these learning goals, students read and write about these subjects.  The core text is from a book called Idolsof the Game.  The two sportswriters who wrote this book, Robert Lipsyte and Peter Levine, were determined to figure out who were the most important athletes in American history.  Their criteria not only requires the athletes to be great at their sport, they also had to be influential in the greater American consciousness.  They had to change history and the way Americans looked at life.  Muhammad Ali, for example, is considered an idol of the game, not only for his dominant performance in the ring, but for his strength in standing up to the American government during the Vietnam War.  Jackie Robinson was the first black baseball player since the late 1880’s.  He was a great player, yet is most remembered because of his ability to stare down the face of racism and not fight back.  He paved the way for other black ballplayers and his strength and courage are characteristics we can all learn from.

Idols of the Game is great reading and I’ve read it twice from front to back.  This doesn’t mean that all students are interested in doing this themselves.  As we discussed in class, many students learn in different ways and are intelligent in many ways.  One kid could be great at reading and writing but can't draw a picture, for example.  

Ken Robinson discussed in his Ted Talk how schools are ruining creativity.  He argues that human beings are naturally different and diverse,  and human life is inherently creative.   He argues that the current educational structure stifle these principles.  We need to change in order to improve education, to engage our students.

I am going to keep these ideas in mind while I'm teaching Idols of the Game.  Each chapter I try to explore the athletes from a different angle.  For example, last year, I presented the first athlete, John L. Sullivan, with a lecture and reading.  We watched a documentary on the second athlete, Jack Johnson.  We did an interactive PowerPoint with Jim Thorpe, the third athlete.  While these activities provided the information to the students, it wasn’t as dynamic as I think I’m capable of.  I thought there are better ways of teaching the students these subjects while also teaching them 21^st century skills.

I’m more of a digital native than many other teachers, yet I feel like a digital immigrant when I’m working with students.  I sometimes feel like I’m a step behind in their digital world.  There’s a new thing coming out every week, it seems.  It’s hard to keep up.  I took this course in order to get closer to their world. 

This was one of the major points of my website and the additional activities I have created on it.  I had no idea these tools existed.  I would’ve never had the time to research them this summer, never mind building a whole website!  Although I already had an assortment of projects for my sports lit class, I now have a far wider array of tools to pick from.  I have constructed a Storify for the first chapter on John L. Sullivan. 

Typically, I introduce Sullivan in a lecture and the students take notes.  This seems like a more traditional method of teaching.  It strikes me more of an information dump.  Students are consumers in this instance and, as I’ve learned in this course, we want students to be creators. 

Instead of doing my usual lecture, I will instead assign students a Webquest activity for John L. Sullivan.  Instead of me telling them the information, the students will instead discover about Sullivan and his place in history through several links and videos found on the Storify page.  The students will not only discover the information, they will be learning how to use the Internet to find information.

I also plan on using other digital tools for other assignments in the course.  I would like to create a Prezi for the Introduction section to the book, then eventually have the students create Prezis for their final projects for the “Race in American Sports” unit. 

I would like to create a VoiceThread for the unit on Jack Johnson.  Johnson was a controversial male black boxer in the early 1900’s.  His brash behavior shocked his white audiences.  I think an interactive dialogue on Johnson would be an interesting activity for students. 

As we discussed in class, students have been using many image and video-based products in their digital worlds.  I think if I figure out how to use VideoThread, the students will benefit from discussing Johnson online because they will see how they can use their native digital tools for higher-level thinking.  These apps are not just for entertainment!

That is one major theme I took out of Michael Wesch’s editorial on the use of the technology in education.  I interpreted that one of his points was that technology is here to stay and is an embedded part of human nature in youth. He argues that we’ve been ignoring this part of culture and we need to adjust accordingly.  Instead of pushing the rising technology aside, we need to harness that energy with the critical thinking skills our modern society is so in desperate need of.  My hope is, through using VideoThread, I will be able to accomplish this very idea: use video technology to discuss racial issues in the 1900’s America. 

I also was able to investigate the Vine app on my iPod.  This is one the hottest new fads in youth culture, only months old.  This free technology allows its users to take ten second looping videos.  I have yet to find practical use for it in the classroom, but I think this is another tool that Wesch would put to use.  I’ve been playing with it more since class ended, I’m sure I’ll think of a lesson to use it for! 

I decided to organize these future projects on a Google Site.  My motivation for creating a Google project was both practical and philosophical.  I thought it had the most interesting, albeit frustrating, technological opportunities.  These tools are all free, so I shouldn’t be complaining too much.  And it seems like Google is something that is here to stay.  That’s where my philosophy end comes in.

I watched students struggle with simple email commands last year.  They had email addresses from ancient email servers.  They were copying and pasting documents into emails instead of attaching documents, which for an English teacher, can be particularly traumatizing.  These are basic skills students need to know in order to function in the real world. 

Again, from my perspective, Google seems to have staying power.  If students have these computer skills, they will have another skill to be used in the real world.  I plan on eventually teaching students how to use Google Sites to upload their own assignments to.  I hope to do that in the spring.   

I know this is not part of the dominant ideology found in much of education currently.  This is not something students will be tested on.  Yet, this is still an important skill that students will need in the long run.

I also figured out how to use Google Forms, for surveys and contact information, and how to post documents to the site.  I am ecstatic about this tool.  I will now be able to provide assignments to students who are absent, as well as a place for the forgetful student to find their homework.  I hope to get students in the habit of emailing their homework to me in attachments, rather than copying and pasting!

Overall, this course provided evidence in the need to instill higher order level thinking skills in today’s youth.  They know how to use new technology; yet don’t use it for the most constructive reasons.  Usually, students use Instagram to take photos or Vine to take videos.  They text their friends, they play games, and constantly bored and want to look at their phones.  I hope to alleviate that boredom with more interactive class room activities that focuses on their different styles of learning and their different skill sets.  

I hope that they will understand that they’re unhealthily addicted to their phones, much like the article I read in the course text book, only this addiction seems worse.  [Quick aside: I realized that the chapter on TV addiction was slightly outdated.  The real test of strength will be to attempt a No Phone for a week drive.  That’d be a really interesting experiment!] 

Can we harness this change in social behavior for the greater good?  Can we help teach students to see past the novel yet superficiality of their digital worlds and help them look at it more critically?  These seem to be the burning questions that are at the forefront of my thinking after taking this course.  I hope these new tools and thoughts will help me push my students in the right direction and will stick with them as they enter the real world and shape society's future.

Using Technology Helps Avoid Awkward Conversations, Leads to Lonely Habits

How does Turkle's claim challenge Mike Wesch's call for digital community and connection, if at all?

Sherry Turkle, in her article The Flight from Conversation, raises some points that challenge Mike Wesch's drive for more integrated use of technology in the classroom that he focused on his article The Old Revolution.  The way I see it, Turkle and Wesch are both trying to solve a problem that society has always had to face: the feeling of loneliness.

Both of these thinkers are trying to battle this major problem with somewhat extreme measures.  Turkle is arguing that, overall, technology is ruining society.  She may have a point.  Her anecdotes about the lack of face-to-face conversations in the workplace are eyebrow-raising.  I see it myself, at work and elsewhere in the real world.  There is a definite disconnect in between people in the real world.  The free time we used to have to chat with people, have random run-ins with someone on the subway or walking down the street, have diminished since we all have headphones on.  Turkle's right.  This isn't a great part of our society.  

Unfortunately, I don't know if what to do about the take-over of social technology and the anti-social behavior in the real-world.  Turkle's suggestion to unplug for a day just seems unreasonable, due to the nature of how business is run these days.  Perhaps technology will get to be so good that we'll have to start to have full conversations with people more often, only virtually.

And I think that's Wesch's argument: technology is here to stay, no matter what we do.  The way my freshman acted with their iPhones last year made that abundantly clear.  They nearly burst when they couldn't look at their cell phones.  When they did have their phones out, it was like a switch went off in the room.  It's a new, strange world.    

This doesn't mean that Turkle's point, that this is increasing loneliness and therefore not making humanity more happy, is a solid one.  This reminds me of a famous line, found in the movie The Magnificent Ambersons, directed by Orson Welles, who also directed Citizen Kane.  The protagonist of the film, Eugene (played by Joseph Cotton), is involved with the start of the car industry.  George, the antagonist, is saying that he hates the rise of cars, and wishes they would stay away, and that the world was better without them.  The exact conversation is found below.

Courtesy of IMDB.

George: I said, automobiles are a useless nuisance. Never amount to anything but a nuisance. They had no business to be invented.

Maj. Amberson: So your devilish machines are going to ruin all your old friend, eh Gene? Do you really think they're going to change the face of the land?

Eugene: They're already doing it major and it can't be stopped. Automobiles...

[cut off by George]

George: Automobiles are a useless nuisance.

George: What did you say George?

George: I said automobiles are a useless nuisance. Never amount to anything but a nuisance and they had no business to be invented.

Jack: Of course you forget that Mr. Morgan makes them, also did his share in inventing them. If you weren't so thoughtless, he might think you were rather offensive.

Eugene: I'm not sure George is wrong about automobiles. With all their speed forward they may be a step backward in civilization. May be that they won't add to the beauty of the world or the life of the men's souls, I'm not sure. But automobiles have come and almost all outwards things will be different because of what they bring. They're going to alter war and they're going to alter peace. And I think men's minds are going to be changed in subtle ways because of automobiles. And it may be that George is right. May be that in ten to twenty years from now that if we can see the inward change in men by that time, I shouldn't be able to defend the gasoline engine but agree with George - that automobiles had no business to be invented.

I tend to agree with Wesch and Welles: technology is here and it's here to stay, for better and for worse.  We may as well embrace it and try to integrate new ideas and higher-level thinking in technology.  The way students currently use iPhones is not with tasks I'd consider higher level thinking: texting, texting photos, and playing games aren't exactly rocket science.  But if we tweak a few things, there is definitely a way to make these technologies more academically stimulating.  

Then maybe we'll have better conversations? 

Prezi Time!

I made 2 Prezis!

The first one explains my PhotoVoice failure!

The second one features my fabulous Prezi that doesn't embarrass me!

The Opposite of Compulsion is Not Freedom but Communion

In the article "The Old Revolution," Michael Wesch makes a strong claim that the new pedagogical push for 21st century technological skills is not a fad.  He is directly answering the arguments made by Jay Mathews in a piece he wrote for The Washington Post: "The Latest Doomed Pedagogical Fad: 21st-Century Skills."

I tend to agree with Wesch not only based on my own experiences in teaching for the past four years.  His argument is simply stronger than Mathews'.

Mathews has his heart in the right place.  He makes it clear in the article that he cares about teaching and has some great points about the importance of relationships in the classroom.  From what I've heard from veteran teachers, there's a new fad in teaching every few years.  He has a point there.  However, his article exemplifies exactly what Wesch is trying to avoid.

Mathews is writing for the Washingtonpost.com, yet doesn't link to any other articles to back up his reasoning.  There aren't any photos or graphics.  It's not eye-catching and very dull.  It's almost like he's still writing for the print version of The Washington Post, and we all know where the newspaper industry is headed.  My students would look at the article and simply click out of the tab.

The last real issue I have with Mathews is his lack of alternatives.  What else should we be doing?

Why is Wesch more on point, then?  He simply seems more in tune to the changing of times.

He points out that 'scientists overwhelmingly noted that it was not the content that mattered.  What mattered was that students learn how to think.'  This seems to be, from my direct experiences, the most important aspect of teaching.  I see more of a change in students when they start thinking differently and more critically.  Teaching the novel Night this past year, for example, changed the way several of my students looked at life.

Wesch continues to point out that 'Our economy is stagnating, making it difficult to implement broad-scale changes.  And there is a solid and entrenched "back to basics" movement to counter our own, of which the article by Jay Mathews is just one example.  The idea of a 'back to basic' movement sends shivers down my spine.  I was a freshman in high school ten years ago.  The amount that has changed over those years in youth society is staggering.  There was no Facebook, students didn't have cell phones, and my parents still had dial-up internet!  To deny that there needs to be more of a focus on 21st century skills is just baffling.  Step foot into a classroom for the time in between classes and, guaranteed, 2 out of 3 students will be checking or playing on their phones.  It's incredible to watch how important the digital world is to students nowadays.

My favorite quote from the Wesch piece was from Mauriece Freedman when explaining Martin Buber's educational philosophy.  He stated that, when we change things around, it's not going to cause chaos.  Rather, "The opposite of compulsion is not freedom but communion..." (1955).  [Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue, by Martin Freedman, 1955]

Clearly, we need to work together more to reach a better place in education, rather than lament the good ol' days and slow the process of change.