To begin, I really appreciate the overlying message of this article, and its rebellion against the 'TTWWADI' mindset. I think it is crucial in all aspects in life to maintain a healthy skepticism and sense of curiosity, particularly when it comes to the infrastructure and framework of a system, such as education. Failure to do this, analyzing a system, identifying problems, and modifying the system to fix said problems, leads to the failure of the system.
While I believe the article is absolutely correct in advocating teachers to adapt to their student's learning style, I also view this article as overstating the differences between teachers and their students. The article assumes that all students, everywhere, have had the exposure to, and have thus been influenced by, technology in ways that older generations could not possibly understand. I find this generalization to be erroneous, as there are certainly students who have grown up with very little exposure to technology, and there are also teachers who follow the cutting edge of technology, and may even hover above the curve. The article also cites the statistics of 50% of the United States' ninth-graders in its 35 largest cities will fail to graduate. While I would buy this statistic, and agree that it is shameful, I cannot believe what the article infers the cause to be - that a discrepancy in technological know-how between teachers and students is the main offender. Every school has a variety of reasons for its success and failure in graduation rate, and I simply don't feel comfortable in accepting this one-size-fits-all approach.
Overall, I found this to be a thought-provoking, and informative read, but I believe it to be overambitious in its goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment