Thanks to Aaron for pointing my attention back into David Warlick's world and his "2 Cents" blog.
-------------------------------------
Are classrooms irrelvant or obsolete?
A great spark for debate, inquiry, and reflection a-s to whether or not classrooms will exist in the future based on 'obsolescence' or 'relevance'. I'm most pleased with David's underlying arguments, even though my gut tells me that it's not a matter of one vs. the other, of seeing either extreme as the only view of the future. Plus, I think 10 years is hardly enough time to shift it that dramatically, although indicators will certainly continue to arise.
Note, if you're new to the world of podcasting, David gives you a chance to 'listen' as well as to read.
A piece of what gets David's attention during his 50th podcast episode that takes a look at the future of education. The question he put before a range of educators through conferences and workshops in NY and TX asked people to "pretend that they were walking into their classrooms in 2015, ten years from now, and to describe what they see that is different." Click on the above podcast link to listen to the full 'conversation.'
Here's what he wrote after the fact:
"I continue to be disturbed, however, by the number of educators who predict that the classroom will go away, that they will teach their students through the networks, each from their own homes or other places of preference. Certainly this is technologically feasible and certainly some teaching and learning happens very well through the digital lenses that are our computers and networks. But, is doing away with classrooms what we really want?"
Hey, when asked to imagine...it's not too difficult to stretch beyond what we've taken for granted. But, like all things predictable, it's usually somewhere between tradition and the farthest reaches of our imagination that that the future lies.
David makes a great point about human contact towards the end of his post that is not 'romantic' in my opinion (although he might see it that way as a default)...but perhaps just 'human'. I'll let you decide for yourself:
"However, believing that with technology, we can educate our children without bringing them together, uses technology to separate, not connect us.
I may just be old fashioned — a romantic. But the electricity that happens in the eye contact between teacher and student is what brings to life, a world of wonder and opportunity."
Since this post started off thanking Aaron for the reminder to reconnect to David, I thought I'd add a touch of what he had to say upon reading/listening:
"I find my self agreeing with the article (and commentary) presented here. Technology greatly enhances the classroom experience, but it doesn’t necessarily replace it…and I don’t know that it should. I continue to believe that the complex social learning that takes place “at school”—regardless of one’s precise definition of “school”—is every bit as important as the knowledge of the “three R’s”."
Show me more and more of this, and frankly I don't care whether it takes place in a traditional classroom or in some virtual nexus of cyber-switches. It'll be 'right' regardless of location.
To both, however, I only offer the reminder that 'technology' is not a 'thing' when applied correctly. It is a 'conversation'. The box on a table that allows you to enter the Internet is a thing. But the 'experience' that happens once the student/community is engaged,...well, now we're talking powerful, educational, and collaborative!
I think David and Aaron would line up on similar sides of the table/discussion. I appreciate Aaron's comment about "the complex social learning"...especially in light of his reminder that it holds the same degree of importance as the traditional curriculum, no matter how high the stakes may appear to be.
Comments