Unfortunately,
Jamie McKenzie’s future is not here, although progress is being made. Still too
often teachers maintain the ‘smokestack school’ mentality, especially in
districts where high stakes testing encourage teachers to ‘teach to the test’
and learning success is measured by the mark received on a test that requires
regurgitation of predetermine knowledge.
For
many teachers whose students face common assessments / CRTs, the thought of
allowing students to puzzle their way through piles of information – sorting,
sifting, weighing, and arranging time until a picture emerges – is a
frightening one. The question almost inevitably arises, “Is this the best way
to make use of the time I have to prepare my students for the common
assessments?”
And
why wouldn’t teachers feel this way? Late each September, principles meet with
school board officials to discuss in-depth the latest round of common
assessment results. By mid-October each school has a ‘data day’ in which the
‘success and failures’ of the students on the common assessment are discussed.
Here, it is poignantly pointed out where your class ranks in comparison to
previous years, as well as in comparison to the province and the district. There
are pressures that are placed on teachers to maintain the status quo. It is hard not to given in to the pressure to be a ‘smokestack teacher’.
There
are also issues with the curriculum itself. In Newfoundland and Labrador schools, we are
still very far away from Jamie McKenzie’s ideas. Many of our objectives are
very narrow in scope and are stated in a way that makes it too easy for teachers
to use approaches that are more objective in nature. For example, the grade 6
Health program was developed over 20 years ago. Since then there has been
tremendous change in technology and in pedagogical approaches, however the
curriculum has not kept up with this change.
On
a related side note, one thing that I have always found interesting about the
curriculum objectives are that they are written from / for a teacher’s
perspective. It would make better sense to me if they were written from / for a
student’s perspective, using language that a student would understand and
relate to. But then again, maybe it is intentional that this interpretation is
left to the teacher so that they can design lessons based on the curricular
objective based on the dynamics of each class. Using McKenzie’s ideas, it might
be worth a try to allow students to try to interpret each objective and develop
questions relating to it to explore. Through exploration of the questions they
generated and additional questions that would/may arise during the exploration
students would gain a greater understanding of the curricular objective. Once
students have finished their exploration they can them evaluate the answers
they have found by asking questions to validate their findings.
Quoting Hyman (1980), McKenzie pointed out for
every 38 teacher questions in a typical classroom there is but one student
question. I feel that although teachers have become much better at asking
higher level questions (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation), we still have a
long way to go in creating an environment where the majority of questions of
any kind are student generated and led.
I
agree with many of Jamie McKenzie’s ideas. However, I had to chuckle at his
reference to ‘eductainment’ since I see this use quite often and have used it
myself from time to time. McKenzie’s suggestions of having intense student
questioning before, during and after using the Internet helps students frame
their purpose, refine their purpose, and evaluate the findings and the process.
By allowing students to take greater control over the questioning the teacher
is transferring to the students the power to control the direction of their
learning. This type of empowerment can not only affect the students’ learning
in class for a particular topic, but also can be transferred to the students’ entire
life.
As
a teacher I have been trying to redefine my approach to educating students by
integrating technology into the learning environment. One approach that has
been successful in doing this effectively is constructivism. McKenzie’s
approach has a lot of constructivist underpinnings. Some of these include
encouraging and accepting student autonomy and initiative; using raw data and
primary sources, along with manipulative, interactive, and physical materials;
and allowing students responses to drive lessons, shift instructional
strategies, and alter content.
McKenzie
lists a large number of skills that will aid in successful Internet utilization
by students. When reading this list one will have to keep in mind McKenzie’s
love of metaphors and analogies. Again, it is easy to see how these skills fit
a constructivist approach. These skills include:
McKenzie
is quite right in his list of reasons why sometimes our use of the Internet does
not lead us to the ‘fruits of our labor’. This happens quite often due to the
use of flawed search strategies, biased databases, overloaded databases, or use
of the wrong database. We have all experienced sites that have flawed or
incorrect information; unfortunately many students do not recognize these sites
for what they are and are therefore misinformed. As McKenzie points out, if we
do not equip our students with the reasoning and exploration skills required to
cope with Info-Glut and Info-Tactics, then our students could find themselves
in Info-Hell instead of Info-Heaven.
