For decades educators have been searching for ways to individualize education, researching methods for students to explore their own interests at their own pace. Unfortunately, our traditional structure of education makes this difficult. Even Vinny Chase from Entourage understands that we do not all learn the same, nor do we all have the same learning objectives,
Vince: So, how’s it look?
E: Your grammar’s horrible.
Vince: Who cares?
E: We were in the same class since we were six,
it’s shocking to me that you can’t punctuate.
Vince: E – it’s all stream of consciousness.
Turtle: You can’t really spell either Vinn.
E: No, it isn’t.
Johnny: It’s O-l
E: No, it isn’t
Johnny: So says you.
E: Are you guys all illiterate? Mrs. Carbonne would
shoot herself if she could hear this.
Although traditional schooling worked for E., apparently Mrs. Carbonne’s English class was not able to address the learning needs, or perhaps learning interests of Vince, Johnny or Turtle. Maybe Mrs. Carbonne needed a more constructivist approach. Maybe Mrs. Carbonne needed a structure that applied some of the concepts of blended learning.
Blended learning generally refers to incorporating online learning into traditional brick-and-mortar schools to create hybrid learning experiences for students. It has been happening for a long time in a multitude of ways. The Carpe Diem Charter school in Arizona claims many successes through their blended learning model. Their particular structure tries to solve a part of a riddle that frustrates many educators, namely that “students are losing the motivation to learn.” If we ignore the suggestion that students all used to be excited about school, we are left with the notion of motivation. No doubt Vincent Chase had the same issues as a student.
Carpe Diem school claims to understand that, “nobody learns the same subject area at the same pace or with the same abilities”. They claim to ‘de-systematize’ everything.
After watching the Carpe Diem promotion video, cost and funding questions leap to mind, despite the convincing chart. Surely this must cost a fortune. However, Jay P. Greene, author of Education Myths claims that they have simply juggled the traditional funding model.
“Carpe Diem has successfully substituted technology for labor. With seven grade levels and 240 students they have only 1 math teacher and one aide who focuses on math. Covering 6-12 and 240 students and getting the best results with a demographically challenging student body = no problem for Carpe Diem. Their founder, Rick Ogston, told me they use less staff than a typical model, and have cash reserves in the bank despite relatively low per pupil funding in AZ. They have never received support from philanthropic foundations, making due with state funding…” (Greene)
In many ways Carpe Diem impresses. As blended learning models continue to emerge, we must hope that governments do not insist on adopting a standard program for every school in the province, but instead embrace the multitude of possibilities to suit the needs of the diverse communities around the country. Ontario’s ‘Homework Help Initiative’, offering free math help online to students in school divisions across the province is a step in the right direction. Undoubtedly more of this is to follow.
Is money better spent on machines that people? Carpe Diem seems to think so. This sounds like a tough sell to teacher unions across the country, but the educational accountants in Alberta can attest: When the economy suffers, it is easier to stop buying computers than stop paying teachers.
Ahh... Entourage... one of my favourites, and I haven't seen it in a long time (we cut way back on our cable, and I miss it).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this is a thoughtful post on a number of levels. Thanks for sharing this!
I like the tone and some of the stated intentions of this program, particularly how it evidently focuses on increasing one to one contact between teachers and students rather than congregated lessons. The caution I have with some of these kinds of initiatives is how "successful performance" is defined and measured. The curriculum is externally defined and regulated. Effectiveness is defined according to standardized testing--my school is out performing your school on standardized tests. I'm trying to see where it gets away from where it actually does something different. Learning seems to be treated as a commodity. And the cubicles in rows creep me out.
I just want to throw one idea and one observation into the mix. First, the idea: I wonder about what it is we should be blending? I like blended models for all kinds of things. But should we be blending technology and conventional classroom experiences? Prescribed curricula and serendipitous learning? Face-to-face and distributed learning? Individualized and collaborative approaches? Learning styles? Vodka and sweet vermouth? Cats and dogs? :-) I'm wondering what Carpe Diem is actually blending. It looks like they have taken all of the conventional stuff, delivers it using technology, and adds a little interpersonal value to the mix. What does that blend of things actually change?
Anyway, the observation: The teachers vs. technology issue has been around for a very long time, and it is such an insidious and resilient notion. I used to tell people, "If a teacher can be replaced by technology, s/he should be." Teachers are far too important and their contributions are far too subtle, intuitive, numerous, and powerful to be replaced my anything mechanical. But unfortunately, there are some bean counters who just don't get it. We in educational technology are some of the first to see the worth of teachers and defend what they do.
I love the breadth of this comment. In my mind, teachers and computers perform very different tasks. One is not a replacement for the other.
ReplyDeleteAnd I touched on this, but I think your examples flesh it out well. Blended Learning is such a broad, undefined term that it is nearly meaningless.
I couldn't agree more that it is not revolutionary to replace desks with computer terminals and call this revolutionary. However, I do like what they are trying to achieve.
On the other hand I really wonder about the motivation aspect (as you point out, despite the standardized test scores). When I was in grades 3-5, we were in self-directed learning classrooms. We worked through books at our own pace and consulted one on one with the teacher. Like so much connected with learning, achievement relied primarily on the independent motivation of the students. Despite the girl at the video's end saying otherwise, with less staff I have trouble imagining how this works.
Also, where do the bigger pieces come from? If students are doing more than what is graded by the computer, how can one math teacher help foster growth and guidance in their students?
If on the other hand I can be replaced by a Mac in September, it would give me more time for ETAD.
Ha... at least hold out for a MacBook Pro -- you're better than a conventional Mac, no question! :-)
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean about the motivation of the individual being key. When I was in elementary school, we were a test school for a programmed instruction program on math and science. I was always a very task-oriented and competitive kid, so I took to it and turned it into a game to see how quickly I could plow through it.
I did. And I probably learned a lot of stuff along the way. But I remember it being so boring! Had it not been for my own internal motivational drivers, I'm sure I would have bailed out on it way before finishing.