Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Response Blog #1

Brown and Adler discuss that at the root of Web 2.0 is social learning.

"[U]nderstanding of content is socially constructed through conversations about that content and through grounded interactions, especially with others, around problems or actions. The focus is not so much on what we are learning but on how we are learning."

Web 2.0 allows dynamic interaction with other users and allows learners to construct their own understanding of specific domains. It provides schools with a powerful tool for sparking student interest and opening doors for life long learning. Several faculty members in my building are embracing 21st century learning environments and the positive effects of socially constructed learning. This is a move in the right direction for instructors, however some at the administrative level are attempting to "one-up" teachers by trying to structure entire curricular scope and sequence around social learning. While social learning is a wonderful tool for the classroom I believe it is dangerous to structure an entire curriculum (K-12) around socially constructed understanding. At the end of the day, a public school is expected to graduate seniors with a certain level of content and process proficiency. Colleges expect students to come with certain fundamental skills and we are expected to provide those learning opportunities. We can develop learning environments that allow students to socially construct their understanding of the American Civil War, however, if students socially construct their understanding of "War", they may never develop an understanding of the Civil War or how the Civil War was a product of its time and defined our maturing nation.

We looked at some NY public schools that use thematic approaches to developing curriculum that supports the NY state Regents Test http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/global/global.cfm . The teachers we contacted who are working with thematic social studies curriculum stated that students were very confused at first by a purely thematic approach to history where students created their own understandings of events and their consequences. Schools had to modify the themes so the curriculum looked at regions of the world and examined how the themes played out in these specific areas. Based on these suggestions, we developed a curriculum that will combine thematic inquiry, within the structure of a regional approach, and utilize a combination of social, experiential, and problem-based learning.

3 comments:

Oscar Sosa said...

Interesting post Jim. Based on your enthusiasm for CFF and the work you do, I was a bit surprised that you wouldn't fully embrace social learning? I guess I'm still feeling the effect of reading Will Richardson. Isn't all content socially constructed? This question is not rhetorical. I think what is happening is that our role as educator is shifting. We are responsible for guiding our students through this hyper world. Gone are the days of simply feeding content to the learners. If Richardson is correct, and the digital native minds are real, we have a responsibilty to teach to that mind.

Jim said...

I support social learning theory, however I feel a great responsibility for providing my students with the tools that will help them be successful in their pursuit of higher education. We have spoken with several universities about what they look for in a student's educational background. They still expect certain courses to appear on their transcripts, especially an "American History" court. The long and short of it is that as educators developing a public school curriculum, we have to balance our approach so that we are not using our students to force change on colleges. The change is coming and we are prepping our kids for success in a 21st c. environment, but I don't think we take a radical move for a curriculum that can not be modified in the next 7 years (thems the rules).

megfritzphd said...

Interesting debate! It sounds like your district has come to a happy medium for the students' benefit. It's not about the tools but the learning. Focus on the students and what you want them to know and be able to do when they graduate then use available tools to meet those goals.