Now that we have read how our world is flattening and the significant role technology plays in this flattening; it is time to look more closely at this impact and education. Our next book in the StratReaders list looks at how computers enhance our lives; how they force us humans to idenitfy and evaluate our “value add”; what is industry doing to tap into technology AND human value add; and how can public education do the same.
This book was featured at the kaleidoscope session this summer at the July conference. So, grab a book, find some time, curl up, read, and share your thoughts.
Jean Piazza
This entry was posted
on Monday, November 6th, 2006 at 12:10 pm and is filed under The New Division of Labor.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
Now that we have read how our world is flattening and the significant role technology plays in this flattening; it is time to look more closely at this impact and education. Our next book in the StratReaders list looks at how computers enhance our lives; how they force us humans to idenitfy and evaluate our “value add”; what is industry doing to tap into technology AND human value add; and how can public education do the same.
This book was featured at the kaleidoscope session this summer at the July conference. So, grab a book, find some time, curl up, read, and share your thoughts.
Jean Piazza
This entry was posted
on Monday, November 6th, 2006 at 12:10 pm and is filed under The New Division of Labor.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
November 20th, 2006 at 2:11 am
Well, hoping to be a part of this discussion, I started reading the book this weekend, and was rolling along OK until I hit the section on expert thinking, and read the quotation, “experts have acquired a great deal of content knowledge that is organized in schemas that reflect a deep understanding of their subject matter.” I think that this quotation certainly has implications for teachers. But of course, teachers need knowledge of their “content” and knowledge of “effective teaching practices.” When you’ve got those two things, well you’re on your way. I like all of the descriptions of expert thinkers, and I keep thinking that must be our goal for a teacher, someone who can see a learning challenge, and your their expert thinking to respond appropriately to promote learning.
November 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I can’t tell you how many times I have come back to that idea - knowledge forming connections which creates schema. To me this is truly the essence of teaching. It is also the main reason to continue to try and try again to get better at what ever task you are working on. I think this idea relates to reflection and partnership learning. The more we reflect on what we do and on our practice - whether it is teaching, supervising, providing professional development, or operating as change facilitators, our “tacit” knowledge becomes stronger each and every time we interact with a fellow human being.
I think this idea helps teachers understand and truly embrace the idea of strategic teaching as well. If it is our goal to help others (kids or adults) learn more deeply, not just MORE - we have to be adept and thoughtful about what experiences we bring to the table. If it is going to be the expert thinkers who survive and prosper in this country during the next century, we as educators serve a very important role. I know there are people who just want to bury their heads in the sand and believe that everything will go back to normal just as soon as the government changes its policies.
For instance, my brother-in-law was over last night. He said that his shop is probably going to be going on strike in early January because the company is cutting insurance benefits. I asked him if he thought that was smart in this climate; there are so many people out of work which plants closing down and moving out of Michigan. I asked him if he thought his company might decide to close down. He told me that his company couldn’t close down because they are a Department of Defense contractor. He said that by law companies who have government contracts can’t move out of the country - or so he said. He was talking about his wife’s job, too, and how busy that company is. (It is a union plant - UAW.) He said that the company is pulling back its operations from Mexico because “the Mexicans make so many mistakes that they have to send them back to the U.S. to be fixed.” I don’t know how much of any of this is actually true, but I’m afraid it represents much of the mindset of average Americans.
November 24th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
I missed out on reading The World is Flat, but I am in the process of reading it now along with The New Division… I am sure I missed out on grand discussions on the first. I will not cheat myself again.
Reading both of these books is confirming my belief that our educational system has never really kept up with the demands of our ever changing culture. “Patches” have simply been applied as needs arose. The comuter, however, does not lend itself well to being simply a patch. There is a valid place for computers in our schools, but the system does know how to use them effectively.
Effective use of computers in our schools would allow teachers to encourage and nurture “expert thinking and complex communicating” (pg.10)in our students. I am also interested in the statement the “computers are raising the cognitive bar.” I have done an extensive literature review for my thesis on metacognition in education. Chaper 2 of this book has really caught my interest, and it has deepened my understanding of other literature I have been reading.
What students need to learn in their lifetime is difficult. There are so many variables that teachers must take into account when delievering any single lesson that “complex communicating” must be taking place at a level of understanding for each student in the classroom. That in itself demands “expert thinking” on the part of every teacher.
I am telling all my friends about this book, and I am going to suggest that my principal add this to his reading list.
The comment about the “Maquilladores” in Mexico may be true to some degree. Just as children think that all families are like theirs until they start visiting other children’s homes, Americans tend to think that all countries are like ours. Those that travel recognize the uniqueness of our country. Americans think that because we are all part of the human race that we all think alike. We do not. Manufacutures have learned this the hard way in Mexico. I have friends that managed Maquilladores. They have all said that the mindset and work ethics in Mexico are different than ours. They never said one is better than the other - only that it is different. We have alot to learn about the rest of the world. We had better start learning since it is now “flattening.”
November 29th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Teachers must re-evaluate their place along with other workers competing in a flattened world. We need to evaluate which rules-based problems we
are willing to delegate to computers, and which unchartered problems
need our talents and energies. As we realign ourselves, we experience
the changing world we are preparing our students for. The expert thinker skills we must employ are the same that our students must engage in.
Whatever tool we need as complex communicators, we will be training students to employ.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I just completed reading the “New Division of Labor” over the winter break. I found it a facinating read following my reading of “The World is Flat.” I was especially intrigued by the way that computer driven “if-then” thinking has replaced many of our previous low-cognitive skill-based jobs and created a great divide between those who now have jobs based on pattern recognition (something that computers do not do well or at all in some cases). We now have a chasm between low-level pattern recognizers (chambermaids, janitors, fastfood restaurant workers) and higher level pattern recognizers (teachers, doctors, architects, computer programs, etc.).
The future will belong to those who have two skills: (1) problem-solvers of high cognitive level problems (those who are can discriminate complicated patterns) and (2) those with highly refined communication skills. In light of these requirements, how are we preparing our students to engage in the world of the future? Are we teaching high level problem-solving and communicating?
I think that the challenge is before us and that a failure to face this challenge will lead to disasterous results for our nation. I am encouraged by the expansion of high stakes testing use of “open-ended” questions which require students to demonstrate their thinking, not just produce an answer. Open-ended questions addresses those who criticize the high stakes testing process as a device which generates a “back-to-basics” mentally and the employment of a “drill and kill” instructional approach.
I think that the challenge of providing a curriculum and daily lessons that emphasize problem-solving can be daunting for those who do not understand the importance and process of teaching problem-solving skills and communciation skills. There are still too many teachers who are teaching with a mentality which will prepare their students for the 20th century (the century in which they lived the longest) instead of for the 21st century (the one which is upon us and which is in many ways unpredictable and unfathomable).
Regarding communication skills, I am especially concerned that our students are learning to speak, listen, read, and write but not in an applied, prolem-solving way. Unfortunately, much of our secondary curricula are still fragmented and delivered via a traditional 45 minute, class period structure. For those who have gone to a block scheduling format, many of the teachers have not been taught to use the time effectively and thus waste precious time. Studies still indicate that actually “learning time” (time when students are demonstrating that they are comprehending and/or are able to use the knowledge and skills that are being presented to them) is still dismally low, less than 50% of set-aside instructional time.
I was impressed by the book’s treatment of the learning programs developed by IBM and CISCO. They seemed to have a firm grasp of the different stages of learning–basic knowledge/definitions/facts/skills through the higher processes of knowledge application for problem solving. It is my experience as a state level educational consultant, from observation and conversation with practicing teachers, that they are not clear on the difference between the two major stages of learning or that they claim not to have the time to help the students apply the knowledge to problem-solving at sophisticated levels. Is this a problem of time-management, basic understanding, lack of appropriate pre-service or in-service development, …. I definitely see a great part of the problem related to a lack of understanding of many educational leaders, especially principals. Many tend to be managers rather than educational leaders. They spend more time dealing with bus problems than instructional ones. It is easy to see why high stakes test scores in buildings run by these principals are low. It’s a “duh” situation. But they don’t understand or don’t know enough to alter their performance. In many cases they were not master level teachers themselves before becoming principals. Hopefully the emphasis on “highly qualified” teachers will produce more masterful teachers in the future who will float to the top and become masterful principals.
I could ramble on here citing more direct experiences that I have encountered in the field which help to verify our need to change the way in which instruction is delivered. But I will end my comments here.
Ron Miros