With regards to the article, I partially agree with what Geoff Johnson has to say. His comments regarding knowledge bring to light the fact that 50's, 60's and 70's education model was based heavily on the knowledge category of the cognitive domain. Specifically, when he says "my access to knowledge depended very much on my own teachers' access to and interpretation of knowledge." Knowledge has never been more accessible, not only because of the Internet, but also because of social networking that allows for knowledge to be spread globally almost instantaneously. Furthermore, current and future generations are not interested in knowing one thing but like to know how things are connected. This can be seen with Wikipedia, which connects pieces of information with other pieces of information, allowing one to broad knowledge about a subject. As Johnson notes, when he asked his son where Baghdad was, his son used Google Earth to not only find it on the globe, but also see what it looks like from an aerial and street view. Furthermore, links appeared that provided further information about Baghdad that a globe or atlas could not provide like “the latest news and reports from Baghdad, daily life in Iraq, elections, analysis of the Iraqi war, society and business.” This access allows us a greater understanding of the world as a whole. What Johnson begins to elude to is the fact that we as teachers need to address other categories within the cognitive domain: comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
However, where I slightly disagree with Johnson is that information does still need to be taught and evaluated within the classroom. It is important for students to have a general base of knowledge they can rely on to comprehend, apply, analyse, synthesize and evaluate information. Google’s search engine lists websites in popularity, not in validity. That is to say, whichever site has been visited the most comes up first when you search that item on Google. Google does not, however, check the validity of the information being presented on that site in relation to what you have searched. This means that without a previous base of knowledge on the subject, an individual would be unable to discern if the information being presented is credible. A somewhat interesting example of this was from a few years ago when a British couple booked a flight online from London to Sydney, Nova Scotia rather than Sydney, Australia. Sydney, Australia is in the state of New South Wales, which when shortened is NSW, similar to the shortened form of Nova Scotia, NS (link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2172858.stm). Had they examined the information more closely and had knowledge of flights from London to Sydney, they would have realized that they had made a booking error by flying first to Canada and by checking that their connecting flight was on Air Canada. However, due to their reliance on the information the computer was presenting them, they booked the wrong flight. Though a somewhat obscure choice, it does show how reliance on “the computer or the internet knowing everything” can lead to mistakes being made. To allow for our students to achieve “higher-level thinking skills”, a basis of general knowledge is required.
As such, subject teachers are still required but must begin to expand their classroom and their teaching to include more categories within the cognitive domain. Sitting and listening to a teacher tell you facts that you can find in a book or online will fail to engage students. Rather a teacher that asks students to take information and apply it or evaluate it will help their students achieve those “higher-level thinking skills.” Instead of asking “where is Baghdad?,” a better question would be “why is Baghdad’s location within the Middle East so important and how does it’s alliance with the United States play into current U.S. foreign policy.” The issue with that question on a test is that it is so demanding that it either requires students to memorize a lot of information or use resources, like the internet or a peer reviewed article or text book, to answer it. The latter, though, has been deemed not to be allowable during a test or exam. If the current model were to change, the second question would show greater insight into a student’s true capabilities than knowing where Baghdad is on a map.
As well, I saw this YouTube video a few years ago at the Online Teaching and Learning Showcase that UVic put on. Thought it was relevant to this article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P2PGGeTOA4
No comments:
Post a Comment