Comments on: School 2.0: Adaptable vs Knowledgable

By: pligg.com

pligg.com — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:19:43 +0000

School 2.0: Adaptable vs Knowledgable…

just left this comment on a message board with some pre-service teachers:

What is more important to be adaptable or knowledgeable? (think dinosaurs)

The word adaptable and adaptability have been floating around in my head for some time now and how th…

By: Annelies

Annelies — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:30:23 +0000

As Dennis says so well, School 2.0 is about change and higher-order ideas. As educators we will need to be continually thinking outside the square, and taking more risks…..the bottom line, we cannot (as schools) remain what we have been in the past…. that will no longer work in this “new world”. We need to teach kids how to THINK, how to think differently and creatively. I believe the “new world” is much more about innovation and new ideas and possibilities….and to know what to do when you don’t know what to do!! Now that’s adaptability…..and I think adaptability goes hand in hand with atttude…..and that will take us places…..

By: Dennis Harter

Dennis Harter — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 08:38:54 +0000

I am only adding my agreement with the above, but in response to Dan, I think that the “nebulousness” is sort-of the point. School 2.0 is about change. It’s about adapting. I won’t rehash this, because people much smarter than I have already said as much.

My 1 cent (though in comparison to Warlick’s 2, this may be over-valued?): An adequate definition of School 2.0 may not be possible. Instead, we are talking about and idealogy or a belief or an understanding. Just like the higher-order thinking we are trying to get kids to do, School 2.0 is a higher-order idea. You can’t put your finger on it, because it’s bigger or better than something that fits under my finger. It’s about adapting and knowing how to do that. So like Dan said, let’s teach them how to find knowledge, and then teach them how to figure out how to DO stuff and FIGURE OUT stuff and SOLVE stuff with that information. And then, let’s let them bend it to their will. Because by that stage, they won’t need us anymore.

By: Dan Meyer

Dan Meyer — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 03:58:21 +0000

An unpopular stance I find myself repping more and more often in the stadium of math teachers is that the ability to retain information is diminishing in importance. Saxon textbooks spiral like crazy. Kids practice skills they’ve practiced six weeks ago.

I don’t frown on that but neither can I escape the fact that I had to relearn pretty huge cuts of Geometry when I went to teach it this year. In my graphic design work, I use certain Photoshop actions and techniques once every few months. Retaining that knowledge serves me little purpose when I know exactly how to find it again.

The best skill I think I can teach is how to find knowledge rather than how to retain it.

Oh, and PS, the nebulousness of School 2.0 is driving a lot of us curious, but wary, teachers straight to the brink. It all sounds so exciting even though we don’t have a clue what “it” is.

By: Chris Lehmann

Chris Lehmann — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:51:36 +0000

Wonderful post… lots to think about… but one way I think about the idea of change is this — great schools should never answer the question, “Why should we do X this way?” with the answer, “Because we did it that way last year.”

Question all practice, even if all that does is cause you to reaffirm your best ideas.

By: Clarence Fisher

Clarence Fisher — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:34:56 +0000

This is what I’ve been preaching about as well. Would you rather have a teacher who is a master of history, or someone who is a master of learning, of information management. Content is still important, but it is one thing among a few that we need to be thinking of.