in the age of Google, what value is there in teaching a fact? It seems now more than ever there is a need to address critical literacy. We need to learn how to dig deeper, not only find out what the facts are but which ones are significant and worth knowing.

This topic is near and dear to me but more importantly gives me a chance to spread a bit of link-love with “my man” Paul. Can you feel it?
Of course facts matter. Always have. Always will. Point is whether explicit “fact giving” has a place in the contemporary classroom. If all educators do is deliver facts that can be easily found with a search engine and delivered in a variety of modalities we are in grave danger of being outsourced. Automated even.
Personally I’m trying to outsource as much of this stuff as possible and focus on the things that only I can deliver. Tim Ferris and Daniel Pink style.
I had Let Me Google That For You unblocked for us last week. I use it daily…

He mentioned that there must be teachers out there who joined the profession because they have a love or admiration of the subject matter and that the students are secondary to that motivating force. That statement intrigued me. Would there be teachers who enjoy the subject, say Science or Mathematics, and have become teachers simply to impart their knowledge and love of the subject? Where does that leave the students?

This post started as a comment on John’s post (which I subscribe to) but I sort of got some steam up and felt it was better to post here with a ping back. So here goes…

I’m not so sure about the primary school teacher hypothesis (you’ll have to go and read the post) but a question I often “go fishing with” is;
“Are you a teacher of *insert subject* or a teacher of young people?”
My hypothesis goes a bit like this.
A teacher who ties their identity to their subject matter is likely to be more threatened by change and blindly resist. A teacher who has the best interests of the young people entrusted to their care at the forefront of their minds is more likely to evaluate things on their merit and act accordingly. Who will be happier in their job?
Another angle (can you tell I have done some pondering?);
Someone asks me, “So what do you do?”
“I teach at a school?”
Now in my experience there are two common follow up questions that stereotype two paradigms.
One says, “So what do you teach?”
The other says, “Do you teach primary or secondary?”
You with me?

Download Video: Posted by videointheclassroom at TeacherTube.com.

“Paul Thomson is an inspirational educator. He has fought many a fight with the Queensland Education Department, which is why he ended up setting up his own school, with the support of parents and other teachers.”

(Via ABC EdPod.)

That’s how the blurb read on my iTunes playlist. The original interview was from the Conversation Hour with Richard Fidler January 30, 2008 and proved to be quite interesting. Paul Thomson expressed opinions on a number of issues (the whole point of the interview I would think) some of which I disagreed with (the internet is useless for instance) but others I found quite provoking.

• On bullying… “If you bully that child again, you’re going”
• On homework… “Thirty kids do three hours homework – that’s ninety hours of work you correct next day. What a joke! Who can correct ninety hours of work?”
• Be a Waffo

But most interesting of all not accepting the paradigm that all children develop at the same rate by having mixed age classes across the school. Students form and reform groups depending on their competence in a particular topic. Paul doesn’t go into the model in depth but it struck me as making a lot of sense. Lets do it I say.

Connectivism Blog

We need to have priorities here. Let’s tame technology and focus instead on what we already know and are comfortable with. Let’s ensure that technology does not get away from the tried and true method of containing innovation and new approaches.

It resonated a bit because I brought up some similar points in a presentation I made last year at the conclusion of some elearning research we had been conducting. I think my statement was “it’s not all about the pedagogy” meaning that the tools available for you to use (lets face it, the ballpoint pen was cutting edge technology once) can profoundly alter the learning environment and sometimes you can’t see all possibilities until you actually start using them. So start. Have a crappy first draft. Heck have a crappy second or third? I know I have.

These experts have some basic advice. Check e-mail messages once an hour, at most. Listening to soothing background music while studying may improve concentration. But other distractions — most songs with lyrics, instant messaging, television shows — hamper performance. Driving while talking on a cellphone, even with a hands-free headset, is a bad idea.

Now this may not be news to some. Franklin-Covey, Merlin Mann, David Allen and other productivity experts have been saying this for some time.
“The human brain can only do one thing at a time with excellence” or something like that.
The key here is “with excellence”. Menial or “automated” tasks are a different kettle of fish.

Teens Can Multitask, But What Are Costs? – washingtonpost.com

Poldrack said imaging showed that different parts of the brain were active depending on whether the subjects did single or multiple tasks. When subjects were focused on sorting, the hippocampus — the part of the brain responsible for storing and recalling information — was engaged. But when they were multitasking, that part of the brain was quiet and the part of the brain used to master repetitive skills — the striatum — was active.

If we’re talking any form of higher order thinking then multitasking is a myth.
The Multitasking Mess – Departments – UCLA Magazine Online

In other words, if you or your kids want to learn something permanently and usefully, do something very old school: Shut up, sit still, and pay attention.

Consider it debunked as of now.
Next!

Gever Tulley speaking at TED 2007. Where was this stuff when I was a boy?