I recently came across a quite interesting opinion piece in the New York times describing a different method of education, using "mastery learning" and "flipped classrooms". I guess the basic premise is that instead of the teacher determining the speed of the class, the students do. As well as that, students can work independently of one another, proving their mastery through some sort of assessment. At it's core, the idea sounds excellent, but as always, theory greatly differs from practice. Right out of the gate I am questioning the nebulous nature of the classroom environment. The article talked about one aspect of the "flipped classroom" being that rather than the teacher giving live lectures, they would create pre-recorded videos of them for students to view at their leisure. At least from my experience, the dynamics of live lectures, questions being proposed by both the teacher and the students, the discussion that stems from that an other things etc., are incredibly useful learning tools. As well as that, if my sentimentality may be excused, the idea of video lectures. would seem quite dead. The overall rationale for the video lectures being that the teacher now has time to work with individual students on practice problems and projects, the lecture being the actual homework. This lack of homework seems like it could be both a good and bad thing. Once again from personal experience, I have certainly had the displeasure of sitting at home confused about homework, having on one to really help me. Then again, having constant help on homework somewhat decreases its value, depriving students to have the challenge of practicing concepts on their own. A double edged sword I suppose, as is the entire system in a way. Speaking for the third time empirically, I went to elementary school in a Montessori classroom, where the main focus was the use of materials, but we also had a great deal of freedom to work as we pleased, but that was combined with many structured group activities, and interjections from the teacher. Now, this may have worked great with a bunch of 1-4th graders whom thought learning was "exciting", but to be perfectly frank, any system of learning that gives students large amounts of time to do with as they please is probably going to end up as more of a social time than a work one.
Or maybe that's just us.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/in-flipped-classrooms-a-method-for-mastery/
I definitely agree with your last statement, it is simple for these systems to thrive in younger students who are more eager to learn. But as you travel down the road a bit many some teens become apathetic and teachers are sometimes necessary to keep them out of trouble and on track. Also with the complexity of the units of study which have to be covered because of state and federal regulations it would be practically impossible for students to maintain a sense of balance between subjects, materials, and teaching themselves. In theory this system would promote independence but I think that you find in practice that it would do the opposite and create a generation of under educated people.
ReplyDelete