A Split Blog

I found the article very interesting. A lot of what was discussed I agree with. It's obvious to me, and anyone else who's currently in training to become a teacher, that education is changing. We are becoming increasingly focused on what we define "21st Century skills" which largely involve technological and interdisciplinary skills. I think the article does a good job of defining and explaining these new skills as well as what each specific skill entails in terms of importance in future careers.

I also like the ideas represented by the John Stanford International School, though I disagree with the workload that they are giving young children. You do not need to give them more work for them to learn; instead, give them meaningful work that they can draw personal connections and lessons from. In addition, I find fault with how the article reports on I.B. schools. They describe what is needed for a diploma, but do not define the grade level which this applies to.

Overall, though, I do like some of the aspects of the I.B. school (as long as they're aimed towards older students). I think all students should learn a second language; it certainly can't hurt at any rate. I also love the idea of bringing in material from other countries and cultures as a way to study a particular event or phenomenon. Students do need to gain a better world view, and this is the perfect place to start. In addition, I love the sound of European textbooks, which are "...extremely small...[but] focus on the most powerful and generative ideas" (54). US textbooks are stuffed full of as many tiny and inconsequential details as they can manage, but this is not true learning. We need to give our students bigger ideas and thoughts rather than force them to memorize useless facts.

A 21st Century English curriculum needs:
open minds
empathy/respect
revision of terms
safe environment in which to fail
relevant topics


Reflection (1-4)
1. For my classroom, I would most likely alternate between c and d depending on the situation. I like the idea of a circle for discussion, but small group discussion seems to be more easily facilitated by small desk clusters.
2. Neither of the room arrangements were typical in my experience. The most common set-up was a grid like set-up where chairs were in evenly spaced rows and columns. I think that my choices will place focus on interaction and discussion rather than individual work. It also shows that students are expected to contribute and become an important member of the class. I think that in both of my chosen arrangements allow the teacher (me) and the students to be equally engaged.
3. I think any of the arrangements would be comfortable for me. But it's not about me; it's about my students and their comfort. If my students are comfortable and engaged, then I know I am doing my job.
4. I am a mover. I like to walk around and listen to my students' conversation. I want to make sure that they are getting it, and if not, that I am available to help them. I imagine that there will be times that I need to be at the front of the room and I'm ok with that. I also want to try standing at the back of the room and talking; this ensures that students are devoting their full attention to the board.
5. I think that no matter what I would utilize either c or d. I just feel that these arrangements are best for my students.
6. I see a lot of discussion and debate, at the small group and whole group level. These arrangements lend themselves to a universality that transcends specific topics; that is, they work well with any topic and practically any assignment.
7. D C E B A