I would say do it in a whimsical fashion, like the snowman in the Democratic debates asking about global warming. In this case, perhaps it's a Dinosaur, asking about evolution. Or, better yet, start with a single celled organism, and over the course of the animation, during the questioning, have it evolve into a human, or somesuch. Perhaps, if you're going for a gag, evolve it into something unpredictable.
One of the things that struck me about these discussions is that many students become bored in school. I know I certainly did, but that seems antithetical to the concept of school.
Someone earlier nailed it in their post when they said, look, once you've got this down, if you have to sit there for another week, and keep doing this, you're gonna get bored.
So it seems to me that the problem is that students are TRAPPED in a particular classroom, based on an artificial schedule, not knowledge, and their own internal learning rate.
Now, what if teachers taught less, and if students cycled through teachers faster? For example, what if a teacher only taught addition and subtraction? And when you understand Addition and Subtraction, and you pass the test, you stand up, and walk down the hall, and go into the next classroom which is division and multiplication?
So each time you get something, you're rewarded. You're moved on to the next level. Which creates an INCENTIVE to learn, because it gets you out of being in any one class, and having to listen to the same thing over and over again.
It also means that if there's a crappy teacher, you're going to spend less concentrated time with that teacher. And it ALSO means that if there's a crappy teacher, that teacher will more easily be pegged by the administration, because suddenly students who are learning at a particular rate will hit "speedbumps" in their learning, and it will be easier to target them, and replace them.
(In the current system, you would have less feedback to make conclusions from - only getting scores and grades a few times a year.)
But most importantly, by not BORING the students, you would create a LOVE OF LEARNING, and teach students the value of teaching themselves - ie, they progress at their own rate, not the rate the teacher sets out for them, so they are responsible for their own education, not the teacher.
I can see that this might be a scheduling nightmare for a school, but I think it's an interesting idea. Anyone ever heard of anything like this before?
-Peter
Slashdot Mirror
I would say do it in a whimsical fashion, like the snowman in the Democratic debates asking about global warming. In this case, perhaps it's a Dinosaur, asking about evolution. Or, better yet, start with a single celled organism, and over the course of the animation, during the questioning, have it evolve into a human, or somesuch. Perhaps, if you're going for a gag, evolve it into something unpredictable.
One of the things that struck me about these discussions is that many students become bored in school. I know I certainly did, but that seems antithetical to the concept of school. Someone earlier nailed it in their post when they said, look, once you've got this down, if you have to sit there for another week, and keep doing this, you're gonna get bored. So it seems to me that the problem is that students are TRAPPED in a particular classroom, based on an artificial schedule, not knowledge, and their own internal learning rate. Now, what if teachers taught less, and if students cycled through teachers faster? For example, what if a teacher only taught addition and subtraction? And when you understand Addition and Subtraction, and you pass the test, you stand up, and walk down the hall, and go into the next classroom which is division and multiplication? So each time you get something, you're rewarded. You're moved on to the next level. Which creates an INCENTIVE to learn, because it gets you out of being in any one class, and having to listen to the same thing over and over again. It also means that if there's a crappy teacher, you're going to spend less concentrated time with that teacher. And it ALSO means that if there's a crappy teacher, that teacher will more easily be pegged by the administration, because suddenly students who are learning at a particular rate will hit "speedbumps" in their learning, and it will be easier to target them, and replace them. (In the current system, you would have less feedback to make conclusions from - only getting scores and grades a few times a year.) But most importantly, by not BORING the students, you would create a LOVE OF LEARNING, and teach students the value of teaching themselves - ie, they progress at their own rate, not the rate the teacher sets out for them, so they are responsible for their own education, not the teacher. I can see that this might be a scheduling nightmare for a school, but I think it's an interesting idea. Anyone ever heard of anything like this before? -Peter