“In an increasingly customized world, we have standardized public education that is far closer to an early nineteenth-century model than a twenty-first century one. If one purpose of formal education is to underscore what modes of learning are valued by our society, we are in an oddly mismatched time, where success and failure of a school district or a student are determined by standardized tests at a time of vast potential for customized, collaborative learning” (Davidson & Goldberg, pg. 23).

Adaptability is the key to survival—we all (I hope) know this, yet academic institutions seem to not. The issue with education in today’s digital environment is there is a disconnect between the real world (performance context) vs. academia (learning context). While the world has surged ahead, evolving into a more collaborative space, education has remained relatively static in comparison. As discussed in the book The Future of Thinking: Learning Institutions in a Digital Age by Cathy N. Davidson and David Theo Goldberg, there is a correlation (likely a causation) as to why dropout rates have increased in recent decades—schools tend to operate within a bubble, seeming to have no connection to “real life”.

“Although social and economic factors correlate strongly with educational dropout rates (with lower income contributing to higher attrition rates), the last decade has also witnessed dropout rates increasing across economic groups, across cities and rural areas, and across all areas of the country, with boys dropping out at notably greater rates than girls. One reason, some argue, is boredom, and a mismatch between the lively online lives of youth today and the one-size-fits-all national educational agenda” (Davidson & Goldberg, pg. 24).

Some students get bored and feel like continuing to go to school is a waste of time. Since the dawn of “common schools” in New England in the late 1800’s, formal education has remained pedagogically stagnant, which translates into unmotivated students who believe they can learn more on their own than in a classroom. And as some of the various articles and publications we’ve read over the course of the term would suggest, these students aren’t wrong. According to the authors, institutions and pedagogies must be reimagined, made to catch up with the rest of the world, in order to become exciting and relevant again.

As explored in the book, there have been shifts to learning. The first discussed pertains to static knowledge vs. evolving knowledge. The difference lies in how the learner acquires knowledge—instead of knowing individual facts, the learner knows what questions to ask and how to ask them in promote complete knowledge transfer.

Collaborative learning is by far the most important shift, in my opinion. As mentioned above, collaboration is widely used in the real world, and is a requirement for most professional careers. Yet, many institutions still focus on individual achievement. While I can’t say I don’t understand the value to individual assessment, integrating in a collaborative element can help round out any scholastic curriculum. This helps bring elements of the real world into the classroom, increasing the course’s relevance and broadening its instructional impact because other critical lessons are being added in—communication skills, diversity and inclusion, professionalism, etc.—while still maintaining the integrity of the lesson’s core focus.

I think educators would do well to embrace a more horizontal approach to teaching as opposed to a hierarchical one. I have seen academia shift some since I first started as an undergrad—there is more of a participatory culture, but it isn’t fully utilized. Peer reviews, collaborative projects, and discussions are used at the discretion of the instructor and are generally inconsistent across the board. My science classes (fact oriented) were mostly independent work, likely due to the “black and white” nature of the subject matter; whereas my design-based classes (creation oriented) employed peer review as a standard for evaluation. While this does depend on the education level—obviously, this wouldn’t necessarily work for younger students—older, more advanced students would benefit from participating in a collective learning model. This helps the individual feel a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement for what they know, bolstering self-esteem, which can result in a higher chance of overall engagement. Of course, while I think this is a great approach, there is something to be said about expectations vs. reality. Some students would engage, but not all.

“We continue to push old, uniform, and increasingly outdated educational products on young learners at their—and, by implication, society’s—peril” (Davidson & Goldberg, pg. 24). Institutions would benefit to embrace change, meeting its students on their level, working with what inspires and interests them, not simply stick to old methodologies that likely aren’t as effective as they used to be simply because its what’s known.

 

 

References

Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2010). The Future of Thinking Learning Institutions in a Digital Age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Lynch, Matthew. (2016, September 18). What You’d Be Surprised To Learn About The 19th Century’s Educational Influence. The Ed Advocate. Retrieved December 5, 2020: https://www.theedadvocate.org/youd-surprised-learn-19th-centurys-educational-influence/

 

Image credits:

https://www.kunde.dk/media/1617/branding-in-the-digital-age-1.jpg

https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160812_CommonSchoolsedit.jpg