This is my UTNE Reader/Journal Projects Page

-- Anonymous, November 11, 1998

Answers

I read the article "Learning in the Key of Life" by Jon Spayde. Once I finished the introductory paragraph, I was compelled to finish the article because the topic is one in which I am very interested. Although I have no available time for self-education outside of the formal classes now, I often wonder what my interests in educational instruction will be once I have the luxury of available time. When I finished reading the article, I was very disappointed in its content and outlook. The remainder of this paper will discuss the reasons why. I am interested in the use of computer technology and its application in the classroom environment. I am very opposed to the quotation cited in the article by John Ralston Saul. The quotation is "Its an enormous error to believe that technology can somehow be the content of education. We insist that everyone has to learn computer technology, but when printing came in with Gutenberg and changed the production and distribution of knowledge profoundly, nobody said that everyone should learn to be a printer" (Spayde, p. 46-47). I wonder where the rock is that Mr. Saul has been hiding underneath! In the great majority of instances, computer technology is NOT the content of education. It IS rather one of the most fascinating facilitators of education. It is also important to realize that computer literacy is based on ones competence in using a variety of software applications and not in the ability to author software programs. To my amazement, Mr. Saul was able to further disappoint me with yet another totally ridiculous statement. Mr. Saul states, "Technical training is training in what is sure to be obsolete soon anyway: its self-defeating, and it will not get you through the next 60 years of your life" (Spayde, p.47). Da! I would like to know who ever hinted that technical training would be useful for 60 years. Who expects or wants training to remain static for 60 years? Certainly not me. But I do realize that in our modern, fast paced world, one must at least attempt to stay current with the technological advances. The person who chooses not to stay current will be shouldered with a huge disability in learning that will be applicable to almost every category of education. I was most disappointed with the article. The topic was right but the content was wrong. I still wonder what it will be like to have the luxury of choosing my self-education courses.

Answered by Don Erickson (dericks9@d.umn.edu) on November 08, 1998.

-- Anonymous, November 11, 1998

Don,

I agree with your perspective on the technology issues stated in the article. I, however, overlooked that part of the article and focused on the idea that we do need an understanding and appreciation for the humanities. Please take a moment to read my response and give me your thoughts. I feel somewhat embarrassed that I, as a math teacher, did not pick up on those comments. I did feel, however, that the article read like a college student's report. I was also compelled to read on after the introductory paragraph. I appreciate and agree with what you said about the need for technology in our future educational endeavors. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Barb Olson

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1998

The three places I looked to read Utne responses all dealt with the same article: yours, about "Learning in the Key of Life." You might be interested in the others -- Tim White & Catherine Nachbar -- because each of you interpreted it in quite different ways.

I wanted to comment on your response concerning technology. I am also a math teacher, as Barb is. Many of the people with whom I have worked have been dislocated workers, and some have been just first-time seekers of work. When Spayde mentioned that technical training is "training in what is sure to be obsolete soon anyway," I certainly recalled many of these students. So often they want & need a job as soon as possible. And post-high school technical training is, right now, anyway, just about the quickest way to a decent job. However, I also learned in a counseling course, that technical skills & jobs are the least transferrable. Therefore, if narrowly trained, these folks are often back at square one in a few years. And often, age, economic state, past education, and other factors conspire to make this setback nearly insurmountable. I think that it is this scenario to which Spayde was referring -- not to the kind of technical tools that we are trying to provide for our elementary & secondary school students.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1998

Don, I had originally read, "How I got my DIY Degree." That was the article I had problems with. It seems you probably read the article "Learning in the Key of Life" far deeper than I had. Both of these articles, to me, dealt with how much education there is outside of formal schooling. The author of the article I read had his focus on learning as a five year plan outside of formal education. I felt the author of "Learning in the Key of Life" was stressing how much of our knowledge comes with life itself. When I attended a Fiction Works 1998 class this past summer, we discussed this imaginary "reading list." Reading has to be combined with knowledge of life and people. I understood the author to mean that technology won't give us all the answers, but we need an understanding of life in the world around us. As a media generalist, I also am looking at technology with respect to what part it plays in the lives of students I teach.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 1998

Don Ericksons Second Utne Reader Review

I read the article "The Art of Genius", by Michael Michalko, pages 73 - 76. I have always been intrigued by the work of geniuses. I have often wondered how they view situations differently in order to be able to spawn new intellectual theories. The author indicates that people of average intelligence use the same methods to answer problems. The average person remembers what has been taught and what has been successful in past situations to answer similar questions. Michalko labeled this method as "reproductive" thinking.

Geniuses, however, think "productively" according to the author (Michalko, p 73). They look at a problem from as many different ways as they possibly can, certainly not just the tried and true methods that have worked in the past. The author then identifies eight thinking strategies that enable geniuses to generate original ideas (Michalko, p 74). The strategy which interested me the most was that geniuses prepare themselves for chance. This struck a chord with me from past experiences. I had the most wonderful teacher in eighth grade mathematics class. She, incidentally, had taught my Dad and brothers as well. She was a true pillar of the school. I hadnt heard much about her for about twenty years and then my Mom mentioned that she was in an adult care facility and her health was deteriorating. Remembering my fond experiences from her as a teacher, I felt compelled to see her. She was just a thin wisp from what I had remembered as an elderly but vibrant person. When I told her I was taking classes to become a teacher, her tired eyes just beamed. I mentioned that I was concerned about doing my best and not making mistakes. She looked at me and said "Dont ever be afraid to make mistakes". Her statement will stay with me for the rest of my life, primarily because of how she said the words and how much she meant to me as an educator. She died two weeks later.

The idea is one that I use in my classroom on a daily basis. I always say to my students that it is fun to guess. I tell them that I prove myself human everyday by making mistakes. I mention that the one learns from our mistakes and that is why understanding history is so important (Im a U.S. History teacher). I try to encourage my students to be creative. Sometimes I will have them write articles as if they were reporters on the scene of an important event in our countrys past. Each student looks at the situation in a different way and they use their creative talents to describe the event. I strongly believe that preparing students to take a chance is a very important aspect of instruction.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 1999

Don Ericksons Journal Review #1

I read the article "Productivity in Academe: Whats Education For? By J.W. Powell, Thought and Action, Volume XIV, Number 2, pages 109 - 116, Fall 1998. This article explored the question of what should education prepare students for as far as their future roles in society.

The author mentioned a plausible purpose of education is to teach critical thinking skills. This will help the students prepare for changes among vocations, changes within disciplines, and changes in economic life (Powell, p 110). The author also explores the idea that education is to teach parenting and values like discipline (Powell, p 111). Right away I thought that if Powell supposes that education should teach discipline, the author must not have met, read, or believed in Glassers management technique. I can imagine Glasser hemorrhaging on the spot. However, I do see a need for education to address this serious subject. I dont think that education should be required to teach parenting and discipline but I believe the course work should be offered. As stated in the article, educators may need to provide a knowledge base for students to learn how to raise children who do not become sociopaths, especially when catastrophic changes have occurred in the students life (Powell, p 111).

Powell then poses a question about the need for education as it relates to economics. Is education simply supplying the labor market, preparing students for working and for getting and spending? However simply stated, this potential theory gets much attention from the public. I dont know how many times I have heard that if one goes to school and works hard, he or she will get a better job.

Powell then addresses a very timely but ticklish topic. He refers to educators finding their curricula shaped by documents like Education 2000, buried deep in the bowels of Washington D.C. (Powell, p 114). He senses the public and educators alike need to check to see what is meant by those documents which call for higher achievement, more accountability, higher test scores and better employment.

He closes the article by emphasizing there are no agreed upon singular statements of what education is for. He calls for a need to debate and to worry about the direction that education should take in the coming years. This statement reminded me of the many concerns which were discussed in our session with the new superintendent. I think that the Cohort program that we are in will offer much discussion as to what direction we think education should take.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 1999

I thought your response (as well as the article) was very interesting. I too, believe that critical thinking skills need to be taught in some way, shape or form within our schools. Many students seem to do the least that they can to get a decent grade because they "will never use this (whatever the topic may be) out of school". It would be nice to see material presented that would scream out to students, "Hey, the process we are using in your work will help you later on in life".

The comment on education preparing students to enter the workforce was an angle that had not occured to me. As children, it is drilled into us to do good in school, respect people and do not break any laws. If we follow that formula then magically we will have a rich, rewarding life. As a society we strive to succeed and to gain more materialistically. Isn't that what is called the American Way?

-- Anonymous, January 06, 1999

Hello Don, Your article review was thought provoking. I can't imagine any easy answers to the problems presented. Society is changing rapidly, and with it , education. How can we , as educators, or any other isolated group know what students will need to be successful in a world that is changing so fast. Two thoughts come to mind, first, we need to work out a system where decision making in regards to curriculum is more efficient. The way it is now, the "top down" method does not work. Our state and federal agencies hand down what they decide is the best new curriculum or program only to have it disputed by educators and or parents.We must find a way of working together. My second thought is that we probably will never find the perfect way to prepare our students for their future, but we do know many essential skills (communication, reading for meaning, problem solving etc.) that must be taught in order to succeed in any job or training program. Along with these basic skills, we must teach our students HOW to learn so that they can pursue their interests.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 1999