During my years of going to school, I always thought to myself. How was education back then? What is the difference between from then and now? As I read the article and watched the two videos, I got a totally different perspective about education that I never knew. Education was not forced in the first place, it was through experience. But in today's modern world, that freedom to learn has changed dramatically.
As I read the article titled, "A Brief history of Education," I got so many perspectives about what education was back then compared to now. I learned that kids in schools learn on their own without adult supervision, without an adult directing them. The kids learned on their own through trial and error and experience. Through freedom and exploration, kids learned on their own, but that freedom to learn has changed as years passed on. While the rise industry was happening, kids were forced to do hard labor in factories, they basically had no choice but to work. Back in the Middle Ages, around the 14th or 15th century, kids were beaten into submission to Lords and Masters into doing work for them.
Also when I listened Sir Ken Robinson and Will Richardson's perspective on education, it opened my eyes to one point. Children lost their freedom to learn. Basically children lost their freedom and their right to explore the world on their own free will. Today's education, you go to school, learn what you have to learn, and if you don't learn it, then you fail and there is no hope for you to survive life. I liked how Sir Ken Robinson pointed out in his video, he said that there are two experiences in learning, one is Aesthetic, meaning you learn from first hand experience, on the spot learning. Then there's anaesthetic, meaning you shut yourself down, you have to learn what without your free will, you make yourself into a robot, forcing yourself into what you have to learn. Which automatically shuts your imagination and excitement about learning.
So to conclude, in order to get children to see education more interesting and fun, we should not raise the bar for them by adding new and better curriculum, but to attend to their needs on how to learn.
So to conclude, in order to get children to see education more interesting and fun, we should not raise the bar for them by adding new and better curriculum, but to attend to their needs on how to learn.
Resources
I think I should have expanded on my Matrix analogy more in class. We face a tremendous uphill battle against the popular notion of what education is. Parents, administrators, the media, society, and the students themselves, all have an idea that education should look a certain way. It takes courage to swim against the current.
ReplyDeleteIt may have not been so long ago, but my boyfriend at the age of 13 was "forced" to work for his family business. He never went to high school. Be all that it may, he has learned a great deal through experience to get through life. He thanks his father for teaching him all he knows, as he is an exceptional mechanic, an awesome truck driver, and a wonderful father. He did get his GED about 6 years ago, and is proud of that accomplishment. He has missed out on a lot of his childhood, particularly his adolescent-hood, but he wouldn't be who he is if it weren't for his past. I bring this up thinking about Sir Ken Robinson's perspective on aesthetic and anaesthetic learning. I guess it depends on the person to see what type of learner they are. Although my boyfriend never had a formal high school education, I believe that he really didn't miss out on much. Most of what I learned in high school has become irelevant in my life today. Although, what he has learned during his "high school years," he has been using since he learned it.
ReplyDelete