When Students Design their own Lesson Plans. In High School no less.
I think this was very interesting. We discuss schooling in here very often. Here's a new idea that seems to be working. At least for these kids. It reminds me a great deal of some of my college classes.
It's about 14 minutes long.
I did not watch the video but I think it could work. For example i do not like basic science,so why waste my time in that class when i have no interest and it was not required for other science classes such as biology and chemistry. BTW this was in the early 80's.
I didn't watch either, but I've given my homeschooled girls a lot of room to pick and choose much of their curriculum. Julie has always liked animals so I let her read a lot about animals and animal sciences....she now wants to be a vet and this week are taking her to see about geting into vet tech training.
I did watch the video, thanks for sharing.
While I can see and support the value of such a model, I do think it would problematic in the wider scope. To me, it is a classic case of both/and instead of either/or. Reason being, giving kids only this approach would have the net result of too many "holes" in their knowledge base. It would be too arbitrary, deep pendent on the dynamic of the individuals making up the group(s).
And it reminds me way too much of the so-called "un-schooling" approach in the homeschooling circuit. The unschooled kids I ran into never brushed their teeth or hair(grade schoolers), and one mom asked her high school aged son, "have you done any writing this month?" These parents seem to "believe" that, if you just let your kids do whatever they want, their natural curiosity will lead them to learning.
I think one of the reasons these kids found some success with the model is because they were already educated in the standard way. If you never ask of a child to learn a particular thing(fill in the blank, depending on the child) that they would never of their own volition wish to, it robs them of experiences with things that, if they hadn't been compelled to, they would never have discovered the value, enjoyment, and discovery of, or the many other positive lessons about themselves that could have been had.
I didn't watch the video. I think a system like that could work of there was some pre-approval. If kids are interested they might actually retain the knowledge rather than just spit it out for a test and forget it.
I think about what kids are "supposed" to learn, how much of that is actually taugh, how much is actually retained. ANd really isn't it all kinda arbitrary? Someone decided you need to learn certain things but why? Obviously English and Math course are a need - but really even those can be tweaked (why certain classic books and not others), basic bio,chem, and physics and basic history. But really in history what history do you remember, that you actually learned in school. (I love history as an adult, most of it I learned myself). So the kids having "holes" in the education - they really already do, it's just a matter of WHICH holes do we find acceptable, b/c obviously they aren't learning everything.
We are homeschoolers, not really unschoolers, although my son is young. I think unschooling with young kid - preschool/K even 1st graders is probably a preferred method - BUT that doesn't mean you don't set boundries for kids. Unschooling - means take them to the library and let them pick rather than limit them to what you want them to read. It means letting them pick which animal they learn about, it means if they are bored/overwhelmed you let them be. IMO it'd mean turning off the TV unless it's a documentry or something educational. IMO - it's "you can choose what you learn, how etc - but you will be learning". Probably that's easier with young ones since they are always learning - and that natural curiousity hasn't been sucked out of them by the school system yet.
Quoting Goodwoman614:I did watch the video, thanks for sharing.
While I can see and support the value of such a model, I do think it would problematic in the wider scope. To me, it is a classic case of both/and instead of either/or. Reason being, giving kids only this approach would have the net result of too many "holes" in their knowledge base. It would be too arbitrary, deep pendent on the dynamic of the individuals making up the group(s).
And it reminds me way too much of the so-called "un-schooling" approach in the homeschooling circuit. The unschooled kids I ran into never brushed their teeth or hair(grade schoolers), and one mom asked her high school aged son, "have you done any writing this month?" These parents seem to "believe" that, if you just let your kids do whatever they want, their natural curiosity will lead them to learning.
I think one of the reasons these kids found some success with the model is because they were already educated in the standard way. If you never ask of a child to learn a particular thing(fill in the blank, depending on the child) that they would never of their own volition wish to, it robs them of experiences with things that, if they hadn't been compelled to, they would never have discovered the value, enjoyment, and discovery of, or the many other positive lessons about themselves that could have been had.
I'm not saying apply this on the mass scale or that all kids should be educated this way. This is one idea of many of how to go about educating kids. I'm sure some would excel with this and others would flounder. It's just an idea. One that I personally like. I know I would have been one of the kids who would have flourished at this kind of school.
My dh did this in his senor year in high school but he liked it better the old way. Only 4.0 students where able to do this.
The big problem with dh was the teachers they were hippies and liked get high with the students.
For me this would of been the best way I would of learned. In school I was ignored (the teachers were prejudices) This would be great in high school.
This is like none schooling you learn what you are interested.
School is about learning and if you are not learning than you should be able to do what works for you and government needs to stay out of it to work!!
It's a proven fact that kids learn more when they are interested in what they are studying.
Going by what I see on CM there is absolutely no way we can do this. The majority of women on this site wouldn't take basic english or math. You DO need to know english to go into whatever your desired area is. There is no way you can write a chemistry paper if you can't spell. I disliked math but it's needed. Not advanced math for my area but standard math.
I know in my HS you had the required courses and then you could take electives. I took electives in what I was interested in. That's the way imo.
This could work if done with a "core" curriculum and also allow them to design the rest.
I agree with Goodwoman that if left entirely to the student, there would be large gaps of learning.
and what "generation" are you?
- mehamil1
on Mar. 4, 2013 at 2:10 AM