Blog Response -- Chapter 1 "Self-Directed Learning"

Regarding Chapter 1 in Personal Learning Networks, Will Richardson and Rob Mancabelli strike a startling conclusion on the future of technology of the classroom.  With words like "transform" and "revolution", their desperate call for connectivity is quite apparent.  Their collaborative views on the future of education are indeed revolutionary, but I tend to disagree with them on many issues.  This response is a critical view of their claims and why their utopian view of education is not going to be as easy as it looks.

Richardson and Mancabelli take the effort to mention the importance of self-directed learning -- perhaps the biggest beef I have with Chapter 1 and the focus of this blog response.  "[Self-directed learning] is a big departure, and it's one that we have to understand for ourselves if we are to make sense of what roles schools and classrooms are going to play in this much more self-directed learning world" (22).  The text suggests that with a world of knowledge at one's fingertips, students are much more apt to learn when they take charge of their education and learn on their own.  This passage (to me) undermines the importance of teachers and schools and begs the question of why we even bother.  Richardson and Mancabelli later say that, "as our students come to expect these customized, highly personalized learning interactions online more and more, our system's inability to provide the same type of experience in the classroom will no doubt challenge the relevance of school in their eyes."  The good intentions of allowing students to learn by interest area may be supported by research, but how many high-school students could you trust to self-learn Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, Government, English, and others?  Can self-learning and self-guidance to learning pass proficiency tests and national standards?

Maybe self-learning shouldn't be shunned right away.  In a study conducted by the Institute of Medicine in Toronto, medical students were placed into two groups in order to learn wound closure skills.  One group was given an instructional video to learn from and one had the presence of an instructor who only showed specific portions of the video.  The study found that self-directed students retained better wound closure skills than the instructor group. 

Although the study was carefully conducted and reported, the self-learning method in this case was for technical work: wound closure.  Perhaps self-learning is most beneficial in those technical tasks, whereas guided and instructional learning is best for new information.  This has many applications, especially in my Physics focus, where I could teach all I know about gravity and motion, but once the students get hands-on experimentation and self-teach themselves, their understanding is reinforced.  Had Richardson and Mancabelli discuss this concept over completely undermining the role of teachers, I would have been ten times more supportive of this argument. I want to make a difference in the community with what I teach and not become a proctor of online media to do the job I'm being trained to do. 

In my opinion, self-learning has an enormous risk for students.  Although they may learn things better when their area of interest is what I'm teaching, their path through the subject may stray very far from the standards that I would teach.  I would encourage all the students to use the Internet for learning capabilities, but I would also stress that just because you read the Wikipedia article on black holes does not make you the leading expert in black holes and how it fits into a nation's criteria.  Incorporating elements of self-learning and guided learning is where I see myself teaching.  I cannot embrace the technology which aims to make me less involved.