Module+1+--+21st+Century+Skills

NETS Addressed:

Participants will be able to: 1. Discuss 21st Century skills with students and colleagues. 2. Analyze and state good practices in technology integration and 21st century pedagogy by relating an example to the //Range of Use// chart.

Thoughts on Then vs. Now

7th grade was an interesting time for me personally. At the time, I was attending the middle school at St. Marys, which had grades 6-8 unlike my current school which has grades 7-12. I think that alone is a rather big difference between the two, as the younger kids at Smethport seem to feel a little overwhelmed and lost in the shuffle. Nevertheless, in many ways, things haven't changed all that much really.

Back then we still read lots of short stories, lots of novels as I do in my own class today. One difference technologically is that when we watch movies in class now, I can project them onto the Smart board which has a big-screen movie feel, as opposed to the tiny hanging television in the corner that half of us couldn't see. Even back then (1993-94), we still had to type papers out, we still did research, even if it was using the card catalog instead of the Internet. We didn't get Internet in school until 1996, and I didn't get it at my home until 1998.

I've said before, and I'll say many times in the future that kids are kids and although some things may change, for the most part, they stay the same. Yes, we communicate in different ways. Kids are constantly bombarded with information via cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, etc. but at the same time, we always had ways of finding out important (to us) news that was going around. It wasn't a concern. When it comes to English class, the only major thing that I know I do NOT do that we did in the past is diagramming sentences. I personally think it's an outdated practice, and I leave it out of the curriculum. I can't say as I particularly know many teachers who do. Otherwise, things don't change very much at all in a lot of ways.

What I See

I thought this activity was a very interesting one that could be utilized, obviously, in a science classroom (Earth Science? Ecology lesson?) but also tied into other classroom subjects. You could easily work this into an English unit dealing with water conservation issues, or perhaps work collaboratively with the science teachers to do a research and writing project across the two courses.

The gist of the project seems to be making students aware of water conservation issues. Although Project Blue is based in Canada, the topic is something that has particular relevance here in North Central PA right now (fracking, anyone?). You could include both non-fiction articles as well as novels to such a curriculum. For example, there is a YA novel by Carl Hiaasen named Hoot which deals with kids in Florida looking to stop construction which would destroy a habitat for local owls. Certainly, environmental issues could be linked together here.

Now, what do students get out of this? Well, for one, you certainly could accomplish the traditional "research" assignment. I'm not sure if I would use this with a younger group of 7th / 8th or focus upon older students. Students could read both journal articles, magazines, newspapers, internet sources, etc. to put everything together. It would require both lower and higher level skills. (Reading the articles, understanding the material, piecing things together, then synthesizing it into something pertinent) In other words, that's great that you found this information, but what does it MEAN? This is the hardest thing for students to grasp. I ran into this repeatedly just a month or so ago with Advanced 9th grade writing persuasive research essays. They found lots of great information, but had trouble creating a cohesive thesis statement. Project Blue seems to provide that thesis somewhat, namely "We need to protect the environment, and the best way is..."

Does this represent constructivism? Absolutely. Look at the article's main points. Students work in groups. Check, you absolutely could do that. Big concepts, student questions, thinkers with theories on the world, teacher faciliation, "alternative" assessment... all of these are displayed. Give the students a problem to solve, give them the materials, and let them have at it. They'll more often than not come up with something worthwhile. I do worry about certain groups with this however. I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible with certain "less motivated" students, but you would definitely have to keep pushing certain students along the right path.

As far as authentic learning goes, again, it's a great example. They are focused upon something substantial that affects all of us. The catch is how to present it here in PA, and as I mentioned, I think the Marcellus Shale issue is one that is tailor-made, if controversial. After all, there are so many additional factors that come into play here, namely the employment factor contrasting with the environmental issues. It's difficult for adults to weed through the misinformation on both sides, let alone 14 year olds. It's easy to say that we want to protect the environment, but then this also could potentially open up all kinds of discussions. For example, violence that has occurred throughout the world for something as simple as water.

Lastly, with regard to constructivism and the group work approach, I need to throw out my own personal disclaimer. I use group work much of the time in my own classroom, and I definitely think it has its place, but in many ways, I hate it. Groups need to be closely monitored and perhaps even established so as to ensure that everybody pulls their weight. We've all been involved with (or observed) groups where one or two people do all the work while some members do nothing. The kids know this too, so group work is not the be-all, end-all for me personally.