Differece between today school and futeristic school?give answer acording to the chapter.
Answers
Answered by
0
There has been a high profile debate recently about the merits of teaching so-called “21st century skills” in the new Australian Curriculum.
The national curriculum, some argue, has too much focus on these “general capabilities”, which include skills like critical and creative thinking, ethical behaviours, personal and social skills and intercultural understanding.
The critics argue that teaching these skills comes at the expense of content like English, mathematics and history. They say having to focus on generic skills and content curriculum is confusing for teachers; that it encourages a “tick the box” approach to teaching; and, perhaps most naively, that the generic skills are simply educational “fads” that suck precious teaching time.
Bundled into this debate have been arguments about the content of the history curriculum in particular, which has been labelled by the Coalition as biased towards left-wing values. This is a separate debate to which others have made very useful contributions on this site; but suffice to say becoming too bogged down in the detail of content misses the much bigger point about how we best prepare our young people for life after school.
It’s not what you know, it’s how you learn
Technology has taken us further already than we might be aware. So strange might these events be that before they happen they won’t be anticipated, and while they are happening they won’t be comprehended. Such is the price of a content restricted curriculum.
If we don’t allow for the explicit inclusion of skills and prepare students properly to live and work in a new technologically driven world, then their lack of education will hurt them and the rest of us.
There has been a high profile debate recently about the merits of teaching so-called “21st century skills” in the new Australian Curriculum.
The national curriculum, some argue, has too much focus on these “general capabilities”, which include skills like critical and creative thinking, ethical behaviours, personal and social skills and intercultural understanding.
The critics argue that teaching these skills comes at the expense of content like English, mathematics and history. They say having to focus on generic skills and content curriculum is confusing for teachers; that it encourages a “tick the box” approach to teaching; and, perhaps most naively, that the generic skills are simply educational “fads” that suck precious teaching time.
Bundled into this debate have been arguments about the content of the history curriculum in particular, which has been labelled by the Coalition as biased towards left-wing values. This is a separate debate to which others have made very useful contributions on this site; but suffice to say becoming too bogged down in the detail of content misses the much bigger point about how we best prepare our young people for life after school.
In the eighty years or so after 1780 the population of Britain nearly tripled, the towns of Liverpool and Manchester became gigantic cities, the average income of the population more than doubled, the share of farming fell from just under half to just under one-fifth of the nation’s output, and the making of textiles and iron moved into the steam-driven factories. So strange were these events that before they happened they were not anticipated, and while they were happening they were not comprehended.
We are going through change, not unlike the change that occurred during this shift from the agrarian to the industrial age. But we don’t seem to be aware of the importance or the scale of this change and what it means for preparing young people for life after school.
We can’t ignore the effect that technology has had on every aspect of our social, industrial, educational, personal and economic lives. Sure the disciplines are important but they are no longer the whole story. We need new skills to make sense of what we learn; evaluate and critically appraise both the information we are given and its source.
The national curriculum, some argue, has too much focus on these “general capabilities”, which include skills like critical and creative thinking, ethical behaviours, personal and social skills and intercultural understanding.
The critics argue that teaching these skills comes at the expense of content like English, mathematics and history. They say having to focus on generic skills and content curriculum is confusing for teachers; that it encourages a “tick the box” approach to teaching; and, perhaps most naively, that the generic skills are simply educational “fads” that suck precious teaching time.
Bundled into this debate have been arguments about the content of the history curriculum in particular, which has been labelled by the Coalition as biased towards left-wing values. This is a separate debate to which others have made very useful contributions on this site; but suffice to say becoming too bogged down in the detail of content misses the much bigger point about how we best prepare our young people for life after school.
It’s not what you know, it’s how you learn
Technology has taken us further already than we might be aware. So strange might these events be that before they happen they won’t be anticipated, and while they are happening they won’t be comprehended. Such is the price of a content restricted curriculum.
If we don’t allow for the explicit inclusion of skills and prepare students properly to live and work in a new technologically driven world, then their lack of education will hurt them and the rest of us.
There has been a high profile debate recently about the merits of teaching so-called “21st century skills” in the new Australian Curriculum.
The national curriculum, some argue, has too much focus on these “general capabilities”, which include skills like critical and creative thinking, ethical behaviours, personal and social skills and intercultural understanding.
The critics argue that teaching these skills comes at the expense of content like English, mathematics and history. They say having to focus on generic skills and content curriculum is confusing for teachers; that it encourages a “tick the box” approach to teaching; and, perhaps most naively, that the generic skills are simply educational “fads” that suck precious teaching time.
Bundled into this debate have been arguments about the content of the history curriculum in particular, which has been labelled by the Coalition as biased towards left-wing values. This is a separate debate to which others have made very useful contributions on this site; but suffice to say becoming too bogged down in the detail of content misses the much bigger point about how we best prepare our young people for life after school.
In the eighty years or so after 1780 the population of Britain nearly tripled, the towns of Liverpool and Manchester became gigantic cities, the average income of the population more than doubled, the share of farming fell from just under half to just under one-fifth of the nation’s output, and the making of textiles and iron moved into the steam-driven factories. So strange were these events that before they happened they were not anticipated, and while they were happening they were not comprehended.
We are going through change, not unlike the change that occurred during this shift from the agrarian to the industrial age. But we don’t seem to be aware of the importance or the scale of this change and what it means for preparing young people for life after school.
We can’t ignore the effect that technology has had on every aspect of our social, industrial, educational, personal and economic lives. Sure the disciplines are important but they are no longer the whole story. We need new skills to make sense of what we learn; evaluate and critically appraise both the information we are given and its source.
Similar questions
Hindi,
7 months ago
Math,
7 months ago
Physics,
7 months ago
Biology,
1 year ago
Computer Science,
1 year ago