Comparing 20th and 21st Century Educational Paradigms
I sat down this morning and tried to put together a comparison of 20th and 21st Century educational paradigms.
This is what I came up with. Comments? Suggestions:
Draft as a PDF: – 20v21 school paradigms
20th Century
|
21st Century
|
|
|
Interaction |
Mainly individual some collaboration |
Mainly collaborative some individual |
|
Assessment |
Mainly summative with some formative |
Formative with summative |
|
Centricity |
Teacher-centric |
Student-centric |
| Learning programs |
Group based some extension or remedial |
Individual learning programs |
|
Learning |
Assessment focused |
Process & Outcomes focused |
|
Learning |
Predominantly content with some process |
Predominantly process with seamlessly embedded content |
|
Teaching |
Just in case learning |
Just in time learning |
|
Learning |
Low relevance to the learner Often low currency Can lack context for the learner |
Relevant to learner Current and topical Has high contextual value for learner (me, group, community or global significence) |
|
Daggett’s |
Low, content often relevant to only to current unit of learning or course |
Can be applied across several areas of learning. Applicable to real life situations |
|
Think |
Predominantly lower order Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy Remember, Solo Taxonomy Unistructural |
Predominantly higher order
Analysis,
Relational |
|
Technology |
Literacy (learning about technology) Augmentative (learning with technology) |
Transformative (learning through technology) |
|
Teaching |
Stand and Deliver Instructional |
Project and problem based learning Constructivist |
|
Student |
Students given content & told processes |
Students construct content & develop and evaluate processes. |
|
Feedback |
Limited |
Multiple sources – self, peer & teacher/mentor |
|
Student |
Based on rules. Limited or no student input into framework |
Based on moral and ethical approach Students, staff & community partnership in development |
| Student promotion |
Academic promotion with single level learning |
Social Promotion with multi-leveling & extensive learner support |
|
Gifted and talented |
Focus on acceleration |
Focus on extension and acceleration |
|
Learning |
Predominantly Read/Write & Auditory |
Broad use of multiple learning styles (Visual, auditory, kinesthetic & read/write) Application of multiple intelligences |
|
Physical |
Reduction in Physical education classes. Often supportive of single sporting code |
Daily exercise and frequent use of movement within classes. Supportive of individual and team sports |
|
Reporting |
Semester and Term based paper reports. A-E grade system Use of comment banks Comments often summative Limited word count available for comments |
Digital format with regular timely update Criterion based with clear descriptors Focused & relevant comments with formative aspect |
|
Timing |
Traditional school timing
Emphasis on 9-3 learning with homework |
School times flexible and based on neurological research. Anywhere anytime learning facilitated by transformative technology use |
|
School |
Classrooms & laboratory Single purpose spaces |
Learning commons
Flexible learning spaces Casual learning spaces |
11 Comments Already
October 3, 2010 at 10:07 am Permalink
Andrew, yet again you provide jaw-droppingly useful and powerful resources that help me to make sense of the work I do with my students. It’s important to me that your work seems to validate everything I do with my students when confronted with those who would rather that the use of ICT in education revolved solely around the use of Microsoft applications. This blog post is yet another essential bookmark in my personal teaching collection.
October 4, 2010 at 8:29 am Permalink
Maybe this is what we want it to be in the 21st century, but it is not yet.
Most teachers still teach the traditional way and do not want to change.
October 4, 2010 at 2:43 pm Permalink
Hi Marta,
This is a vision of the 21st Century, but by its definition its a vision, a thought a concept perhaps even a hope. Many teachers do work in a traditional instructional mode and are limited by assessment systems (like NCLB), the guidance and instructions of their boards, principal etc. For many of them its a comfortable space. They don’t have to change, they are guaranteed their wages and change is uncomfortable even painful. So yes many do sit there and resist change.
But if you change, then the learning outcomes are going to be so much better in both the short and long term. Our graduating learners will be better prepared for life and this will have intangible benefits for us.
Our challenge is to help them change
October 9, 2010 at 8:06 am Permalink
Andrew,
I love the way you have taken so much information and boiled it down to a very usable, understandable side by side comparison. One thing you might add is the 20th century paradigm of outside assessment compared to the 21st century paradigm of self-assessment. This skill is so important, and yet we often allow-or demand-our students to remain passive in this process.
October 9, 2010 at 3:19 pm Permalink
I am not sure about the first distinction ‘interaction’ where in the ’21st century paradigm’ it says ‘learning is mainly collaborative’ as opposed to the 20th century where ‘learning was mainly individual’. I think learning has remained the same, always individual. Though pupils are taught as a group, the ‘take aways’ are always individual, the level of learning and understanding always different from person to person. Take a look at all the tests they conduct in schools. A ‘group of pupils’ do not write the tests (collaborative), but learning is still measured individually, and different grades are assigned to different students to reflect the differences noticed in their learning.
October 10, 2010 at 1:20 am Permalink
Thank you for the information in a chart format. I think what we do today is beginning to be a mix of both. While we are not totally backing away from traditional methods, a lot of teachers are ready and willing to try new and better approaches to keep up with changes in our children.
October 19, 2010 at 2:19 pm Permalink
Andrew, Spot on again as always! I like this chart. I agree we should be in the right column, but trying to figure out why we are not farther along! Thanks for your wit and wisdom as always!
Your Chicago friend, megormi
November 5, 2010 at 3:54 am Permalink
Would you be okay for my school using this chart for our school website? I think it is fantastic and a great visual for parents and staff as our school moves forward.
November 13, 2010 at 8:27 pm Permalink
Dear Andrew,
You are providing exemplary information and knowledge through this blog – that is why I am putting this site as one of my top favorites.
Thank you providing us with the tools and approaches to prepare our training systems for next generation teachers and students.
I will acknowledge you profusely as I reference on your materials in my planned training programs.
Thank you and more power
September 10, 2011 at 1:05 am Permalink
Hi!
Can I have the full name of who authored this chart and the correct way to cite this work? Thank you!
December 20, 2011 at 1:23 pm Permalink
Excellent, I will reference your page in my own blog. However, to say those things are part of the 21st century paradigm is possibly incorrect. This is the 21st century and I see these techniques at the margins in most schools. Now we are implementing standardized testing and teacher evaluations that will only hamper the adaptation of modern pedagogy. I hope to see a quicker shift to the ideal 21st century paradigm.
Trackback and Pingback