VIEWS & OPINION
Understanding the fundamentals of student- centered learning
Comment by GRAHAM GLASS, CEO of CYPHER LEARNING
The educational system as we know it was perfect for the time in which it was created. The students that it was delivered to knew how to read, write, count and be compliant; that’s all they needed if they wanted to make a living in the Industrial Era. The problem is, while we no longer live in those times, the educational system still seems to lag behind. Teachers, parents, researchers and other education stakeholders recognise this and have sounded the alarm concerning educational reform for quite a while now.
The good news is that the education system is now moving forward. There’s no doubt about that. Plenty of schools adapt to new requirements, the use of education technology is creeping into more and more classrooms, educators everywhere try their best to meet the needs of the 21st century learner and strive to prepare students for the unknown future.
Student-centered learning is something that everybody is talking about. I myself believe that a student-centered approach to education is the best way to prepare our kids with the skills they’ll need to become successful adults.
Understanding the fundamentals of student-centered learning In a student-centered approach to education one must put the student and their learning needs in the center of it all, at the basis of all educational initiatives, right? But what exactly does that mean?
Students are given a voice and a choice
They are included in the lesson planning process, in each learning activity and the designing of assessment. They are asked for feedback and the learning materials are created based on their passions and interests, as long as the learning objectives are still met. They are no longer passive receivers of information, but active participants in their own learning process.
Teachers are seen as learning facilitators instead of sole guardians of knowledge
With the vast amount of information available literally at one’s fingertips with the help of technology, schools are no longer the only source of knowledge, as they used to be. Students can find anything they want to learn online. But no matter which source they choose, they will have questions. Teachers must be there for them and not only answer their questions, but guide them towards new ones and empower them to find answers on their own. This may be a tougher job for teachers than the traditional educational system.
Technology plays a significant role
You can’t really do the best work without technology nowadays, no matter your job. Teachers make no exceptions. In order to be able to decide on what the best course of action is in one situation or another they must rely on huge amounts of data collated from the pupils within the school. Learning management systems and other education technology can collect vast amounts of data in a quick and efficient way, they can identify learning patterns, pinpoint where students struggle with a lesson, or suggest personalised next steps in the learning process. Armed with the right piece of information, teachers can offer targeted support for each of their students. Anyone who understands the fundamentals of student-centered learning — that students’ voice must be heard, teachers are becoming learning facilitators and that they need technology to make the best decisions — will be able to find the right path to it, I’m sure.
14
www.education-today.co.uk
Asbestos in schools – removal or reassurance air monitoring?
Comment by CHARLES PICKLES, chief technical officer, Lucion Services
Teachers are not usually directly involved in managing their buildings or in carrying out repair or maintenance work. However, they will need to know the location of any asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and how they could be damaged or disturbed.
Of course, the hazard is the presence of asbestos, but the risk to occupants is when asbestos fibres become airborne and can be inhaled. An asbestos survey identifies the hazard, but on its own rarely identifies the risk to an effective level; the key requirement is to target resources by proper assessment and controlling any real risks present.
To completely eradicate the risk posed by damage to, and deterioration of, ACMs there have been calls for the complete removal of asbestos from all school buildings.
However, while it is vital that everyone continues to recognise the risks to health associated with asbestos fibres, full consideration needs to be given to the resources, practicalities and scale of work involved in meeting these ambitions.
For instance, the design of many older schools means that the only way to completely remove any asbestos present would be to almost totally dismantle parts of them or demolish entire buildings.
There are no projections on what the cost of this would be or how it would compare to the costs of alternative forms of management and reassurance monitoring that are now available to duty holders. As a result, although setting out a long term strategy for the removal of asbestos from schools remains a legitimate objective, pressure on resources means it is unlikely to be feasible to remove all asbestos materials in the short term.
In the circumstances there are many arguments in favour of periodic monitoring of air samples in schools using modern analytical techniques, rather than simply monitoring ambient air conditions after asbestos repairs or removal works have been completed.
For example, there have been a number of reported cases where air sampling has identified situations where asbestos fibres were being released into classrooms and corridors. However, without regular monitoring it is impossible to tell for how long this may have been taking place or at what levels.
In such situations the impact of any release of fibres from classroom cupboards, slamming doors, damage to walls and columns, or from heaters might only be properly identified by periodic air sampling. To meet this need, reassurance air monitoring using powerful scanning electron microscopy (SEM) can measure occupational exposure concentrations for asbestos to very low levels. SEM typically achieves lower limits of detection to 0.0005 fibres/ cm3 and below, compared to the 0.01 fibres/cm3
capability of standard phase contrast microscopy (PCM). SEM can also distinguish between different asbestos fibre types and other non-organic fibres so that the level of any risk that might be present can be more accurately identified – and what remedial actions are required. This means that scarce maintenance resources can be properly allocated for the treatment and removal of the most dangerous ACMs in schools, with the continued management of any remaining asbestos until a phased programme of asbestos removal can be initiated.
In this way, reassurance air monitoring utilising modern analytical techniques can ensure the effectiveness of asbestos management plans, providing reassurance that children and teachers are not being exposed to harmful fibre levels.
www.lucionservices.com/asbestosinschools/ October 2017
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
