This is a fun article that we had to read for my graduate class on Differentiated Instruction. Here is the link to the article:
http://www.bigpicture.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/the-apple-store_long_final_2-18-09.pdf
http://www.bigpicture.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/the-apple-store_long_final_2-18-09.pdf
We made a collaborative "wiki" with the class sharing our thoughts on the concepts in this article. It was titled "The Apple Store: What can we Learn from it?"
We had to consider these questions:
1. What resonated with you?
2. What concerns you about the approach suggested in the paper?
3. How can K-12 environments learn from the Apple Store approach?
Here is what I had to say in the "wiki". I wrote this response while I was working at an excellent school called SAR that has an interesting concept they use in their school that you will see here:
Although there are obvious disparities between a school and the Apple Store, it is worthwhile to consider how a current successful model like Apple's can be used to change a school system for the better. That being said, while we could definitely take some of Apple’s ideas and apply them to our educational philosophy, other concepts mentioned in the article are destined to stay theoretical because of their impracticalities.
There are several major differences between the Apple Store and a school which make reforming the school system particularly more challenging than selling a gadget:
1) Most products at the Apple Store are by nature cool, modern, and interesting to the public, while unfortunately not all school subjects naturally appeal to all students. The “selling” of a product that a customer thinks is absolutely “stupid” (I am quoting one of my students) seems nearly impossible. A history class is not an iPhone, and school to a kid may feel like forced work. How can we effectively “sell” school subjects to our students while they may not be naturally inclined to have any interest in that specific topic?
2) The article emphasizes that “there is no better way to learn more or faster than with one-to-one personal training sessions”. While it may be true that more individual attention in schools can facilitate learning, we are currently lacking the resources to provide students with this degree of personal intervention.
3) At the Apple Store, customers approach the “geniuses” with questions regarding products and the geniuses walk the customer through the process of learning about their item. The customers themselves are part of the fixing/learning process. Although it is imperative that students be actively involved in the learning process, it is also necessary that students, as opposed to teachers, not be the only ones initiating learning topics. All students are not equally driven to learn, and the teacher has to play a more proactive role since the topic being learned was not necessarily initiated by the student.
The above reservations aside, I fully agree that our system needs to be revamped and that we can gain great insight from the Apple Store. We need to make the student’s experience more personal. We should find methods to get students more involved in the process of learning, encouraging students to try solving problems on their own as opposed to spoon feeding information.
A point in the article that resonated with me is that “Apple has created a community and a culture”. This reminded me of the environment where I work at SAR. Having an open environment (we have no walls around the classrooms) allows for a more community-like feel, creating a culture of learning. Although we do not have a one-to-one student/teacher ratio like the Apple Store, there is good communication among the large faculty that walks around the areas of the open school. The students get a view of other classrooms and get to interact with more peers throughout the day then in a regular school. Could SAR's method be a good start in changing education?
We had to consider these questions:
1. What resonated with you?
2. What concerns you about the approach suggested in the paper?
3. How can K-12 environments learn from the Apple Store approach?
Here is what I had to say in the "wiki". I wrote this response while I was working at an excellent school called SAR that has an interesting concept they use in their school that you will see here:
Although there are obvious disparities between a school and the Apple Store, it is worthwhile to consider how a current successful model like Apple's can be used to change a school system for the better. That being said, while we could definitely take some of Apple’s ideas and apply them to our educational philosophy, other concepts mentioned in the article are destined to stay theoretical because of their impracticalities.
There are several major differences between the Apple Store and a school which make reforming the school system particularly more challenging than selling a gadget:
1) Most products at the Apple Store are by nature cool, modern, and interesting to the public, while unfortunately not all school subjects naturally appeal to all students. The “selling” of a product that a customer thinks is absolutely “stupid” (I am quoting one of my students) seems nearly impossible. A history class is not an iPhone, and school to a kid may feel like forced work. How can we effectively “sell” school subjects to our students while they may not be naturally inclined to have any interest in that specific topic?
2) The article emphasizes that “there is no better way to learn more or faster than with one-to-one personal training sessions”. While it may be true that more individual attention in schools can facilitate learning, we are currently lacking the resources to provide students with this degree of personal intervention.
3) At the Apple Store, customers approach the “geniuses” with questions regarding products and the geniuses walk the customer through the process of learning about their item. The customers themselves are part of the fixing/learning process. Although it is imperative that students be actively involved in the learning process, it is also necessary that students, as opposed to teachers, not be the only ones initiating learning topics. All students are not equally driven to learn, and the teacher has to play a more proactive role since the topic being learned was not necessarily initiated by the student.
The above reservations aside, I fully agree that our system needs to be revamped and that we can gain great insight from the Apple Store. We need to make the student’s experience more personal. We should find methods to get students more involved in the process of learning, encouraging students to try solving problems on their own as opposed to spoon feeding information.
A point in the article that resonated with me is that “Apple has created a community and a culture”. This reminded me of the environment where I work at SAR. Having an open environment (we have no walls around the classrooms) allows for a more community-like feel, creating a culture of learning. Although we do not have a one-to-one student/teacher ratio like the Apple Store, there is good communication among the large faculty that walks around the areas of the open school. The students get a view of other classrooms and get to interact with more peers throughout the day then in a regular school. Could SAR's method be a good start in changing education?