No abstract

PurposeThis purpose of this paper is to review Marc Prensky's book Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning.Design/methodology/approachPrensky's book takes aim at classroom practices, arguing that there are more effective ways for students to acquire knowledge and skills. Specifically, teachers should move from “tell and explain” pedagogical techniques to those that “ask and challenge”. This paper considers Prensky's approach in light of today's K‐12 educational system, what K‐12 education needs to deliver for the future, and relevant research findings.FindingsOur education system faces two unprecedented challenges: all children must be educated, without exception; and for a future that is unknowable. Marc Prensky provides a simple answer to both: if education can't provide students the answers for negotiating the future, it must provide them the skills to figure it out for themselves. Prensky's advice for teachers is consistent with recent research about the importance of student engagement to learning. The practicality of his prescriptions is questioned, however, especially given the constructs of our educational system and No Child Left Behind.Originality/valueWhile Prensky's book was written primarily for an audience of K‐12 teachers, this paper will be of greatest interest to K‐12 administrators and reformers. The paper suggests that, while Prensky's approach may be valid, it is unrealistic to expect a wholesale change among teaching practices if the structure of school itself does not change to enable and support those new teaching practices.

No abstract

No abstract

The recent design for the reconstruction of Lake Street in Minneapolis, Minnesota, provides the canvas for an illustration of the challenges in delivering a context-sensitive project within the center of a city where a dense built environment already exists. Lake Street's reconstruction involves a county-initiated design, the city's and the community's response, and the participation of a foundation in achieving a design linked to how the community can grow and prosper and how people interact with one another. A street is an integral part of community life. Its design can hinder or support a community. The Lake Street design process shows that this understanding, along with best intentions, is not always enough. Strong institutional biases and conventions drive street design processes toward traffic-moving outcomes and away from community-building outcomes. These biases can be countered only with deliberate forethought and persistent attention and action. This paper attempts to provide insights into how community goals and street design processes become misaligned. Through a case study approach reviewing a current design, it also offers strategies showing how future street design processes must be more than an act of engineering. Good street design is an act of community planning, with engineering expertise helping to execute those plans. Once those involved in street design processes begin to recognize this, the approach will be different, the discussions will be different, and above all, the outcomes will be different.