Now what?

Since this is the last blog post for this class and for the book, I'm going to allow myself to travel beyond the book a little farther than normal. Truth be told, I'm scared. I'm looking forward to but am greatly humbled by the prospect of actually entering a classroom. Whether I enter as a teacher or a technology coordinator, both positions have almost equal responsibility.

There were way too many good points made and conclusions drawn in this final chapter to mention here. What I want to focus on is the idea of expert teachers. This idea fits a lot of what i have been saying much of the semester. These are the teachers who really get it, and who use the vast knowledge they have in order to design the best learning environments. One of the best conclusions made in this chapter was the conclusion that stated that an expert teacher not only has vast subject-matter knowledge, but also has a vast knowledge of teaching methods and learning styles. Even in addition to that, expert teachers also understand learning barriers and know how to use their vast knowledge to create learning environments that are unaffected by these barriers.

And so, I find myself right back at the beginning. We need teachers. We really need expert teachers. But, HOW do we train them? I figure it has to start right from the college level. I've recently read articles about educational systems in Europe. Students are already collaborating with other students all across the globe in online environments. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for the magical research study to be released that proves that teacher training is what is lacking the most. I think it is time for higher education to take a look at all the extra - even including general education requirements - course requirements they have and evaluate which ones are really crucial and make room for more opportunities for teaching students to be in the classroom with expert teachers observing, learning, and teaching a few lessons here and there. Require additional technology courses so instead of an overview of technology they will encounter, they will receive in depth training not only in proper operation of technology but also in learning how to design learning environments in which technology can be successfully integrated and learning can flourish.

And then I thought of one more major question. How will I, as a technology director, train all the teachers in a school district - especially those who have been in the system for decades? I can't be sure of exactly how I will train until I am actually at a specific institution. But what I can say is that I will keep working toward becoming an expert teacher myself. I expect myself to actively research and learn about emerging technology to stay on the cutting edge which will keep my subject-matter knowledge fresh and comprehensive. In addition, I will employ techniques such as many the book has explained and we have discussed in class. My goal will be to design a learning environment for teachers where they are trained effectively, efficiently, and are fully supported before, during, and after implementation of new technology initiatives.

I just hope the national education system is ready to entertain serious educational reform. That scares me too.

** this post runs 551 words, I apologize, though I tried, I honestly couldn't shorten it this time. I really wanted to make the points I made and discuss the future.

Why does everyone forget about training the teachers?

The chapter on Technology's potential in the classroom contained some great examples of technology being put to successful use in the classroom. But beyond the reading, I feel that the biggest question was still left unanswered. They briefly touched on the idea that teachers must be partners in innovation, and they need time to learn, relect, and adapt, as well as support from administrations. But there are two major pieces missing. In order for teachers to achieve any of those goals, they must be trained. On top of that, what if the teacher is reluctant? I found a fantastic resource on the web about dealing with reluctance.

http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.php?articleID=18401198

The article talks about some great approaches to dealing with reluctance pointing out that in many cases, reluctance is a result of seeing learning results from the existing methods and pedagogy therefore seeing no reason to integrate technology. So it is incredibly crucial to get the enthusiastic teachers on board using technology. When something amazing is accomplished, those teachers will start talking about it thus giving many previously reluctant teachers a working model to base their own models off of.

But even in addition to those approaches, teaching training needs to be comprehensive, complete, and it must be ongoing. To me it is obvious that there has to be mass training inservices before and after the school year ends. But during the year as well, there should be trainings and maintenance activities that teachers and administration should be required to participate in. These can easily be held in half of an inservice day. One approach I will definitely use is to hold one or two mass training inservices right after the end of the school year. I know this will upset many teachers; but, instead of teaching them brand new software two days before the school year begins, I can teach them right after the school year ends giving them the entire summer to play around with the new software and of course contact me with any questions or support concerns at any point. This is a much less stressful way of implementing a new technology as well as giving teachers much more time to begin designing their learning environments to fully integrate technology.

In addition, there absolutely has to be support available at all times - especially when a new technology initiative is put in place. The author in the reading made a great point that I have to quote: "They [teachers] need collegial advisers rather than supervisors; advising is a partnership." I could not have said that better myself. If teachers are not supported, they will not be able to successfully integrate technology in the classroom. If they are not motivated, the same is true. One of the easiest ways for teachers to become motivated or stay motivated is to have the administration work WITH them instead of stop by the classroom and OBSERVE and EVALUATE them. Now, I am not saying evaluation is not important, but I am saying that administrators should be much more visibly working with teachers to achieve technology integration and providing any help they can along the way.

I apologize for straying somewhat off the topic of the reading; however, as wonderful as the Jasper Woodbury program, Project GLOBE program, and others of the like are, none of them accomplish anything better than traditional methods if the teachers have no idea what they are doing.

Teachers, Learning, Action

I could not agree more that continued learning for teachers is imperative and a challenge. Action research has to be one of the greatest ideas/approaches I have ever read. Teachers have the opportunity to observe learning over years and compile valuable data. You cannot find this data from a better source than the classroom itself. If more teachers would take part in action research techniques, the amount of knowledge acquired for the teaching body would completely change the learning landscape. If what the author says is true, that many teachers crave learning from colleagues, this would be the perfect platform.
But then, what do schools expect of new teachers fresh out of college? They obviously can't expect new teachers to have the same teaching knowledge as a veteran. Inservices are good if they are run properly, but studies are finding that 4 years is not enough to gain this knowledge? I argue a lifetime may not be enough. But I'm sure there is a way to change this just a little. General Education requirements are important; however, now I believe we are at a crossroads. Which is more important, learning about teaching and spending more time student teaching or observing in order to gain crucial teaching knowledge, or taking more general education requirements - most of which are the same courses taken in high school - in order to graduate? I would absolutely argue, replace unimportant general education requirements with more student teaching or observation time. Give the students a chance to get immersed in as many different educational settings as possible so that these future teachers can experience different pedagogies in action, educational environments, teaching styles, etc. Continuing education is a great idea and a great requirement most schools now enforce, but the makings of a good teacher can start right in freshman year of college.

On a side note, it is phenomenal to see a chapter devoted on how teachers learn and the importance of teacher interaction with each other and taking an active part in observing their own classrooms in order to become better teachers. Learning never ends for anyone, but if we are to enter this new age of education teaching these more complex issues and concepts than have ever been taught before, teacher interaction and learning is exactly what needs to continue to happen

Where do effective teachers come from?

There were some fantastic examples in this week's reading of effective teaching. Whether it was the example of Barb Johnson's 6th grade class asking questions they wanted to ask, the students in Elizabeth Jensen's history class acting out the causes of the American Revolution, or Minstrell showing how to play a coaching role, students were all actively engaged in their environment.

Rather than repeating what was said in the article, I want to pose a question and possible solutions. These techniques were phenomenal. If I was a parent I would lobby to get my child in Barb Johnson's class too. Where do teachers like this come from? Where do they get trained to employ such a wide range of learning techniques? Where did Elizabeth Jensen get the idea to act out two opposing views and how to structure that environment? Where did Barb Johnson receive the training that gave her the ability to design an environment where students can ask questions they want answers to and pitch standard curriculum toward those questions? I KNOW not all teachers are like that.

However, that is precisely the type of teacher we should have in all our institutions. How do we achieve this? Are there programs at universities that train teachers to think like this? Are there school districts that promote creating learning environments such as what was discussed? We have got to find a way to train teachers to think about education in creative ways like this. For some teachers, it comes natural - it is simply a God given gift. For others, I'm sure it takes a tremendous amount of practice. Unfortunately, there are some who do not put forth the effort in creating learning environments like discussed. How do we as educators, administrators, etc. help our teachers to grow and create these environments and encourage - and sometimes require - teachers to think about the educational process in such a way? Is it a realistic goal? It sure doesn't seem like it. Regardless, it should still be our goal.

Looking ahead, we need to evaluate our teacher education programs at colleges and universities and make sure these programs are including some sort of training or exposure to these invaluable techniques. We need to work with school districts and administrators to ensure they promote an environment within their learning communities that is open to these approaches. We need to offer as much help to teachers in the form of trainings, seminars, resources, and other support in order to equip them with everything they need to be successful. Realistically however - and perhaps this is even a bit disappointing, there will always be teachers who possess the natural gift of teaching, and those who do not. I just hope in my career, I can help connect the two together in a mutually beneficial way that enables both to be creative, and perhaps a little more like Johnson, Minstrell, and Jensen.

Right on the Mark: Sharing the Center

The author was right on the money this week. I do not have much to add. As I read through the article I was becoming increasingly concerned. It seemed that the center of the learning environment was becoming quite crowded. Then the concept of alignment was brought up. I couldn't have said it better myself. I still think the two most important considerations should be learner-centered and knowledge-centered. Understanding what knowledge a student brings to the classroom before adding new information is critical. But building upon that knowledge effectively is the challenge. I do not believe we do that well enough today at all. We keep coming back to the discussion on breadth vs. depth. Here's another great example. If we are truly aiming for an effective degree of alignment, or even just aiming for an effective degree of knowledge-centered learning environments, we need to focus on the depth of knowledge we hope learner's will gain. If we really understand the base knowledge a student brings to the start of class, we can teach new material that will be able to stick with the learner thus increasing their knowledge. This is where I think assessment and community applications come in to play. First of all, giving helpful feedback, giving encouraging feedback even when prospects look dim should be done often and without hesitation. Formative assessment is so easy to execute if the teacher simply cares enough to consciously commit him/herself to it. Of course summative assessment is an important tool to evaluate students at the end of a unit of learning; however, summative evaluations mean nothing if there was inadequate formative feedback occurring during the learning process. Drawing connections to the community is something I eluded to many times in my paper. The students who watched the Jasper movies were connected to the outside world by watching a real-life scenario unfold in the video. I firmly believe this is one of the most effective ways to promote information transfer from the abstract to the practical. Connecting new knowledge with the world around us is an invaluable approach. Finally, another great point that was brought up was the values and norms of a school community. If a teacher creates and fosters an atmosphere where students are afraid of being wrong, then not only will students not raise their hands, but they will not be motivated to continue exploring.

Overall, I absolutely agree that the "center" needs to be shared by an effective balance of each of the four approaches (learning, knowledge, assessment, and community centered). The idea that teachers are the workers and the administrators make all the educational decisions they are not qualified to make needs to be completely eradicated. The teacher must be able to take over the learning environment and be given the creative control to design the learning environment. That is not to say that a consistent curriculum should not be followed, but teachers need to run the process. Again, as I say almost every week, this also means a higher standard of teacher accountability. Formative and summative evaluation must apply to teachers as well.

Learning Affects Synapses but Synapses Affect Learning??

This chapter was another chapter that had me astonished more than anything. The relationship between brain activity and neural synapses is very intriguing and for me perhaps even a little confusing. I appreciate any feedback I can receive to help me understand more completely.

I recall having discussions about synapses in class this semester already. I also remember being rather concerned with the fact that you are born with many, and lose them over time. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not in the best athletic shape, but I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is not being in top mental shape. I never want to lose my ability to learn and acquire new knowledge. I found the discussion on overproducing and releasing synapses very intriguing. I was born about as cross-eyed as a baby can get. I now realize just how lucky I am. I had two operations in order to correct my eyes, and that was at 2 and 3 years of age. I'm fortunate that my brain was able to recover perfect vision. However, later in life, a scar muscle started pulling my one eye out and I could see but my brain must have involuntary compensated for that muscle and began to rely on one eye. The only reason I knew I had a problem was because friends would tell me that one eye was looking in another direction than my other eye. I had a third operation on my eye to correct this eye and I remember the doctor saying take it easy for a day or so after I take my eye patch off as I had to allow time for my brain to make an "updated connection". My brain did in fact make an updated connection, as I noticed my full peripheral vision range had returned. The whole idea is incredible for me to think about after reading this article.

What really got me thinking was the rat experiment. According to the research, the rats that had a choice as well as those that did not had higher blood vessel density. But when it came to synaptic production, the acrobat group was the top achiever. The mandatory and voluntary groups just exercised by running a treadmill. The acrobats had to perform on an elevated obstacle course which I suppose meant in addition to merely exercising, they had to think about what they were doing to achieve greater success along continued attempts. This created new synapses but not necessarily more activity. What does that mean? Learning creates new synapses regardless of age as opposed to the number of synapses equal capacity to learn which would be affected by age to a degree? Am I understanding this correctly? I'd like to think I am, because it means good things when thinking about the ability to learn was we age.

How Children Learn

This week I actually found the reading more fascinating than I did something to react to. I found it very interesting how experts haven't up until just recently began concluding that the infant's mind is so powerful. Humorously it makes me think of "Stewie" the infant character from the TV animated comedy, "Family Guy" on FOX. Stewie is a brilliant infant, capable of understanding the world on a much larger scale than most of the humans in his world. The more I read the article and read about the numerous studies - beyond the Piaget and Vygotsky studies I learned about previously - that have shown that infants really are capable of phenomenal things, it made me wonder. If we were born with a clear understanding of the world and language, what incredible things would we be able to accomplish.

Up until I began reading the article, I had no idea that infants had so much capacity. Particularly the non-nutritive sucking study, I was flabbergasted. I would have loved to be observing an infant recognize that the movie they are watching is out of focus simply by sucking. That is simply phenomenal to me. With regards to my Stewie comparison, a study like that makes it that much more believable that what an infant is actually thinking is as complex as what Stewie is able to verbalize. If I can put this in simpler terms, a child prodigy is said to have abilities far above the average of the same age. In terms of this article and the studies detailed within, is it possible to conclude that many children identified as prodigies may have grown up in an environment that is far above average and were exposed to stimuli and the opportunity to develop very complex schemata on a much larger scale than average children?

My final point, based on the fantastic research detailed in this chapter, children certainly have a much great capacity to learn than experts have ever realized before. A friend of mine at church bought the entire "Baby Einstein" video series and has mentioned to me on many occasions some of the amazing things his child has done. His daughter began speaking full words before her second birthday. To continue reading, I would like to see some research data about the "Baby Einstein" series as well as other tools of the like and be able to see how effective these tools are for cognitive development.

Learning and Transfer :: so close but yet so far...

This section was particularly intriguing this week. There were numerous good points made throughout support by sound research that has been mentioned a few times in past chapters as well. But as the article progressed I began to notice how much research has really been done to enable the authors to support their points. So if the teaching professionals have the research data that says learning through experience and understanding as opposed to pure memorization is more conducive to transfer, and active learning is far more effective than passive learning, then why are things not being done that way in our classrooms. Why are we still teaching to the test?

Right from the beginning the author talks about how "assumptions about transfer" support the belief that a broader range of subjects taught will equal more transfer and deeper learning in a person's true interest. This goes back to class discussion a few weeks ago talking about breadth of knowledge versus depth of knowledge. In essence, these assumptions are saying that a person's breadth of knowledge will lead to a greater depth of knowledge. I am not sure I can agree there based on this chapter. The author referenced Thorndike and others when talking about tests that were given to measure students' amount of transfer. Simply memorizing meant lots of facts, no means of transfer of unrelated facts, little understanding, and inability to relate facts to the bigger picture or other subjects. Active learning, appropriate time taken to teach material, time spent applying the material, and allowing time for practice that involves creative and abstract thinking and application means decent breadth of facts without sacrificing appropriate foundational depth of knowledge, much higher potential for meaningful transfer, greater understanding, and the ability to relate knowledge to the bigger picture and other subjects. This goes back to last week's chapter on the difference between novices and experts. The author used similar examples last week including the chess example and tasks given to novices and experts and observing how each views the problem and accesses knowledge. Taking a second to clarify one point, teaching an appropriate breadth, or range, of concepts and facts rather than going "a mile wide and an inch deep" right away means learners should have the time to acquire a solid foundational depth of knowledge to accompany the range. This will help them to nurture a functional knowledge base which promotes greater understanding and higher potential for transfer.

I think what I am trying to say is this: Learning a great breadth of knowledge is not a bad thing at all. Especially when you are able to transfer much of it into knowledge that can be related to many experiences. But not allowing enough time to allow learners to go out and actively engage in applying newly learned concepts or ideas, participating in problem solving that makes learners think abstractly, critically, and creatively - ultimately creating a solid depth of knowledge to accompany their breadth of knowledge -, then all we are reduced to is having learners memorize facts, spit them back out on a test to prove they are not grotesque invalids, and send them on their way with little or no ability to relate anything they just learned to the world they live in. I remember classes like that in high school, chemistry is one of them. I cannot tell you a single thing about chemistry except that sodium in its metal form ignites in water - because I am interested in anything that creates fire in 10th grade - and that our mathematical form of calculating just about anything is called 'dimensional analysis'. I cannot apply any knowledge I gained in that class. There was no time for exploration or further research. On a macrocosmic level, look what we are doing in our schools - it has been discussed in class already numerous times. I remember complaining about it as a high school student. Teachers are rushing to stuff unrelated facts into learners' heads in order to pass the PSSA! Therefore, I argue time is key. Based on all the discussions, research, and readings done so far, all the evidence points to time. Teach, then allow time to explore and let the mind make connections that leads to transfer. Curriculum should build in time and activities that encourage such learning. We mentioned last week in class that experts say we have not yet explored the full capacity of the human brain. Why do think that is? I beginning to formulate my own conclusions as this class progresses. So why are things being done contrary to what years of research and instructional design suggest? I don't know. How do we as educators and future educators change that? I don't know that either.

Expert or Novice: What does that mean really??

What am I? The author was very good at laying down differences between experts and novices, however managed to do so without actually defining the terms. The first place I checked was the Webster Dictionary. "Novice" immediately sends you to the definition of "beginner" which is defined as 'one who is inexperienced'. After reviewing the entry for "expert" I found that to be defined as 'one who is experienced'. Immediately it comes to mind that degrees of experience absolutely have to exist and vary even among the so-called "experts".
According to DeGroot's research, expert chess players did not think through all possibilities and opponent counters though the experts did show greater breadth and depth of analysis, but the experts did think through the most important possibilities and opponent counters unlike the novice chess players. The physics experts were able to supply laws and principles to physics problems and explain how each would apply to the problem while beginners (students) would think of formulas and equations and explain how to manipulate the numbers. In both scenarios, is it possible that the experts were experts of a lower degree. By this I mean, are there higher degree experts out there who would in fact think through all the possibilities and opponent counters? Furthermore, in the case of the novices, "inexperienced" is defined as 'lack of experience'. Based on the reading and DeGroot's findings, I am not convinced that even the novices were 'inexperienced'. Someone who knows enough to think through any possibilities or opponent counters during a chess game shows even a little experience. Perhaps the physics experts that were immediately able to relate laws and principles of physics to the problem at hand are the true experts.
I love rollercoasters, always have, always will. Put me on the biggest, baddest, most twisted machine you can find, and I'll ride it. I have done my own amateur research and keep up with the industry constantly. I do not have a degree in roller coaster history, or in physics or engineering. But, I do possess a great deal of knowledge both about the amusement industry and trends, as well as roller coaster designs, mechanical makeup, engineering techniques, and design/programmable controllers. Does this make me an "expert"? I hardly consider myself a true "expert" however, I certainly do not consider myself a "novice" - or even an "amateur" for that matter. Perhaps this is not relevant to teaching entirely, but it sure raises a few questions in my mind. But I am also an accomplished musician, and when it comes to piano I would consider myself an expert. I have wanted to start teaching piano lessons for the last few years but I do not believe I can do it just yet. I have not found a way I am completely comfortable with to relate the material to a novice. I have not found a teaching method where I can teach effectively without losing my student in music terminology I have been using all my life. Even when I talk about music with my friends, generally my friends do not listen with the same active ear that I do. I often say this is my life, and I cannot listen to music as a novice. I listen for form, structure, undertones, overtones, harmony, meter, underlying messages in the lyrics even. I'm so used to being around friends at the renown music school of West Chester University where everyone speaks the same technical language.
This brings me to another great point the author made. This was the idea that an expert is not necessarily a great teacher - or even a good one. Perhaps this is why I have so much trouble relating music material to novices. I know the material, but because I'm so immersed in it, it is almost impossible for me to understand what it is like to be a musical novice. I am also taken back to calculus class during senior year of high school. My teacher was no doubt an expert, and a brilliant mathematician at that. Unfortunately, he could not teach at all. The author of our reading commented that experts often forget what is understandable and easy for students - or novices - or those inexperienced. My calculus teacher could not relate the material to us at all.
How does this apply to learning? Simple in my mind, we need to take into consideration who we are teaching. Are we teaching novices, experts, 'accomplished novices', etc.? If we lose sight of who we are teaching, how can we expect our students to learn. If we speak over their heads, how can we expect them to be able to acquire the same knowledge we have? If we speak down to them, how can we expect them to be challenged? I do not have a great answer being the 'inexperienced' teacher that I consider myself. But remembering who my audience is, certainly is a great place to start.

McLuhan, The Horizon Report, and My Brain

My initial response to McLuhan's Wake was that of much thought and a good deal of confusion. I spent much of the drive home thinking about what I had just seen and heard, trying to make any sense of it. From reviewing the four questions I began to think of examples and was able to see some patterns in the real world. Perhaps these questions are meant to keep our use of technology in check. In each example discussed in the first class, radio, tv, film, etc. all were over-extended and many teachers and school districts reverted right back to where they came from.
As I read the Horizon Report I began to think about some of the emerging technologies discussed within in terms of McLuhan's questions. For example, mobile phones extend our feet, ears, and voice even farther than land line phones. In fact, mobile phones are making landlines obsolete. A stronger sense of connectivity among communities, social networks, fellow students, and people as a whole. But, if phones are really used in most classes for everything that textbooks, pencils, and even laptop computers used to do, will people revert back to seclusion? I cannot say I have a good answer for that. One very good point the Horizon Report brought up was our need to be concerned with ownership and copyright of content, research, ideas, and publications. With much of the technology turning to open-source platforms and other technology allowing anyone to contribute what they know to the overall knowledge base of the world, is copyright really that important to EVERYONE? Even for myself, a very serious amateur historian of the Bethlehem Steel, if I posted content about my findings and my ideas, I would not be as concerned with copyright of my material like I would one of my songs. The information I gather I want people to know and be able to readily access.
As I began to think further about readily accessing information I realized that it is a fundamental human condition to want to know everything about where we came from, who we are, why things are the way they are, etc. For me, it's knowing how the Bethlehem Steel came to be, how it came to end up as it is today. For others, the topic may be something else. But being able to readily access all the information that we as humankind know, is something all people from all across the globe desire and can value. So in conclusion as I think about McLuhan's questions - while they prove valuable when looking at individual technologies - in terms of the bigger picture, in the end, there is nowhere to revert back to. What human being would want to give up all we have learned by putting our minds together using technology to store all the knowledge in the world, and go back to not knowing and understanding? Then again, there is also an argument to be made for those 'simple times' we all hear about in history.