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.