Unit Seven - Challenging Ways of Teaching and Learning

Whoa, last blog entry: the semester has flown by :).  When thinking about what is the biggest roadblock or challenge in implementing ...well, all of the things we have learned about/used this semester; I think I echo everyone when saying, teacher resistant - without a doubt.  I've mentioned in previous posts about teachers' fear of the unknown and complacency in their current routine or practice.  This is not an issue to be undercut, but proves continually to be a huge obstacle in implementing any type of technological change in the classroom or curriculum.   Students aren't the problem.  This group of millennials and beyond are hardwired for change.  The rate of change our world is seeing in technological advancement is all they know, its what they expect.  They see a new innovation or invention, and reflex response of "when will the new and improved version come out?"  So for the most part, we've got them.  As long as we can implement and introduce tools to them that they can find applicable and relevant to their own lives, or at least see as valuable on their educational path, then they will always try new things.   But what do you do about those teachers that can't or won't adapt, experiment, change?  I don't know.  I think,  obviously, change has to start from the top and work its way down.  I know this proves unhealthily true at my district - that administration runs the show; what they decree is the law of the land.  Conversely, if they are not attuned to a new idea, technology, advancement, then that staff-wide push to get on board will not come from them; and subsequently those resistant teachers have little incentive to change.  I hate that, but I think its true.  The leadership, aka admin, has a lot of power to make people change - "adapt and learn the new stuff or lose your job" generally gets most people's attention.  Unfortunately, most administrators aren't on that train of thought right now.  Many of them have not taught in a classroom for decades, if ever, and their decisions usually reflect that absence.  

I think the issue of teacher resistance will continually decline, however.  To be blunt, young teachers are not usually the one's resisting; its the teachers who have been in the biz for 30 years and don't want to take the time/energy to learn and change.  As those people begin to retire and/or leave education, those coming in will be a group comprise of the new generation that is accustomed to the tools of the future and equipped with the skills to adapt to future change.

Unit Six - Assessment

I feel like I might be jaded in regards to the assessment topic.  The idea of ongoing assessment; that of checkpoints, resubmission of work, digital portfolios, etc gives me mixed feelings.  In a perfect world yes, I think those things sound great.  I believe its very important for students to learn in an environment where they, to some degree, feel safe to make mistakes and learn from them.  Students can learn to adapt and improve their work when feedback is given freely and frequently from their teacher and/or their peers.

Those leading our curriculum design teams in my district call this formative assessment - from what I can tell, very similar to Wiske's ongoing assessment.  Formative assessment strongly encourages the usage of grading rubrics with lessons and/or projects and re-testing opportunities as a way to give feedback to students and subsequently give them an opportunity to "rework."  Again, I get the benefits of this idea, but I've seen many drawbacks in actual application.  My department head is a big fan of the re-test aspect of formative assessment.  Whenever his students have a test, anyone who wants,  has an opportunity to take the re-test that week.  On paper, great; a student is not severely punished (by grade) if they have a bad test day; b/c of some fluke, but put down a bunch of wrong answers that they knew, etc, they get a chance to fix it.  

However, what I see/hear a lot of his students have a very nonchalant attitude about any assessment in his class because "it doesn't matter; we can do it over again."  Obviously, this is not the intention of any form of ongoing assessment, but I feel can commonly become an issue.  Apathy towards the completion of a task or how good that product is, can run rampant when the student isn't kept to a non-wavering form of accountability.  I think that human nature kicks in for many students, and the ongoing aspect of the assessment takes away the drive to do well, or do one's best on the first try - they'll get another one, so why kill yourself?  I have found myself falling into a similar pattern - more with procrastination.  In college, all four years the school of ed had us keep a digital portfolio.  The day before the portfolio was do, you would see the Baylor libraries jammed with education students cramming all night to finish/start their e-portfolio to have ready for presentation the next day.  Press record, play, repeat of all 8 semesters I was there.  Even this semester, I have found myself neglecting this blog - arguably a form of ongoing assessment.  I have other "assignments" in life, job, etc that aren't "ongoing assessments" but definitive tasks with definitive deadline dates that had or simply just got done first - my blog got pushed down on the "must get done" list time and time again.

II'm torn though.  I don't know what the solution is.  I think that objective multiple choice tests and huge projects with one final turn in date that result in one big final grade should be the common practice, but right now, I'm not sold on total formative assessment.  I guess I feel that assessment should be somewhere in the middle, all the while requing the student to self and peer assess; learning to keep themselves and each other accountable.

Unit Five - Technologies to Promote Communication, Collaboration/Cooperation, and Community

Community, it takes a village, no man is an island, stand together - all concepts or phrases we know that show us that good things happen when we work together.  When we were young, our report cards said, (hopefully) that we "play well with others.  Even if subliminally, we were being taught even then that collaboration is important.  

Now we live in this exciting and transformative time in the world as a whole, where technology and the web are bringing collaboration to a whole new place.   Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia to message boards on ESPN and cult-like followed blogs - they're all taking the world by storm.  

Obviously, the educational world needs to tap into this, and in many cases, have already begun to do so.  More and more classrooms are using wikis, Facebook, and online discussion boards to get students to work collaboratively in the 21st century millennial way. 

I think the use of these and other Web 2.0 tools is important, not only because it draws in the interest of students who are already familiar with this format/style of interaction, but its working towards teaching them how to use these tools for more than just social networking.  In recent decades,  a gap has existed in education from pre-k to college.  While many are encouraged to "play well with others" in pre-school, many times students learn to work, test, create, etc individually until undergrad and grad school, where they are once again encouraged to "work well with others."  Since the real world, more and more as our world gets smaller and more connected with each technology-advancing day, shouldn't those years in between pre-k and college echo those collaborative lessons?  

As arguably a member of the millenial generation, I definitely feel that disconnect.  While I spend time talking on gchat, catching up with friends by reading their blogs, and plan social events through facebook, I still struggle to work with others, with or with out the use of Web 2.0.  I learned by practice in school that group work can be good, but a lot of times there is that one, or several, group members that don't do their part and you, along with everyone else, has to pick up the slack.  That may still prove true, but that doesn't change the fact that I have to work together with other colleges in several different settings in my job - from curriculum planning with my history team, to coaching basketball and softball.  If used well, the use of wikis, googledocs, etc and help teach kids how to collaborate effectively in the modern world.  Again, our roles as educators is now about teaching them skills, especially skills of adaptability, just as much as it is to teach them content.  I see the point others have made, that with the amount of online tools there are out there, that we could be in danger of way overloading our students with them - rendering them obsolete in their intended purpose.  That is obviously very true, but I think our focus still be should be on using them.  Fear of using something too much, shouldn't prevent one from using it at all.  I think teachers need to find tools that apply most to their kids and the learning objectives of their classrooms and focus on using those.  Using too many web 2.0 tools is not just overwhelming to the student, but often for the teacher as well...maybe more so sometimes.  

Unit Four - Technological Tools for Minds-On Learning

I was struck with two things this unit 

1.  the concept that the use of  technology in the classroom does not = meaningful learning and

2.  the hesitancy so many educators have to incorporate new tech. or web 2.0 tools in their classrooms because of their fear of the unknown.

I see both of these issues as very common, grand scale, but definitely in my school.  We have a decently-sized staff, about 150; many of whom are brilliant, top of their field, content-masters- type individuals.  However, many of them are far from youthful and are still being introduced/getting  used to the new world of technology in education.  Aside from your classic "change-haters," I think a lot of them are afraid.  They know the traditional classroom set up well; they're good at the traditional classroom set up and they know it.  They've seen changes and trends come and go in education and have come out of those waves and shifts on top.  Why would technology be any different?  Even those who are aware of the forever fundamental change technology has brought to education are afraid of these tools that they don't know how to use.  

Prime example in my school are Promethean Boards - $5,000 white boards that now, thanks to our PTA, are hanging on every classroom in our school.  Some of the older teachers fought the hanging of such a foreign object in their room; even though it can, at very least, still function the same as a traditional projector screen, they didn't want it.  It was different, a waste of money, not necessary, blah, blah, blah, but really they were afraid of it.  Here's this amazing piece of the latest educational technology, that they don't know anything about.  We just figured out how to make powerpoint presentations instead of using an overhead projector slides and Visa Vi markers and now you want us to do what?  No thanks.  Those few stubborn teachers are still today, using the $5,000 interactive white board as if it was a blank white piece of wall.  They are not willing to go into an area that they are masters of; an area that may show some vulnerability to their students and put them back into that community of learning.

However, then we have a large group of teachers who, after some prompting, put those fears aside and decided to give it a try.  Here we face another common problem in education.  These teachers now believe that anything they do, as long as it incorporates technology, is therefore better and more meaningful to the students.  Convert that old powerpoint into a Promethean flip-chart and voila! Those words are now much more meaningful and impactful to the class.  Take that text book page and place it under the document camera to show the class - bam! it means more to them now and they have learned it in a new, better way.  

So many teachers don't understand yet, that just the simple usage of technology, no matter how cool/new it is, does not make the work/lesson better.  Lessons, learning objectives, unit goals, and methodology all have to be changed or altered to integrate with the technology, just as much as the technology has to integrate with the curriculum.  

Unit Three - Lesson and Unit Planning

I was particularly intrigued by the Teaching for Understanding framework.  As I had mentioned in a previous post, the district where I teach is currently using the ideas of the Schlechty center to direct us on how to design curriculum.  While I agree with the overall concept, that lessons/units that you plan should be designed with the student in mind and therefore have their engagement at equal priority with content, I have major issues with the framework that Schlechty presents on how to achieve that goal.  I think cumbersome details are brought to the forefront and become many tedious tasks that end up detracting from the overall concept.  

I was very interested as I read the basic ideas of TfU and the more I looked at the Harvard-designed templates online, along with several further writings and articles by Wiske and others.  The overall concept was the same as Schlechty - design work backwards - well at least backwards from what we are used to.  Think first of your kids and the major things you want them to learn, then design you work to get them to that point; to help themselves get to those learning objectives.  But TfU is better; for several reasons.

a) It incorporates technology.  It doesn't merely suggest that more use of technology in the classroom would be a good thing, but makes it an integral part of the curriculum planning process.  If we are going to engage the kids and get them more in the driver's seat of their own education,  educational technology, the ever changing entity that that is, must be used - its the most efficient and beneficial tool to achieve those two goals.

b) Its realistic.  Obviously, every couple years, a new educational trend hits the scene, and takes districts by storm.  Usually, its the same thing, just packaged and worded differently, and after a few years gets old and educators move on to the next shiny new trend.  Usually, these concepts get old because they are things that sound great on paper or an animated power point presentation, but are barely applicable to the real lives of teachers, students, and their classrooms.  Different design methods, curriculum planning ideas, etc usually fall far short in plugging in to the real world aspect of elementary and secondary education - I think especially secondary education.  It seems that few of these program designers have ever taught in a high school and know the reality of working in content based teams, with crazy schedules of coaching, multiple preps, etc and students who have similar, if not more hectic and different lives.  

Especially with the use of the Harvard School of Ed. CCDT design tool, TfU is usable.  Teachers can easily work collaboratively together and make the learning objectives the forefront of the planning, therefore making it easier to design engaging work for the students to achieve those learning goals.  Many teachers are adverse to change it seems (odd to me that someone that is supposed to be teaching learners should intrinsically be a life long learner and adapter themselves, doesn't like change, but whatever; its way too common) and don't want to take on a new curriculum planning method if it means a big overhaul of their teacher routine.  This doesn't.  You can easily work with your team members and organize things simply to effectivity analyze whether or not its something that fits those TfU, student led, PBL, etc objectives that our lessons/units should.

Unit Two - Problem Solving

I think overall I like the idea of PBL.  Like I said before, I think its important that we are teaching kids learning skills just as much as content.  Constructing a curriculum and the subsequent lessons in a problem based learning design is definitely ideal.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure if our current educational system is very conducive to this style.  Teaching AP and teaching in Texas, my classes are unavoidably geared toward "The Test."  Whether the test is the AP exam in May or the TAKS standardized state test at the end of each year, I am forced to have my students' performance on these assessments as a primary concern of my teaching objectives.

While the skills and ideas that are learned by students in PBL units are awesome and so important in the big picture, those things are not the test.  And inevitably, it all comes down to an issue of time.  While I try to incorporate as many student-led activities with my classes, it would be impossible to cover all the required content of the school year if every lesson was designed that way.  Honestly, I hate that.  I hate that there are many times, especially in my AP class, that I have to lecture or pretty straightforwardly present the information to them.  

However, I feel with the current system my hands are tied.  I could try doing that, take 2 weeks to have the students do an in-depth, PBL based project on say...the causes of WWI and construct plans and ideas of how things could have been different, but when they get to the AP exam in May, there will be content that we subsequently didn't get to.  And when they go to write the essays, they are left to individually write the desired format of each writing piece with correlating content - not asked to collaboratively construct a piece with several other students in a format that they originate.  So what's the result then?  They fail...or at least they don't do as well.  I might have taught them things that I believe are important for them to know in the real world, but they won't be prepared for the exam, they won't get a good score, they then don't get college credit, they're gpa falls and are now less appealing to colleges, etc, etc.   

I want this style of learning to become more and more the norm - I think to have students that are prepared for the ever-changing world they will eventually be thrust into, its necessary.  Our educational system  needs to start changing too though; from the top down.  Colleges and universities have to start changing how their classrooms are structured, what they require for admission and what qualities they look for in applicants.  These changes then can trickle down to the secondary and elementary level where making changes in this direction is doable and holistically beneficial for the students.