Education | My Island View

Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

HMWK: Less Value or Valueless?

Posted in Alfie Kohn, Education, Homework, Ning, PLN, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Thought Provoking on February 19, 2010| 19 Comments »

If I had to name one educational author who sets educators off, it would be Alfie Kohn. The Educator’s PLN. http://edupln.ning.com. was fortunate enough to convince Alfie Kohn to talk with well over 250 educators about his views in a live Chat. Alfie is outspoken on a number of educational topics not the least of which is his stance on homework. No matter how Kohn positions it, and irrespective of the research used to support his position, all that some educators ever hear is that teachers should not give homework because it doesn’t improve or in any way positively affect learning. This flies in the face of a traditional tenet of education, “Thou shalt Give Homework”.

Kohn’s positions bring out the best and the worst in some people. One great example of academic debate at its best has been on-going over a period of several days. Two members of The Educator’s PLN, George Haines and Tim Furman have continued the most scholarly, thoughtful, and respectful discussion on the subject of Alfie Kohn that one could hope for. The vocabulary is inspiring. You have to love all those big educational words. All kidding aside, I have great respect for both men and their positions. It is a refreshing change from some of the name calling and disagreeable discourse that I have witnessed in the recent past.

Now that the Alfie Kohn video has been placed on my class’s Ning site and my students have been assigned its viewing, I need to strategize what they should take away from the experience. I am not creating Minnie me’s. I do not want to impose my will and a homework policy on them to guide them through their careers without them understanding or buying into it. After all, I am not an administrator.

Many of my views on homework were not my views through much of my career. Having my own children in school gave me a perspective that I never had in the first half of my career. I have come to appreciate that a student’s day in school begins at about approximately 8 and ends at 3. Many, but not all, are often involved with extra-curricular events for an additional two hours. This puts kids home between 5:30 and 6PM. Work in a little downtime and dinner and it is 8 pm. Of course the student is now ready to work, because it’s homework time. Each teacher has only assigned about 20 to 30 minutes of work, so each teacher feels that the assignment is not too much. That would be okay if the kid did not have five teachers all thinking the same thing. That could be on a given day two to three hours of homework. It is now 11 PM. I understand that does not happen every night, but I must wonder how often does it happen? I do not know an adult who would work those hours for any number of days in a week for no pay. There are actually departments, schools, and districts that enforce homework policies requiring teachers to give homework each and every night.

I am an English teacher. I know that I sometimes have no choice about homework, if I am to get things read. However, if I assign anything more than 10 pages, it probably will not be read by the class. How successful will my lesson be the next day when only half the students read the assignment? If I were to do a formative assessment, I should not be surprised that half the class does not get it. So much for the homework strategy. Another consideration: If I put no value on the homework, kids will recognize it as worthless. I must check it and provide feedback to give it value. Homework without value is more than worthless. It is punishment. Students will view it as working for nothing. How often do we hear “Why should I do that work? He doesn’t check it anyway.”

Skills and drills are important to some teachers and rarely important to kids. Some students might benefit by doing them. What about those who do not need those drills because they have a thorough understanding? How do those students, who do not need the drills, view them? If they clearly understand and can do the work, why are they drilling? Might they feel as if it is punishment? Can we assign the drills to those who need them and not to those who need them not? Is that a question of fairness? How can we say that only some of the students will get homework because they need to drill their skills? Are we calling some of our students dumb (their perspective) ?

I would love for my Methods students to realize that, if homework is important for the teacher to give, it should be important for the students to do. It should be creative and reasonable, because we are requiring overtime without compensation. We would resent that as adults, so why do we expect kids to buy into that concept without pushback? I love the fact That Alfie Kohn, George Haines, Tim Furman and my Methods students all challenge me to think, and reflect in order to amend, or change many of the traditions of education I followed so stringently for so many years in teaching. I only regret that I did not have the ability to do this earlier. That is what motivates me to work with pre-service Teachers. I think I will assign the reading and responding to this post as a homework assignment.

http://www.Twitter.com/@tomwhitby

http://vimeo.com/9511857

Read Full Post »

Learning Olympics

Posted in Education, Ning, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking on February 15, 2010| 8 Comments »

I was somewhat stumped as to how to engage my Methods students after two snow days and the Presidents’ Day Holiday. My worries were short-lived, since I developed a Ning site for my Methods’ students, so that they could continue learning even without the use of college grounds or a classroom. I am not a tech geek, but a practical educator. I know that I need to engage my students beyond the classroom in time and space.

I have several educational videos on the site, but two served my purpose well. One was an interview with Howard Gardner on Multiple Intelligences and the other was Myths and Opportunities: Technology in the Classroom by Alan November. I asked my students to view both videos and discuss the merging of ideas of these educators. To add another dimension, I also said that they may want to consider Bloom’s Taxonomy in their positions. I sat back and asked, How good am I? (Totally Rhetorical)

After the first few responses I began to question my teaching methods. The early student responses were saying that technology was an encumbrance to education. I had one student argue that cashiers could not make proper change unless the cash register told them how much change to give. The argument was blaming the technology for the cashier’s inability to make change in his or her head without the aid of the register. I did not point out that the cashier probably would not have had that job if the technology was not compensating for what the cashier did not learn in school. We sometimes view the same things, but perceive them differently.

Of course, I was upset with the initial responses. I wanted these students to learn what I know and take it further. Based on the initial responses, that was not going to happen. I felt that I had gone wrong in my presentations of technology as a tool in education. How could these students move education forward, if they fail to understand the technology component as clearly as I do? Yes that is totally arrogant on my part, but it is important to me to have my students be relevant. Technology, to me, makes them relevant educators.

This was a little too much to deal with. After all, the Olympic games were going on. I was upset, but I decided to put it aside to watch and enjoy the Olympics. Of course that did not work out. The initial discussions from my students were turning over in my mind. Why didn’t they get it? I know that I taught that technology is only a tool and not the education.

As I watched the Olympics I was thinking of how I could get a redo on this topic of technology as a tool for educators? That was the very moment that NBC, trying to fill a period of time when nothing was going on, did a piece on the garments created for the skiers to keep them warm and dry, as well as massage the athlete’s muscles. It was technology at its best. From that point forward, I honed in on all of the technological advances that helped the Olympic athletes. Clothing, sleds, skis, gloves, skates and anything else that an athlete needed was being tweaked by technology. Technology was the tool to help the athlete complete the event.

That is when I saw it. If learning was the event and students were the athletes what would they need to get to the end of the event? What technology could we provide to get them to achieve the goal. We did not need suits, gloves, or skis, but tools for collaboration, exploration, and communication. If athletes in the Olympics use tools of technological advancement to succeed at their events, then students in schools may use tools of technological advancement to succeed at learning. Teachers are not replaced by the tools, they become the coaches. Much like today’s athletes who participate in various events in the Olympics, students participate in learning. To succeed in attaining that goal, technology is a tool to get the student there. It enables him or her to get there faster and with richer experience then in the years past.

After I came to this realization and what I considered a great analogy, I went back to the discussion page of my class Ning site. I was happy to see a large number of contributions to the discussion. Many of the new entries exhibited a clear understanding of technology as a tool for learning and not the end result.I may have been to quick in my early assessment. Many students were smart enough to quote not only my words from classes, but also many of the wise words from my Blog posts. They were using technology to pump up the professor’s Ego. After all of my reflection and assessment, I may have accomplished my objective with a number of my students without going over it again and beating their knuckles with a ruler. That was the old school method.

Read Full Post »

The Little Red Schoolhouse

Posted in Education, Ning, PLN, Reform, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Twitter on February 11, 2010| 15 Comments »

Everybody loves snow days. If you teach in an area where it does not snow, you are really missing out. It is a day that causes students and teachers look forward to each winter. With my immersion into the world of social media I used this snow day as a day to engage and learn from other educators. To me snow days have become Twitter Days. My other choice was to shovel the driveway. Since I would need clearance from a cadre of doctors, I opted for Twitter.

I require my college students to be involved with a private Ning site that I created for the class. A Ning site is similar to a Private Facebook site. It was actually the model for The Educator’s PLN, http://edupln.ning.com/. Since we had two snow days in a row and next week contains a holiday, I will not see my students in their seats at schoolhouse for awhile. This means that I must be a little more creative and use the ning site to engage them, so that we may continue to grow and learn.

I shared this endevour with my Personal Learning Network on Twitter. I love the ability that I have to connect with my students 24/7 without regard to walls or distance. I acknowledge that I am working with college students who all have technology access. This is a big plus for me and not a factor enjoyed by all elementary, or secondary teachers. It should however, be a direction for education to take. Getting the technology to students might be less of a problem than trying to change the culture for this to be successful.

Two members of my PLN forced me to consider a few things on this snow day of twitter exchange. Jennifer Ansbach, @jenansbach, a secondary English teacher from New Jersey and Brian Nichols, @bjnichols, a forward thinking Elementary Principal in Virginia are two respected educators who add value to my PLN by thoughtfully and respectfully exchanging and challenging ideas.

After reading my tweet about using a ning, because I had no access to the schoolhouse, Jen tweeted about her plan to engage her students at home with a Webinar delivered by a Ustream feed. This is another great way to deliver material to kids outside the schoolhouse. Jen’s students balked at the proposal stating that they felt it would be “creepy” for their teacher to see them in their homes. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t work that way. Thank god. But it does point out the need to change the perception that learning can only take place in the Schoolhouse.

Brian was asked by someone to give his perspective on some educational topic and Brian was questioning what impact or value an elementary principal’s perspective would be in a discussion. This is a principal who supports teachers who have third graders blogging. His perspective could very well enlighten people about things that they do not yet know about.

As educators we read about education and its history quite often. We have come to understand that American towns were centered and built around the Schoolhouse, library, and Church. I would suspect a saloon or two was also in the mix. The idea being that people needed to get access to the information held within those places. Saloons were a different need.

Today schoolhouses are often a source of pride or tradition for communities. People pay a big price for them, so people feel that they should be showcased. There is a history in many communities of generations attending school in the schoolhouse. The schoolhouses are getting bigger with more bells and whistles, but there are question that need to be answered. Are schoolhouses getting better? Do bigger and more elaborate schoolhouses provide better learning? How far have we come from the little red schoolhouse with the rows of chairs and the chalkboard at the front of the room. The teacher’s desk was always up front to maintain order. Take out the Franklin stove for heat and the Little Red Schoolhouse looks almost familiar when compared to many schoolhouses today.

Now, I need to assemble all of the pieces of this jigsaw of a post. Although schoolhouses are considered institutions of learning, in the course of a person’s lifetime much of the learning for that individual will take place outside the schoolhouse. Learning is not confined to the schoolhouse. That concept flies in the face of our priorities, since we spend so much money building bigger, and better schoolhouses in the hope of bigger and better educations for our kids. This has been imprinted on our culture. How do we change these perceptions, for perception is reality?

We need supportive educational leaders like Brian to continue encouraging teachers to engage their students in learning anytime and in any place. Encouraging and teaching kids at an early age gives them the tools and skills to go further on the secondary level. Secondary teachers like Jennifer will not be met with resistance from students or parents when proposing learning outside the schoolhouse. I am not proposing technology driven homework assignments, but a shift in an approach to learning.It will come to be expected by students and parents As these students get to the big red schoolhouse of college, they will be learning on their own with the guidance of their teacher without a need for the chalkboard, rows, teacher’s desk, or the Franklin stove of the old model.

There are so many other obstacles to overcome before this can change. Equal access to technology, professional development for teachers, professional development for administrators, and professional development for parents are all necessary to begin to change the culture. We need to look at our schools as schoolhouses that may be limiting learning and not encouraging it. We need to understand that we do not have to travel to the schoolhouse to get the information. The information now comes to us anytime, anywhere. We may however, want to now consider where to place those saloons.

Read Full Post »

Assess the Assessment

Posted in Education, Merit Pay, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Thought Provoking on February 7, 2010| 15 Comments »

In the movie, On The Waterfront the main character, Terry, played by Marlon Brando had a discussion with his brother, Charlie, played by Rod Steiger. The discussion explained how the big brother talked the younger brother to ignore his beliefs in himself and take a dive in a fight. In trusting his older brother’s advice the younger brother asked, “what do I get? a one way ticket to palookaville You was my brother Charlie, you should’ve looked out for me …”. It is with that image of a discussion in the back of a mob-owned Limo that I will now make this post.

Teachers need assessments. We need to assess what students know, in order to determine what it is we need to teach. We need to assess how effective our teaching is with our students, so that we can move forward, change direction, or go back for a better take. In assessing the learning of our students we can be creative. We can use Tests, Rubrics, Projects, or Portfolios developed in accordance with those who are being assessed, the students. Assessments are both needed and useful tools to an educator.

Now let us look at standardized tests. I cannot address any specific test in any state because these standardized tests are not standard from state to state. We were told at the outset of this test movement, that tests were needed to make sure our education system was maintaining the same level of teaching and learning throughout the country. It would be more accurate to say that was my understanding. So, now we have several different tests, developed separately by various groups across the country, testing whether kids are all at least at minimal levels of learning achievement and calling it standardized.

We should consider how the Test results are applied. We know how teachers use assessments, so let us list the uses of the standardized test results by individuals other than teachers. Administrators use the results for many things. There is funding tied to test results. There is programming tied to test results. There are purchasing decisions tied to test results. Staffing and scheduling are also tied to test results.

Additional applications of the test results would be for political influence. School Board members always pull them out at election time. Superintendents use them at most public meetings. I do not know for sure, but I would imagine, that the test result numbers might be bandied about in contract negotiations with teacher unions. My favorite observation of all would be the use of these results in Real Estate offices. I imagine that some real estate agents have laminated sheets of good test results for districts in which they are trying to sell houses. If the houses are in districts with poor test results the subject will never be brought up.

Now there is talk of tying a teacher’s pay or even the teacher’s continuance in the career to be dependent on these test results. How can that be justified to teachers that have students who must take the test after only being with that teacher a short time. Maybe we could go back in the students academic history and also hold previous teachers responsible. It should be noted at this point that there are some subject areas that are not governed by standardized testing. Language courses, Elective courses, Physical Education courses, Tech and Business courses are among those not requiring standardized tests. How will these teachers be affected by the reliance on tests? Is there a different standard for English, social studies, math and science teachers?

My thoughts now go to when is it that we are doing this testing. Formative testing is an as-you-go assessment. It allows the teacher to reflect and adjust. The Summative assessment is the culminating assessment. How successful was the teacher with the Big picture. In this respect standardized tests are best compared to an Autopsy. I would propose that we need more ongoing healthcare.

I try to teach my Methods students that if they do their job as they are trained and teach kids to be learners, that those kids will do well on any standardized test. They should never teach to the test. Their veteran colleagues however, often tell them the opposite. They tell them that the test is everything. We are judged by the test results of our students. To underscore and emphasize that statement, teaching for the test is not discouraged by administrators.

My quandary: What do I tell my students? Higher order thinking skills are paramount. Follow Bloom and teach through creativity, and assess creatively. Pay no attention to standardized tests, for if your students are learning it will show as success on the test. Am I being Charlie as my students are Terry. With the advice that I give them, will they ask…“what do I get? a one way ticket to palookaville You was my brother Charlie, you should’ve looked out for me …”.

I have no answers, or suggestions for change on this subject because I need more information. Therefore, I believe it is time to assess the assessment. We need to clearly understand our objective and use the assessment to determine if we are accomplishing it.We may need to find other ways to make political statements about education and other ways to sell real estate. Let’s use assessment to determine learning.

Read Full Post »

We Are #EdChat!

Posted in EdChat, Education, Reform, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking on February 3, 2010| 33 Comments »

I was attending college in West Virginia when Marshall University’s football team went down in a devastating plane crash. The Movie We are Marshall has always had a special meaning for me as a result of that geographical and emotional connection. I was always moved by the community rallying to the support of the team and the University. As I remember, 40 years ago, the sense of community was as true in life, as it was portrayed in the movie.

The sense of community has a great deal to do with social media as I see it. There are no rules in social media. There are pockets of groups that are governed by a sense of purpose for a specific interest or a specific topic. This can be by an occupation, an industry, a family, a common disease, a hobby, a heritage, or any common experience of those who formed that community. What governs the group is its common purpose to advance its cause in a collaborative effort by the members.

There are some social media sites that establish rules for their site. They can also establish them to be private or public. There is but one final consequence for those who ignore the rules on a site. They are banned from the group. It is a setting on the site that group managers have.

Twitter is totally public. One may determine who to follow and even, to an extent, who will follow back. There is a setting for blocking followers from contact. These determinations are made by whom an individual wants to include in their personal network. Each tweeter sets his or her own standards for acceptance of his or her network members.

I, along with many other educators, have set up Professional or Personal Learning Networks, PLN’s. Our common interest is Education. Some educators narrow that down to specific subject areas, and some are generalists. Having taught in the K-12 world for 34 years and now Higher Education for the last three years, I consider myself a generalist with a leaning toward increasing technology as a tool for education. I have found technology to be a common interest of many educators on my PLN since that is what brings us together in this medium.

That is the backdrop for the facts about the formation of #EdChat. I think this needs to be recorded somewhere, so that those who join today understand what it is and not be confused by what others say it is. I along with Steve Anderson and Shelly Terrell are the founders of #EdChat. It grew from our experiences with Twitter and our PLN.

I often engage members of my PLN in discussions about education. The topic of choice is usually reforming Education to get it more involved with Technology tools for learning. For my PLN, this is the topic that binds us. Since some meaningful and substantive discussions were only visible to members of my PLN who were online at that time, I wanted more. Collaborative learning works best when you can collaborate. We had the subject, but we needed the people. Shelly suggested that we post out a discussion topic and we hashtag it so that anyone could follow. #EdChat was an unused hashtag so we put it in place. We soon found that others had ideas for topics. Steve Anderson contributed the #EdChat Poll.

Each week we place 5 topics on a poll for people to select a topic for discussion. Topics are suggested, or they are developed by popular discussions on the PLN that week, or they are topics that are being discussed by educators at various Educational conferences. Again, I remind you, many of our PLN members have technology in common, and it is a concern that comes to the surface often. This is how we started and developed #EdChat. These are the facts and not the myth. I believe we started in August of 2009.We have now grown beyond or own PLN. Our topics, however, have remained true to our objective. They are: general educational concerns, often Technology-in-Education concerns, reform topics, and general Pedagogical concerns.

We originally had one EdChat discussion on Tuesdays, at 7 PM EST. This was not meeting the needs of many of European members in consideration of the different Time Zones. We added a 12 noon EST EdChat to include them. This allowed more coverage of several topics and avoided duplication. We use the first topic choice for our largest group at 7 and the second most popular topic for the noon session. We try to recycle Topics not selected and we add new Topics from suggestions and discussions on the PLN or the EdChat discussion. We have archived most of our EdChats, but we did not do this at the beginning. Our EdChat archives reside on The Educator’s PLN Ning site, http://edupln.ning.com.

#EdChat has now become more than when we started. We have received national attention in more than one educational journal. We have been represented at a number of Educational Conferences. The hashtag #edchat is now tagged on to many educational tweets making it a 24/7 depository of educational tweets. That takes it beyond the 7 and noon use of the hashtag.

The community that is Edchat, determines the membership. Anyone interested in the discussion of the topic chosen by the community is welcomed to join. The value of members’ tweets is determined by participating members. If they want to engage another member they will. Often there are satellite discussions going on within an EdChat. It is like a great party where members can travel from one group to another and engage in a discussion that was prompted by the original Topic. We have hundreds of participants and over a thousand tweets in a one hour period.

EdChat is about an exchange of ideas. It has had an impact on the educational community based on references in Blogs, journals , and conferences. As one of the founders of Edchat I have laid out the facts as I know them. I hope that this dispels any misinformation that people may have about Edchat. It is a community of collaborative Educators whose only agenda is to improve education from their perspective of understanding. Often, but not always that is a perspective in the use of Technology.

It should be noted that this is a formula that was successful for us. It is also being duplicated by others who had specific topics that concerned their communities. We do not own the formula anyone can use it. There is a parent group chat and a gifted and talented chat there was even a Portuguese Edchat. Social media affords many ways that individuals may address their community needs. If Edchat is not meeting your specific needs please use the same strategies and tools as #EdChat to meet your needs.

That is EdChat as I understand it. That is as a founder, and a participant in all but a few of many EdChats conducted since August. You are free to comment here. I would hope that you will try to respond to what Edchat is, and not what others with far less EdChat experience say it is.

Read Full Post »

The Old West.

Posted in Education, Reform, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Uncategorized on February 1, 2010| 10 Comments »

Back in the late 50’s one of my favorite shows was Wyatt Earp, starring Hugh O’Brien. Wyatt Earp carried a gun called the “Buntline Special”. It was a gun designed by Ned Buntline a journalist, who designed a pistol with an extra long barrel. As an adult, I realized that it must have been barrel envy that prompted so many gunfights with Wyatt.

The one Law that Wyatt insisted on in the old west town of Tombstone Arizona, was “No Guns Allowed”. Firearm technology had advanced so much that the Colt .45 was a weapon that had to be restricted. There were laws to protect citizens, but Wyatt thought it to be easier to collect all firearms as the men (women played no significant part in TV westerns) entered the town. It was a pain in the neck but way easier than dealing with those cowpokes using their guns. As the song went on Wyatt Earp, Wyatt Earp, Brave, Courageous, and Bold. Wyatt Earp, Wyatt Earp, long may his story be told.Fifty years later I am still telling the story.

Moving ahead in the space-time continuum I found myself visiting the 1964 world’s fair in Flushing, New York. You may remember the site of the Fair as it was imortalized in the movie Men in Black. That fair was about the Future. Most of the pavilions hosted exhibits telling of what life would be like in the 21st Century. They promised Flying Cars, my favorite prediction. Many of the exhibits talked about the Technology of the future and how kids would learn using Technology. I do not remember the specifics since that was so many years ago, but I loved future predictions like: Someday kids will have powerful computers the size of a deck of cards. These computers will be able to seek out and deliver information in various forms to these kids. They would be able to exchange ideas and collaborate globally. Back in 1964 that would have been a radical concept way beyond anything in existence.

Shortly after that World’s Fair, we landed men on the Moon. Amazingly, many of those World’s Fair predictions have come true. I am still waiting for those Flying cars. Now we move closer to the 21st Century. No more of the Old West is left. Technology has moved at a rapid pace since that Fair. Kids carry in their pockets computers that are more powerful than those used to place men on the moon. Students may use these computers for all that was predicted. For an educator it is beyond imagination to have students equipped with the ability to access information pertinent to learning at any time. These tools of technology go way beyond anything really imagined from the 60’s.

Now I need to tie things together so that this all makes sense. In many districts across the land we have educational leaders who see themselves as Wyatt Earp. They have discipline policies in place. Every class has rules generated by the teacher, or collaboratively agreed upon by the class itself. There are established consequences for inappropriate actions. With all of this in place educators are not inclined to enforce their own discipline policies. NO CELLPHONES ALLOWED. This is not the wild west. Whatever happened to Brave , Courageous and Bold?

If a kid is using a cellphone in class, a teacher needs to do two things. First enforce the rule addressing inappropriate behavior in class. Second, reflect on why a student finds more engagement in cellphone use than engagement in the lesson for the day! As educators we are the adults in the room. We need to Guide our students to appropriate behavior. In addition we need to model appropriate behavior. There are many teachers using their cellphones at inappropriate times.

We are dealing with many issues that did not exist even a few years ago. We need to proceed using common sense and focus on what is needed to promote and support Learning. Our students are not indentured servants. We have to guide them with the same respect we expect from them. I can only hope that a short time from now we will look back on these wild west policies of leaving cellphones at the door and ask, “What the hell were we thinking?’ Let us strive to harness the power of these very personal computers and have our students use them to engage in learning, and save its other functions for more appropriate times. While we are at it let’s direct students to use technology for speeding along the invention and implementation of flying cars. My selfish request.

Read Full Post »

Research Questions.

Posted in Education, Reform, Teched, Technology on January 29, 2010| 10 Comments »

My big concern in starting to write a Blog was if I could post with consistency and frequency. I feared that I would run out of things to say, or I wouldn’t be able to produce posts quickly enough to hold an audience. I have discovered that Twitter, and all that becomes associated with it, keeps that from happening. I often recollect the only memorable line from Godfather III. ”Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” , Thanks Al Pacino.

I had such a moment this week as I observed a live-streamed meeting in a land far away. I added to the backchannel stream with Twitter as I watched the action (I felt very techie). Backchanneling is tweeting comments about the meeting as it is in progress. Often the Twitterstream is projected on a screen in the room for all to see. The topic was Tech in ed . I was stopped in my tracks by one committee member, identified as a Professor, who asked a question about the research supporting the use of Tech in Education. Honestly, I don’t even remember the exact words, because to me the exact words did not really matter. I was already too busy screen-screaming at my computer.

This is not 1975. Technology is here. Technology is a tool to retrieve and transmit information. Information is what we need for learning. We retrieve information. We analyze information. We interpret information. We restructure information. We exchange information with others. We respond to information from others. We create with information. We even create original information.(notice small direct sentences and easy, understandable vocabulary)

With all of that clearly and simply stated, an educator should be asking a different question. What does the research tell me about the best tool to use with my lesson? Research should help determine the best way to use technology in relation to information needed. We may find that, for a specific lesson, the pencil technology serves us best. For other lessons word processing technology is needed. As educators we should know the difference and how we want to use the tools.I am keeping the examples simple for the purpose of common experiences. Some web 2.0 applications have no meaning to some educators, so they would not serve as good examples. That is telling in itself.

It is my opinion that a question from any educator in 2010 about research in technology and learning is only code for something else. To me it says” I am happy with what I am doing and you can’t make me do it any differently, because science is not on your side!” That is my view, so do not run to the comment box, since that is my perception which makes it my reality. It does not have to be yours.

Unfortunately, over my long career I have seen research cause trends which are the rage for a while, but then fade away. It has conditioned educators not to pay so much attention to whatever is happening now, because next year it may be gone. Educators should now be aware however, that technology is not such an educational fad. It no longer needs justification with research. It is here to stay and it is moving forward. It is the educational system that is becoming stagnant.

I believe in research in Education. Research in learning and how we learn is valuable. The tools that we use are also important, but they are not the end all in learning. Think of technology as informational delivery systems. Information In! Information Out! If one tool is better than another for a teacher to accomplish the goal, then select the best tool.

If all Educators believed in research as well, especially those who ask about tech and learning research, we might be looking at a different education system. Bloom’s Taxonomy would direct us to creative learning instead of lecturing facts. So, educators, be careful of what you wish, for it may yet require you to change. There is so much research that is ignored by educators in their day-to-day teaching , that it seems somewhat hypocritical to call upon research to fend off the use of technology.

The next time you are in a meeting which is discussing Technology and Education, be wary of those who ask if research supports the use of technology in Education. That person may be asking a question, but stating something completely different. That was my take-away from that educational meeting in a land far away that I attended and participated in and learned. That would not have been done without the tools of technology. Come to think of it the tools of technology have you here with me now. Does the research matter to you?

Read Full Post »

Focus on the Facts

Posted in Education, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Teched, Technology on January 27, 2010| 8 Comments »

Do Not Look at the Video Until You Complete Reading This Post!

If truth be told, and I always do, I was once the type of teacher that I teach my students not to be. When I need examples of things that one should not to do in a classroom, I need not go far for an example. That being said, I must add, that I was not the same teacher at the end of my career that I was at the beginning. Luckily, I was better at the end than I was at the beginning. Through reflection and instruction and a great many years of experience, I developed, I learned, and I changed. I was happier with myself as a teacher in the latter half of my 34 year, K-12 history.

I did not start out as a teacher. I never took an Education course until I secured a position as a teacher. My Education training came on the graduate level. I was never a student teacher, because it was waived. Since I felt so fortunate to have a teaching job, I was willing and eager to learn. With that eagerness I turned to the veteran faculty members for help in developing methods for teaching. In the 70’s they were all old school. That is probably where the term “old school” came from. My mentors taught me to teach as they were taught, for that is what they knew. It worked for them and it will work for all the students in the future. That is what I was told.

My lesson plans were more historical fiction than plans. I needed to turn something in each week and I was always a week behind. This of course was another time. My tests were designed for speed of grading. I controlled my classes including students and course content. Fortunately, we learn from our mistakes. What we do with what we learn, however, is what ultimately counts. At least that is my hope.

For whatever reason, people hold Politicians steadfastly responsible for whatever first statement they ever made on any given topic. They are not permitted to waiver from their original stand. It seems to be applied even more steadfastly to issues of controversy. Politicians are not allowed to reflect. They are not allowed to consider new information. They cannot rely on new research that might have an effect on their original position. Once a politician states a position he/she lives with it forever.

Teachers are not held to this standard. They do reflect. New information makes a big difference in what they teach. Research affects what they do and how they do it. If all that is true, there is only one factor that stops this from creating change. That would be the teacher’s unwillingness to reflect, consider, and implement change on a personal level. Teachers too often see no need to do so. Changing this factor may take us a long way in changing the system.

Professional Development often does not address attitudes and the need to do things differently. It presents new tools with bells and whistles that may not be complicated, but are often presented in a complicated way. In addition, these tools often have no relevance to what teachers are teaching. That is the way many teachers perceive it. Tech tools are not presented in the context of a lesson specific to the teacher. As always, I will again say this is a generalization and it does not happen everywhere. Since you are still reading this post there must be a reason. It may have to do with all of those other teachers that you may know who fall into this category.

All teachers should be familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy, even though some may need to be reminded of it. If we buy into Bloom, as we should, we accept the fact that the least effective way kids learn is through memorization of facts. The most effective way kids learn is creative thinking. That being established, let us examine the focus of most teaching. What is the focus of most lessons of most teachers? ( you may feel more comfortable with the word many instead of most). If the teacher’s Focus is on Facts, we have a problem.

I know most teachers believe that they are teaching students to be creative. That being the case let us consider the summative assessments, Unit Exams. Are they multiple choice questions? Do the questions ask for fact recall? Are the answers on Scantron sheets or bubble sheets? I am not diminishing the need to know and recall facts. They are necessary. I am questioning the focus of teaching. Memorization of facts may be useful and has its place. The focus of the lesson however should focus on creative learning in order to access the highest level of learning. Authentic assessment might be a better way to look at success in creative learning

Taking this back to Professional Development, if we agree to focus on creative learning, we will need students to use creative tools to research, access, analyze, collaborate and communicate in a creative way. The PD need only teach awareness of tech to the teacher. The teacher will soon ask more detailed questions as the needs arise. Students may become the impetus for learning technology for the teacher. As the students take ownership of their learning, they should use the tech to accomplish their goals. If the teacher is driving the bus there is no need to be able to do an engine tune-up. Students will use tech more and more as the teacher guides them through their tasks. Learning will go both ways. As a teacher I often found myself learning from my students. I still do.

Some may see this as an oversimplification of a complicated problem. If that is so, then refocusing how we teach, and the focus that we use in lessons every day should be a simple solution. Teachers must Reflect, consider and Change. They are not politicians and have the ability to change and grow.

My belief is that we need to change the culture in order to change an Education System. It is a system that often fails the teachers as well as the students. This change can start with us. We are the change. After that we can select something else to tackle. There are enough problems to choose from.

Now, You May View The Video!

Read Full Post »

This Might Be A Problem!

Posted in Education, Reform, Teched, Technology on January 24, 2010| 29 Comments »

We had two friends over our house last evening, who have been involved with Educational Technology since the Eighties. We reminisced about our involvement in early Ed tech and we collectively made a reflective observation. The rate of progress of technology seems to be moving faster than its acceptance by many educators. Today’s arguments for using technology in education as a tool for teaching are the same arguments we were making twenty-five years ago. Although, the percentage of those educators effectively using it has significantly increased, there are many who still will not engage it in any way.

The question arises why have so many not progressed beyond where educators were with technology 25 years ago. The technology has certainly progressed. Before the nay-Sayers jump up and run to the comment box, I am not saying that we cannot teach without Tech. I am saying that, as educators, we are slow in using it as a tool for education. Of course, if you are reading this post you are probably not one of the many educators who are resistant to technology use, but consider how many of your colleagues do not have the willingness or wherewithal to read this. That is why I find the comment that “we need to take baby steps” a hot button. After 25 years there are no more baby steps. We should have grown up, and we should be running. Someone may need to honestly reflect on the entire situation.

A memorable Movie with memorable scenes was The Wizard of OZ. One of the most memorable scenes was when Dorothy returned to Oz and again encountered the Wizard in all of his ire and wrath. Thanks to Toto the curtain obscuring the man controlling the Wizard was pulled back and revealed a man doing everything he could to keep it all working. Bellowing from the loudspeaker was the command,”PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!”

With that cinematic image fresh on our brains let us now talk about Informational Technology Directors. Hoping not to conjure reminiscences of some racist clichés of the sixties, I would say that some of my best friends are IT Directors. The job that these people do is not easy. They are responsible for all technology that runs the school system as well as delivering information for curriculum. That in itself may be more than any one person should be responsible for. One reason for this might be the rapid rate that technology has developed. The tech developed at a greater rate than a full understanding of the position of Tech Director. The more that tech evolved the more responsibilities these people obtained. This might be a problem.

Many IT Directors have a comprehensive understanding of technology. Many Superintendents and Principals, the leaders of education in many districts, have far less of a tech understanding. They rely on the ability of the IT Director, as they should. This places a great deal of unspoken power in the hands of the IT Director. Major purchases in technology for a district fall to the recommendation of the IT Director. Who better to make such decisions, since the IT Director knows Technology. The problem in my view centers with the knowledge that the IT Director has of the curriculum for which the technology will be used. Without an equal understanding of education, any decision could result in expensive purchases being underutilized or even going unused. This might be a problem.

Teachers should be comfortable with IT Directors. Ideally, a teacher should be able to go to an IT Director with a lesson and its objective. The IT Director with knowledge of education, as well as knowledge of tech, should be able to suggest ways to use technology as a tool to accomplish the goal. He/she might also point out if it is not possible to effectively use Tech in certain instances . The IT director should be consulting with teachers about their successes and failures to plan further integration or determining what went wrong. These meetings should be taking place with many people in all schools of a district. If this engagement is not taking place, this might be a problem.

Much, but not all, of the Professional Development should be organized by the IT director. A knowledge of Technology and curriculum as well as the staff’s understanding of technology is key. The IT Director should constantly be seeking out successes of teachers who are effectively using Tech. These teachers should be encouraged to share. Best practices are often what people need as a model to best understand the tech as a tool and not a focus. If this engagement is not taking place, this might be a problem.

Geek Speak is power. To many, it seems to be a secret language. IT Directors use scary acronyms and weird sounding words that are not familiar to those who speak English. This language may intimidate the most educated person. It certainly impresses Superintendents. IT Directors use this language to explain the intricacies of each piece of technology. It may be a cause for some teachers backing away from professional development for Educational Technology.The “ins and outs” of the technical aspects mean little to teachers. We do not have to know how to build a car to drive it. This might be a problem.

Without splitting the responsibility of the job between Administrative tech and Educational tech there may be too much for one person to handle. There is a different skill sets required for the positions. The skills of an office manager are required for one job, while the skills of an educator are required for the other. Without a separation of duties, this might be a problem.

These are all generalizations. I am just stating things that have been said over the last twenty-five years. Technology moves very fast, and change in our education system moves very slowly. We may need to do a formative assessment at this point. Do we have the correct person in a position with the correct skills to do what is necessary to carry out the task? That is the very same question applied to teachers. In many districts the person and the job are matched well. If they are not, this might be a problem

Technology is not the focus of education. Learning should be the focus of education and technology is one of the tools that helps teachers teach. The next time you experience the Wizard in all of his ire and wrath. Forget the words bellowing from the loudspeaker,LET”S PAY ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!” We may need to pull back that curtain and help the man reach a higher level of efficiency and understanding to keep up with the pace of technology. If we don’t this might be a problem.

Please do not print this out and place it in your IT Director’s mailbox with “Look What This Guy Said About You” scribbled at the top. Send this Link to your IT Director. He or she may find a reason to comment. If we do not assess the needs, we may not address the problem and this might be a problem.

Read Full Post »

In My Humble Opinion

Posted in Administrator, Assessment, Education, Leadership, Literacy, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking, Uncategorized on January 22, 2010| 22 Comments »

I am beginning to appreciate this blogging thing more with each post I write. What I like best is that these are my ideas and have no effect on anyone except those who choose to accept them. Readers even get to pick and choose which of my ideas they want. I will never know what effect they will have, but I do get to read the comments, and for the most part they are positive. I appreciate the comments that are even more thoughtful than my original post. That being said, I can now post something that some will find upsetting . If you are in that group by the end of the post, come back to this first paragraph and remind yourself of this opening statement. It may have more meaning for you the second time.

Through my entire career in education I have seen plans that were supposed to revolutionize the educational system, the latest attempt being “No Child Left Behind”. Now with this new administration we are looking at merit pay for teachers. A plan flawed in its conception with a great potential to fail and once again target teachers as the reason for failure. I am putting an IMHO here to quell the stirring beasts who are about to pounce on the reply box.

As a teacher of teachers I always instruct my students to have an objective or a goal for every lesson they teach. Their purpose is to focus their thoughts, direction, and energy to accomplish that goal. Most importantly however, they are to assess their students along the way to make adjustments in order to complete the goal.

If we apply that same principle to our educational system, I would expect a positive result. All we have to do is ask the question, “What is the goal of education?” You have to see where this is going by now. The problem is who will answer that question: Politician, Parent, Administrator, Teacher, Student, Tax-payer, or that non-educator sitting on the educational advisory panel? The answers will muddy what should be a clear answer.

Here comes the IMHO again. As far as I can tell, the goal of education is to provide workers for the job force. That seems to be the driving force in everyone’s perception of education in America and probably elsewhere. Before you scroll to the reply box, finish the post. I might say something else to set you off. Employment seems to me, to be the Goal of education. Some might say the goal is to get the student to college. Moving a student to Higher Ed, it is just a hand-off to the college to prepare a student for higher paying employment. Colleges are ruled by the same goal.

The problem with all of this is that when the goal of employment is reached the perception of many is that the need for education, and learning has ended. That is true for many individuals no matter what line of work or whatever profession they enter. That most definitely includes ALL of the professionals in education. Once they get their job there is no longer a need to learn. We have even coined a phrase for those who are exceptions. We call them Life-Long Learners. Those are the people who did not buy into the education- culminates-with-employment idea.

If the goal for Education is employment and a student becomes employed, the goal has been attained. There is no need for continued learning. We have succeeded. If however, that is not the outcome we want, maybe we should go back to the beginning. Let us look at the Goal for which we must focus our thoughts, direction, and energy to accomplish. Maybe it needs tweaking, or clarification, or assessing, or a complete change. As an educator I have to throw all that in, even though IMHO the goal sucks and should be scraped.

It may be time to establish a Goal we can all agree upon. Here is my contribution or the point I would like to make with this discussion. My Goal would be to promote Learning and Literacy through education. “We do that”, you say. If we did, why do so many people stop learning and being literate once they get a job?

At one time people needed to spend time reading books and engaging in conversation and debate and collaboration. It was difficult to do when there was no time or place to do this after one graduated. After all, the goal was attained and there was no need. The Internet has changed all that.

If Administrators made their decisions on whether or not something promotes and supports literacy and learning, many decisions for financing, curriculum, and staffing might be different. If principals had that as a goal, School policies, support of teachers, professional development and even interaction with parents might be more purposeful. Teachers, many who will claim this to be their goal, will be more open to accepting new ideas and new tools for preparing kids to learn beyond the classroom. A skill they will need if we meet the goal of learning and literacy.

Employment and supplying a workforce should not be the goal of educators. That is the stuff of politics. Let the need to continually learn and communicate in a literate manner be the Goal of All educators. All decisions should be weighed with this in mind. All assessments should address this goal. We would need no standardized tests with this as a standardized Goal. IMHO.

Now you can return to my first paragraph and then scroll to the Reply box and leave your comment. I hope my humble opinion has given you pause to reflect.