Things have changed a lot in the last couple of weeks. My position has changed from a Digital Citizenship teacher in a middle school to a Technology Integration Specialist for the corporation so suddenly everything we have done in the last 17 weeks has been cast in a new light. The guiding questions for this blog will be looked at in a new perspective as well!
Initially, the specific information about how to utilize technology effectively in the classroom caused me to look at how content was delivered and what I could do using the tools that were available. Now in thinking about helping many teachers across grade levels and content area, the specific tools aren't as important as knowing what it is that the teacher wants to accomplish and finding ways to use appropriate levels of technology to enrich that goal. Understanding that personally was a big breakthrough for me and as I view others in educational settings I'm starting to see that will be a big area of focus across the board. We all need to think about what we are trying to accomplish first, look at the existing level of our students second, and finally find the tools to bring the first two together.
This course has also clarified and supported another of the opinions I held regarding technology. For someone that decided to be immersed in the study and utilization of technology, I really resisted the approach that more devices would solve all of our problems. Through both the resources presented and more importantly reading what others contributed I realized that the importance of technology isn't what technology you used in the classroom, but the techniques that you used. Content can be enhanced with video and audio representations, in-depth research at ones fingertips, making virtual models, and many more. Yes, there are apps that will allow students to drill skills but that is far down the list of the most important uses. I do have to say, however, that I often think how much better my college music theory experience would have been if I would have been able to have access to some of the software that played intervals and allowed us to identify them. In my day, you had to recruit a willing person to spend time in the practice room playing intervals for you on the piano while you identified them. While this kind of replacement would have been valuable, I think we are at the point where we can safely take this kind of drill program for granted and need to focus on the higher levels of integration.
As far as what I see using in the next year, I have to think that using either the SAMR or TPACK models to help teachers understand conceptually the direction they need to go will be the most important single thing. While the SAMR model is a little more general than TPACK (or some of the other models) it is simple enough and direct enough that teachers can look at it and see the framework and have a visual representation of the general framework. There will always be teachers that look for the app to do the teaching for them, and frankly the most you can do is continue to offer an alternate vision and structure and hope that something will resonate. Perhaps more than anything else these last weeks, the contributions of the class have shown me that there are so many possibilities that I hadn't thought of and that there is ALWAYS another approach that can be offered. Hopefully, if I can offer enough possibilities to resistant teachers they will reach a tipping point where they will see that integration of technology doesn't supplant their usefulness but supplements it even if it means their approach needs to change to allow for the deeper learning on the part of their students.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Shifting Focus
In order to move our classrooms from the traditional teacher led dissemination of information to a more student focused, student centered model that incorporates technology as a critical vehicle there are two major obstacles to overcome. The first is getting students to accept the technology and assimilate it as naturally as those of my generation did pencil and paper. Secondly, teachers need to acknowledge that we need to give students the flexibility and support to find ways to explore both established and non-established methods to show mastery.
We are at a place in our society where technology is changing quicker than any one person can keep up with. A major change for me is being able to accept that if students are exploring, they are likely to find things of which I was unaware. The converse is true where the teacher can and will find new technological avenues for the students to explore. How do we allow this exploration while at the same time leading instruction?
Perhaps the answer is to give the students the time to explore outside of guided instruction. When calculators were first introduced, we (then students) spent a lot of time playing on them just to see what they could and would do in addition (see what I did there?) to discovering what words we could create by turning the device upside down! Granted, we got to a place where play had exhausted pretty quickly compared to what is available today but eventually we used the calculator for the use that it was intended. One of our readings recommends giving free time to explore on the computer. At first, this didn't mesh with my vision of a classroom but then I recalled something from Google. Google gives its employees what is called 20% time. That is they have 20 percent of their work time to devote to their own projects. Some of these projects go nowhere but some (like Gmail) have turned into some of the most successful Google initiatives. Perhaps this method can be adapted to fit into the school setting. 20 percent, or one day a week, might be too much time to give up but 10 percent might work. It would require some parameters be set so that the students are on task. Google requires progress reports and if creators determine the project is going nowhere they are free to terminate and start on another. An initiative like this in a classroom could expand what the students discover while at the same time making both the offerings of the device and the familiarity of using the device a commonplace experience.
Getting teachers to buy into alternative ways of showing mastery is a more complicated issue. On one hand the research is pretty convincing that kids can do innovative and exciting things when given the opportunity. On the other hand teachers are held to predetermined standards and standardized methods of assessment. Frankly, I don't see an obvious answer to this impasse. If students are going to show us what they are capable of then they need to have the latitude to do so. Teachers will need to be flexible enough to create broad rubrics to evaluate and administrators need to be flexible enough (and trusting enough) to acknowledge the difference the teacher being flexible and being lazy. School boards and state legislatures would need to be open enough to allow time for new methods to gain traction in schools. No step in this process is going to be easy or clean.
Maybe the genesis of this kind of paradigm shift will come from those class offerings that aren't currently tested via the state test. While all courses have standards, in Indiana the subjects like math and language arts are the ones that get the scrutiny of standardized testing. If those other courses could begin initiatives as described above AND find some success then it might make the implementation in the "tested" classes a little easier. This is certainly not going to be a cut and dried process and will no doubt be messy. Only school environments where a trust is present among all stakeholders will be able to work through the messiness and get to a place that the achievement can be seen.
We are at a place in our society where technology is changing quicker than any one person can keep up with. A major change for me is being able to accept that if students are exploring, they are likely to find things of which I was unaware. The converse is true where the teacher can and will find new technological avenues for the students to explore. How do we allow this exploration while at the same time leading instruction?
Perhaps the answer is to give the students the time to explore outside of guided instruction. When calculators were first introduced, we (then students) spent a lot of time playing on them just to see what they could and would do in addition (see what I did there?) to discovering what words we could create by turning the device upside down! Granted, we got to a place where play had exhausted pretty quickly compared to what is available today but eventually we used the calculator for the use that it was intended. One of our readings recommends giving free time to explore on the computer. At first, this didn't mesh with my vision of a classroom but then I recalled something from Google. Google gives its employees what is called 20% time. That is they have 20 percent of their work time to devote to their own projects. Some of these projects go nowhere but some (like Gmail) have turned into some of the most successful Google initiatives. Perhaps this method can be adapted to fit into the school setting. 20 percent, or one day a week, might be too much time to give up but 10 percent might work. It would require some parameters be set so that the students are on task. Google requires progress reports and if creators determine the project is going nowhere they are free to terminate and start on another. An initiative like this in a classroom could expand what the students discover while at the same time making both the offerings of the device and the familiarity of using the device a commonplace experience.
Getting teachers to buy into alternative ways of showing mastery is a more complicated issue. On one hand the research is pretty convincing that kids can do innovative and exciting things when given the opportunity. On the other hand teachers are held to predetermined standards and standardized methods of assessment. Frankly, I don't see an obvious answer to this impasse. If students are going to show us what they are capable of then they need to have the latitude to do so. Teachers will need to be flexible enough to create broad rubrics to evaluate and administrators need to be flexible enough (and trusting enough) to acknowledge the difference the teacher being flexible and being lazy. School boards and state legislatures would need to be open enough to allow time for new methods to gain traction in schools. No step in this process is going to be easy or clean.
Maybe the genesis of this kind of paradigm shift will come from those class offerings that aren't currently tested via the state test. While all courses have standards, in Indiana the subjects like math and language arts are the ones that get the scrutiny of standardized testing. If those other courses could begin initiatives as described above AND find some success then it might make the implementation in the "tested" classes a little easier. This is certainly not going to be a cut and dried process and will no doubt be messy. Only school environments where a trust is present among all stakeholders will be able to work through the messiness and get to a place that the achievement can be seen.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Technology and Classroom Management
Determining what method of the three described in the article is dominant in my class is relatively easy. Determining if and how to get to the third level is a little more involved. At the outset, I have to disagree with at least one assumption in the article. Specifically, the statement that educational apps be "engaging enough that students, choose them over other video games or activities". For my students, the lure of games is the lack of responsibility to the product. If they lose a game they simply start over and try again and the goal is to find the "work arounds" in the game to get as far as possible. They aren't trying to acquire a skill or necessarily get better at the game but just find the option that gets them through with the least amount of effort. It's the same idea as wanting numerous tries on a multiple choice question in order to get the right answer by the process of elimination. They want the grade, but not quite enough to really study. I believe that we can't compete on this level but instead need to get kids involved in the subject enough that learning is more satisfying than playing games.
Having said that, I have to say that my classroom is very definitely in the control by authority category to a large extent. There is a concrete reason for this. Pestalozzi, in his philosophy of teaching advocated letting the students experience things in order to learn but had one caveat. When tools were involved, he would show the students the proper way to use the tools before letting them explore. In a Digital Citizenship class I am essentially teaching them to use the tool so that they can properly explore which naturally lends itself to the first level of control, at least until the students are able to properly use the "tool" (which is another discussion all together).
The question of whether and how we can reach the third level should be preceded by analyzing the level of exposure that students have when they enter your class. In classes where all of the students have computers in the home and understand the basics of using them, getting them to a point that they will understand the uses outside of games and therefore to a point of self control will be easier. If kids don't have that exposure at home then more focus will be necessary to get kids to be able to use computers easily before they can exhibit self control.
Now, for schools that are already in the 1:1 environment, the issue will be more about exposure than learning how to use the equipment. Once kids learn how to use the hardware, it is up to the teachers to expose them to WHAT they can access outside of games. The beauty and wonder in the world is much more powerful than playing a game. Just recently, I took a chance and showed my students some Youtube videos involving physics. You can see it here. Even though the class didn't have anything to do with physics, it launched some great discussion and an opportunity for the kids to use some web searching techniques to find information. If we can show them the rich content of the internet outside of games, they will be quicker to get on board with controlling themselves.
So, in order for my classes to get to the third level there would need to be a number of things happen. First, the economic level of the area would need to get to the point that a higher percentage of students have computers in the home so that they have good examples at an early age. Second, having the software to monitor and control access to work through the second level will help guide the students to richer content. Finally, going 1:1 will allow the kids to learn how to control the technology, get their fill of games (on their own time) and allow for seeing the device as a tool rather than a game.
Having said that, I have to say that my classroom is very definitely in the control by authority category to a large extent. There is a concrete reason for this. Pestalozzi, in his philosophy of teaching advocated letting the students experience things in order to learn but had one caveat. When tools were involved, he would show the students the proper way to use the tools before letting them explore. In a Digital Citizenship class I am essentially teaching them to use the tool so that they can properly explore which naturally lends itself to the first level of control, at least until the students are able to properly use the "tool" (which is another discussion all together).
The question of whether and how we can reach the third level should be preceded by analyzing the level of exposure that students have when they enter your class. In classes where all of the students have computers in the home and understand the basics of using them, getting them to a point that they will understand the uses outside of games and therefore to a point of self control will be easier. If kids don't have that exposure at home then more focus will be necessary to get kids to be able to use computers easily before they can exhibit self control.
Now, for schools that are already in the 1:1 environment, the issue will be more about exposure than learning how to use the equipment. Once kids learn how to use the hardware, it is up to the teachers to expose them to WHAT they can access outside of games. The beauty and wonder in the world is much more powerful than playing a game. Just recently, I took a chance and showed my students some Youtube videos involving physics. You can see it here. Even though the class didn't have anything to do with physics, it launched some great discussion and an opportunity for the kids to use some web searching techniques to find information. If we can show them the rich content of the internet outside of games, they will be quicker to get on board with controlling themselves.
So, in order for my classes to get to the third level there would need to be a number of things happen. First, the economic level of the area would need to get to the point that a higher percentage of students have computers in the home so that they have good examples at an early age. Second, having the software to monitor and control access to work through the second level will help guide the students to richer content. Finally, going 1:1 will allow the kids to learn how to control the technology, get their fill of games (on their own time) and allow for seeing the device as a tool rather than a game.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Three Things for Stakeholders
I recently attended a presentation by Dr. Scott McLeod regarding technology and education. Some of the comments that he made and the examples he gave caused me to think more critically about the role of technology in education. He didn't just advocate for more, but better and better usage for our situation. A couple of the points that I think should be made to stakeholders when advocating technology are derived from his comments so I want to give him the credit at the outset.
If we are to offer three points to our stakeholders about the need for technology in our schools, we can't get bogged down in details. The details are important, but the details are for reinforcing a position or looking at ways to implement the things that have already been decided. Besides being a little more general, I want to find points that will resonate with more than just one group. So here goes.
1. Technology is an accelerator for learning.
It doesn't replace the teacher. It doesn't mean that brick and mortar schools are no longer necessary. It doesn't mean that teachers can sit and do nothing while kids "play" on the computer. It does mean that if schools are going to keep up with the informational demands of today's society, we have to use the appropriate vehicle for the journey. If you are using a horse and buggy on an interstate- you aren't keeping up.
By the way, this accelerator isn't just for the students. Teachers, administrators, support staff, parents and anyone else even tangentially associated with education will need to embrace technology at the necessary levels to keep pace with the world outside education.
This doesn't mean that buying the most expensive computer will solve all the problems. When we start talking about the details, we have to start with the question "what are we trying to do?" and from that choose the best technology within the means to answer that question.
2. We aren't ever going back to pen and paper.
This is a strong statement, but I think it is accurate. Will pen and paper go away totally? Probably not soon, but do you see a reasonable scenario that results in society going back to more pen and paper? When we realize this inevitability, the question of technology is no longer if but changes to how much and what kind. The details can be worked out and the results will probably not satisfy everyone but facing the same direction will start the process correctly.
3. No one has all the answers.
No one group of stakeholders completely understands the needs and desires or the comfort level of the other groups of stakeholders. In fact, I would venture to say that no one person within a group completely understands all of the other individuals within that group. The only way to get close to that understanding is through discourse. In order to get closer to the question above, "what are we trying to do?" the thoughts of as many people as possible are necessary. Government, parents, students, teachers, administrators, business owners and other community members all have slightly different expectations from the educational process and how technology can advance those expectations. If all groups realize that there is not a "right answer" but might be a "best approach" then the process can proceed with all stakeholders in mind.
If we are to offer three points to our stakeholders about the need for technology in our schools, we can't get bogged down in details. The details are important, but the details are for reinforcing a position or looking at ways to implement the things that have already been decided. Besides being a little more general, I want to find points that will resonate with more than just one group. So here goes.
1. Technology is an accelerator for learning.
It doesn't replace the teacher. It doesn't mean that brick and mortar schools are no longer necessary. It doesn't mean that teachers can sit and do nothing while kids "play" on the computer. It does mean that if schools are going to keep up with the informational demands of today's society, we have to use the appropriate vehicle for the journey. If you are using a horse and buggy on an interstate- you aren't keeping up.
By the way, this accelerator isn't just for the students. Teachers, administrators, support staff, parents and anyone else even tangentially associated with education will need to embrace technology at the necessary levels to keep pace with the world outside education.
This doesn't mean that buying the most expensive computer will solve all the problems. When we start talking about the details, we have to start with the question "what are we trying to do?" and from that choose the best technology within the means to answer that question.
2. We aren't ever going back to pen and paper.
This is a strong statement, but I think it is accurate. Will pen and paper go away totally? Probably not soon, but do you see a reasonable scenario that results in society going back to more pen and paper? When we realize this inevitability, the question of technology is no longer if but changes to how much and what kind. The details can be worked out and the results will probably not satisfy everyone but facing the same direction will start the process correctly.
3. No one has all the answers.
No one group of stakeholders completely understands the needs and desires or the comfort level of the other groups of stakeholders. In fact, I would venture to say that no one person within a group completely understands all of the other individuals within that group. The only way to get close to that understanding is through discourse. In order to get closer to the question above, "what are we trying to do?" the thoughts of as many people as possible are necessary. Government, parents, students, teachers, administrators, business owners and other community members all have slightly different expectations from the educational process and how technology can advance those expectations. If all groups realize that there is not a "right answer" but might be a "best approach" then the process can proceed with all stakeholders in mind.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
21st Century Skills - This Is A Problem
Far and away, at least to my way of thinking, Problem Solving is the most critical skill that students need to have any kind of success in the "real world" regardless of what success looks like.
My reasoning for choosing this skill is very simple- I have the perspective that everything in life is a question waiting for an answer (or a problem waiting for a solution). If you walk into a darkened room and want light, you have a problem that needs to be solved. The solution might be as simple as flipping the switch. Unless flipping that switch doesn't work. Now you have a problem that requires critical thinking to solve. Is there a bulb? Does it work? Is this the right switch? Is there power? etc.
One of my pet peeves is that people use the phrase "common sense" when they are referring to a question in which they know the answer. They assume that since they have the answer that everyone has the answer. They would call flipping the switch to turn on a light as common sense without realizing that someone brought up in houses without lights wouldn't have any concept of a switch. In this case they are referring to something more like "common experience" than common sense. In speaking to kids, I prefer to use more specific language like "use standard logic" rather than "use common sense".
How does that apply in this case? I believe we are at a turning point in education where those who have completed the educational process (notice I didn't say finished their education) make value judgements on the current educational environment using their frame of reference. Being one of those people, I can say that environment was based in a belief that you can learn what you need to know and all of the problems you deal with will be answered with this information. This is their common sense. And as long as the required knowledge changed slowly it worked. Then, technology blew the lid off of our way of thinking and the information comes too quickly to be gathered and kept to ourselves. That old common sense is a thimble full of knowledge being filled by the fire hose of technology. The requirement to know everything has been replaced by the need to know what you need to know in ever changing situations, or problem solving.
After being out of education for a few years, I have to admit that I am baffled at how few tools students have in their problem solving toolbelts. My belief is that the overemphasis on testing has forced teachers back into the old paradigm of learning all the information necessary for the test at the expense of how to use information in changing situations. Even something as simple as finding a pattern is a major obstacle for my 8th grade students. Interestingly, a recent project had them looking for a pattern in the word "MIHMUG" and when trying to guide the students they were trying to apply multiplication formulas and other complicated but useless techniques to the problem as if they were trying to find a solution rather than find a problem. Just noticing that the 1st and 4th letters were the same or that read backwards it spells gumhim was beyond their ability. Not to mention the frustration when the answer wasn't presented to them. Even seeing the pattern was only the first step but solving multilevel problems is out of the question.
When I went back to look at how the kids were taught how to problem solve, I was shocked to learn that the presentation and evaluation looked more like exactly the dry, no process form that it is designed to change. Memorize these steps and reproduce on paper to show mastery. Learning the steps is important for problem solving methods but wouldn't solving an actual problem show mastery?
I have taken a long, hard look at what and how I teach with this in mind. On one hand, following the instructions are critical to completing a task (let's not get started on lack of ability to follow directions) but that the directions simply set the parameters for the project rather than give the answer. For my Infusion Plan I intend on organizing so that the students (with guidance) are tasked with the information and the instruction for doing project work rather than "fill in the blank" type of assignments. The projects will be evaluated by showing results that are within an appropriate range given the instructions. If the projects are constructed properly they will allow the students progress through the problem solving process without directing each step.
In my classes, I am even introducing logic puzzles to the mix. Even though it probably isn't delineated in the curriculum, computers are logic operation machines and learning logic operations are critical to working with them. On the first day of class, I explain that computers simply respond to the proper input in an expected manner and that if it doesn't work, they have to use a different method. The computer doesn't respond to pleading, excuses, rationalization or any other human inventions so it is up to them to try a different method if the first doesn't work. And another if the second doesn't work, and so on until one works. In my mind, that is the key to acquiring 21st century skills.
My reasoning for choosing this skill is very simple- I have the perspective that everything in life is a question waiting for an answer (or a problem waiting for a solution). If you walk into a darkened room and want light, you have a problem that needs to be solved. The solution might be as simple as flipping the switch. Unless flipping that switch doesn't work. Now you have a problem that requires critical thinking to solve. Is there a bulb? Does it work? Is this the right switch? Is there power? etc.
One of my pet peeves is that people use the phrase "common sense" when they are referring to a question in which they know the answer. They assume that since they have the answer that everyone has the answer. They would call flipping the switch to turn on a light as common sense without realizing that someone brought up in houses without lights wouldn't have any concept of a switch. In this case they are referring to something more like "common experience" than common sense. In speaking to kids, I prefer to use more specific language like "use standard logic" rather than "use common sense".
How does that apply in this case? I believe we are at a turning point in education where those who have completed the educational process (notice I didn't say finished their education) make value judgements on the current educational environment using their frame of reference. Being one of those people, I can say that environment was based in a belief that you can learn what you need to know and all of the problems you deal with will be answered with this information. This is their common sense. And as long as the required knowledge changed slowly it worked. Then, technology blew the lid off of our way of thinking and the information comes too quickly to be gathered and kept to ourselves. That old common sense is a thimble full of knowledge being filled by the fire hose of technology. The requirement to know everything has been replaced by the need to know what you need to know in ever changing situations, or problem solving.
After being out of education for a few years, I have to admit that I am baffled at how few tools students have in their problem solving toolbelts. My belief is that the overemphasis on testing has forced teachers back into the old paradigm of learning all the information necessary for the test at the expense of how to use information in changing situations. Even something as simple as finding a pattern is a major obstacle for my 8th grade students. Interestingly, a recent project had them looking for a pattern in the word "MIHMUG" and when trying to guide the students they were trying to apply multiplication formulas and other complicated but useless techniques to the problem as if they were trying to find a solution rather than find a problem. Just noticing that the 1st and 4th letters were the same or that read backwards it spells gumhim was beyond their ability. Not to mention the frustration when the answer wasn't presented to them. Even seeing the pattern was only the first step but solving multilevel problems is out of the question.
When I went back to look at how the kids were taught how to problem solve, I was shocked to learn that the presentation and evaluation looked more like exactly the dry, no process form that it is designed to change. Memorize these steps and reproduce on paper to show mastery. Learning the steps is important for problem solving methods but wouldn't solving an actual problem show mastery?
I have taken a long, hard look at what and how I teach with this in mind. On one hand, following the instructions are critical to completing a task (let's not get started on lack of ability to follow directions) but that the directions simply set the parameters for the project rather than give the answer. For my Infusion Plan I intend on organizing so that the students (with guidance) are tasked with the information and the instruction for doing project work rather than "fill in the blank" type of assignments. The projects will be evaluated by showing results that are within an appropriate range given the instructions. If the projects are constructed properly they will allow the students progress through the problem solving process without directing each step.
In my classes, I am even introducing logic puzzles to the mix. Even though it probably isn't delineated in the curriculum, computers are logic operation machines and learning logic operations are critical to working with them. On the first day of class, I explain that computers simply respond to the proper input in an expected manner and that if it doesn't work, they have to use a different method. The computer doesn't respond to pleading, excuses, rationalization or any other human inventions so it is up to them to try a different method if the first doesn't work. And another if the second doesn't work, and so on until one works. In my mind, that is the key to acquiring 21st century skills.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Everything is Everything - my Philosophy of Education
Any Philosophy of Education that I would try to articulate would really be a philosophy of life and involves a whole lot more that what goes on in the school. If it were going to be a one sentence summary it would be that every discipline (and even within a discipline) has a slightly different way of solving problems and as society gets more complex it is the person that can bring unique problem solving methods to a given situation.
This most recent incarnation of my philosophy came from two primary influences; reading and observing, and talking to my wife. To take the second influence first, my wife is a science teacher (with a bit of a music background) and over the years we have had many discussions about students, education and the like. She summed it up nicely one day when she said that her students in chemistry had to approach problems in a totally different way that the students I had in band (and that she did as a musician). Neither was right or wrong and in fact as we compared students we determined that her chemistry students that also had music were able to bring more problem solving strategies to a problem than those that didn't have that influence. I also noted that my band kids that had science had more "tools" than those that didn't. With her chemistry students, the problems often required finding an answer using a formula given a known set of data. That skill would then be used in combination with another formula to answer problems of increasing complexity. With the band students, it was rarely about getting something "right" but about making something "better" and when a higher skill level was recognized it opened what could be called insight to the next level of achievement. When you combine these approaches to any situation you have someone who is able to solve many complex problems and also recognize what the next level will be when the answer is achieved.
During these years of discourse I read quite a bit, usually non-fiction and often about physics and human behavior. Not the specifics of physics - my mind isn't built for that- but more of the macro result of how physics manifests itself in our universe. I started noticing interesting things. For example the membrane version of string theory is described comparing the vibration of the membrane to musical vibrations and the combination of these various frequencies of vibration are what combine to make up everything in our universe. A new branch of social science is developing that takes economic formulas and applies them to human behavior to find intriguing answers not considered before (Malcolm Gladwell and Daniel Pink, notably). The Google financial fortunes exploded when they applied (mostly unknowingly) the game theory work of Nobel Prize winner John Nash to their ad sales which changed the way others sold ads online. Steve Jobs would wander into classes on calligraphy which led to some of the iconic designs that Apple uses. There are many more examples of people bringing problem solving from one area into another and the new insight leads to explosive progress.
So, to my specific philosophy. Through my subject I want to teach them how to solve problems. Do they need to learn the fundamentals of the subject matter? Absolutely! For those that choose to pursue the subject that I teach further it is my responsibility to help them pursue that interest. After all, it is the experts in a field that will drive the progress but frankly most of my students will either specialize in something else or will use the subject as a small part of a larger body of knowledge. More importantly, using the subject to guide them through problem solving will both expose them to the subject and expand the pallet of problem solving skills.
As a practical matter, to achieve this I have to constantly refer them back to their acquired knowledge and guide them through the steps to solve the problem rather than giving them the solution and focusing on the process rather than the answer. Often, particularly in my eighth grade classes, part of that process is simply reading the instructions. For whatever reason, many of my students have been spoon fed to the point that they don't even read instructions for themselves. Contrary to a popular opinion that teaching them to follow directions is akin to "creating robots", I contend that the instructions are what sets up the problem. The problem comes when the instructions extend to walking them through the solution each time. The expertise in teaching comes in gradually taking away instructions to the point that they only have the question and not the answer so that they have to apply the problem solving skill.
Technology can be the great equalizer in this effort. The links to the world allow a person anywhere to find out how people anywhere else go about solving problems. Finding the links between people and disciplines exposes how influences affect outcomes. As an example, one of my favorite musicians is jazz guitar player Pat Metheny. I read and listen to any interviews with Pat that are available. Years ago, a subscription to Downbeat magazine was the major source. Now the Internet makes many more resources available. By using those resources I discovered that Metheny expressed a desire to someday play with the group Steely Dan, which also happened to be another favorite of mine but in a different genre. And then, strangely enough, on a visit to the Chicago Art Institute with a group of students I was taken by the art of Paul Klee and later found that Pat Metheny mentioned Klee as one of his favorites as well. How do those kind of things happen? What is it that makes a jazz great and an 8th grade computer teacher have the same influences? There must be threads that weave throughout society and culture that can bring those varied influences together to solve a problem or create something new. Technology is the vehicle to make those connections, but is only one albeit very versatile vehicle. Being able to quickly and efficiently find out what problems have been solved and being able to add them to our toolbelts without spending the time previously necessary allows us the time to use that same technology to make the connections to solve more complex problems.
In summary, my philosophy is to use my subject as a catalyst to teach varied approaches to solving problems. If done thoroughly and correctly, the students so inclined can continue study in the subject and those that aren't so inclined can take the problem solving skills to the areas they pursue. We are at a point with technology that advances in any field are instantly communicated to the rest of the field, which allow people with varied problem solving skills to take that information and continue on to the next problem. If I am doing my job correctly, I am giving my students a catalog of problem solving skills and enough practical knowledge in the subject to become a valuable part of any number of areas that they choose to pursue either as a vocation or avocation.
This most recent incarnation of my philosophy came from two primary influences; reading and observing, and talking to my wife. To take the second influence first, my wife is a science teacher (with a bit of a music background) and over the years we have had many discussions about students, education and the like. She summed it up nicely one day when she said that her students in chemistry had to approach problems in a totally different way that the students I had in band (and that she did as a musician). Neither was right or wrong and in fact as we compared students we determined that her chemistry students that also had music were able to bring more problem solving strategies to a problem than those that didn't have that influence. I also noted that my band kids that had science had more "tools" than those that didn't. With her chemistry students, the problems often required finding an answer using a formula given a known set of data. That skill would then be used in combination with another formula to answer problems of increasing complexity. With the band students, it was rarely about getting something "right" but about making something "better" and when a higher skill level was recognized it opened what could be called insight to the next level of achievement. When you combine these approaches to any situation you have someone who is able to solve many complex problems and also recognize what the next level will be when the answer is achieved.
During these years of discourse I read quite a bit, usually non-fiction and often about physics and human behavior. Not the specifics of physics - my mind isn't built for that- but more of the macro result of how physics manifests itself in our universe. I started noticing interesting things. For example the membrane version of string theory is described comparing the vibration of the membrane to musical vibrations and the combination of these various frequencies of vibration are what combine to make up everything in our universe. A new branch of social science is developing that takes economic formulas and applies them to human behavior to find intriguing answers not considered before (Malcolm Gladwell and Daniel Pink, notably). The Google financial fortunes exploded when they applied (mostly unknowingly) the game theory work of Nobel Prize winner John Nash to their ad sales which changed the way others sold ads online. Steve Jobs would wander into classes on calligraphy which led to some of the iconic designs that Apple uses. There are many more examples of people bringing problem solving from one area into another and the new insight leads to explosive progress.
So, to my specific philosophy. Through my subject I want to teach them how to solve problems. Do they need to learn the fundamentals of the subject matter? Absolutely! For those that choose to pursue the subject that I teach further it is my responsibility to help them pursue that interest. After all, it is the experts in a field that will drive the progress but frankly most of my students will either specialize in something else or will use the subject as a small part of a larger body of knowledge. More importantly, using the subject to guide them through problem solving will both expose them to the subject and expand the pallet of problem solving skills.
As a practical matter, to achieve this I have to constantly refer them back to their acquired knowledge and guide them through the steps to solve the problem rather than giving them the solution and focusing on the process rather than the answer. Often, particularly in my eighth grade classes, part of that process is simply reading the instructions. For whatever reason, many of my students have been spoon fed to the point that they don't even read instructions for themselves. Contrary to a popular opinion that teaching them to follow directions is akin to "creating robots", I contend that the instructions are what sets up the problem. The problem comes when the instructions extend to walking them through the solution each time. The expertise in teaching comes in gradually taking away instructions to the point that they only have the question and not the answer so that they have to apply the problem solving skill.
Technology can be the great equalizer in this effort. The links to the world allow a person anywhere to find out how people anywhere else go about solving problems. Finding the links between people and disciplines exposes how influences affect outcomes. As an example, one of my favorite musicians is jazz guitar player Pat Metheny. I read and listen to any interviews with Pat that are available. Years ago, a subscription to Downbeat magazine was the major source. Now the Internet makes many more resources available. By using those resources I discovered that Metheny expressed a desire to someday play with the group Steely Dan, which also happened to be another favorite of mine but in a different genre. And then, strangely enough, on a visit to the Chicago Art Institute with a group of students I was taken by the art of Paul Klee and later found that Pat Metheny mentioned Klee as one of his favorites as well. How do those kind of things happen? What is it that makes a jazz great and an 8th grade computer teacher have the same influences? There must be threads that weave throughout society and culture that can bring those varied influences together to solve a problem or create something new. Technology is the vehicle to make those connections, but is only one albeit very versatile vehicle. Being able to quickly and efficiently find out what problems have been solved and being able to add them to our toolbelts without spending the time previously necessary allows us the time to use that same technology to make the connections to solve more complex problems.
In summary, my philosophy is to use my subject as a catalyst to teach varied approaches to solving problems. If done thoroughly and correctly, the students so inclined can continue study in the subject and those that aren't so inclined can take the problem solving skills to the areas they pursue. We are at a point with technology that advances in any field are instantly communicated to the rest of the field, which allow people with varied problem solving skills to take that information and continue on to the next problem. If I am doing my job correctly, I am giving my students a catalog of problem solving skills and enough practical knowledge in the subject to become a valuable part of any number of areas that they choose to pursue either as a vocation or avocation.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Beginning Blog
I enrolled for this class at the request of a member of our administration in order to get the training to better help the staff members in our building with developing their technology prowess. While the intent is to better help others, it will be a perfect opportunity to also further my own knowledge.
What is most exciting to learn about is how others see students using technology. From my perspective, kids know quite a bit about social media and texting but beyond that they have few skills that allow them to explore outside of the "click here" mentality. I'm curious how others integrate the reasoning skills with the technical skills so that the kids can figure out what to use and when to use it as well as how to use it.
What I believe I can offer to the discussion is the long view of students and technology. While this might sound odd coming from a computer teacher, my belief is that the technology all too often gets in the way of learning as both teacher and student work toward integrating the technology. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I like to get the students to think before they engage the technology and a lot of the current emphasis seems to be using the technology first. How many times have you watched a student type in a question in a Google search engine rather than thinking about what they are trying to answer? Having dealt with kids both pre and post technology, I might have some unique insight to dovetail the two. I also have some background outside of the classroom so being able to apply practical uses to technology is something that adds to that stew.
What I can learn from the class is the other side of that coin. What do you use to get kids to think? Every teacher has unique approaches with lots of programs and uses for those programs. What are those? How can they be used in other situations? The band director uses a digital metronome app for setting tempo in class, but the same app can be used by the Physical Education teacher to teach the optimum running cadence for burning off calories or for maximum endurance. Can I link those together? Picking the brains of classmates for everything available will greatly widen that pool of knowledge.
So lets go. How can we give and get to make us all better?
What is most exciting to learn about is how others see students using technology. From my perspective, kids know quite a bit about social media and texting but beyond that they have few skills that allow them to explore outside of the "click here" mentality. I'm curious how others integrate the reasoning skills with the technical skills so that the kids can figure out what to use and when to use it as well as how to use it.
What I believe I can offer to the discussion is the long view of students and technology. While this might sound odd coming from a computer teacher, my belief is that the technology all too often gets in the way of learning as both teacher and student work toward integrating the technology. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I like to get the students to think before they engage the technology and a lot of the current emphasis seems to be using the technology first. How many times have you watched a student type in a question in a Google search engine rather than thinking about what they are trying to answer? Having dealt with kids both pre and post technology, I might have some unique insight to dovetail the two. I also have some background outside of the classroom so being able to apply practical uses to technology is something that adds to that stew.
What I can learn from the class is the other side of that coin. What do you use to get kids to think? Every teacher has unique approaches with lots of programs and uses for those programs. What are those? How can they be used in other situations? The band director uses a digital metronome app for setting tempo in class, but the same app can be used by the Physical Education teacher to teach the optimum running cadence for burning off calories or for maximum endurance. Can I link those together? Picking the brains of classmates for everything available will greatly widen that pool of knowledge.
So lets go. How can we give and get to make us all better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)