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.
Friday, April 18, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)