Ta-Da!

I just finished building my wiki for my technology inquiry but have yet to do the accompanying screencast.  I must say that this wiki was quite the project.  Creating the screencast will be a piece of cake compared to the wiki.  I have never been asked to present the results of research in such a manner and was constantly fighting my own education to accomplish this task.  I am much more accustomed to expository writing.  This really challenged me.  It bugged the heck out of me but it challenged me and I enjoyed that.  I have a greater understanding of how creating a wiki can test a student’s knowledge.  Indirectly, I saw the benefit to offering students different ways to learn.  Some student may prefer to write a more traditional paper while others would prefer to present findings in this manner.  Still others may wish to podcast, screencast or do a combination of these and/or other tools.

I also saw the benefit of 24/7 access to information.  Here it is 2:58 am but I was able to look at examples, access resources and submit a finished project.  I would have never been able to finish this on time had I been restricted to a more traditional school schedule of 8:30-2:30.

As I have said before, the question is no longer should technology be used in the classroom but how will I use it to help my students learn?  I need to constantly evaluate my use of technology in the classroom.  I need to keep what works and pitch that which doesn’t.  I need to remain a student as much as I am a teacher. 

Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology

Things I need to rethink:

-school does not equal learning:  many things can be learned in school but learning does not take place by virtue of simply being there.  Teachers have to do more than present facts.  Teachers need to develop means to motive students to learn.  Technology can help with that task.  If students are not motivated, all they will learn is how to get through without getting anything out of school.  Yet at the same time, I can not let students get so far off track that they spend time in areas that will serve them no purpose later on in school or life.

-classical training vs progressive education:  I have a great appreciation for the broad based education I experienced.  I find it useful to know a fair amount about many subjects rather than a lot about only one or two.  I have to reconsider what will be useful to my students when they reach adulthood.  As society progresses and changes, I need to do what I can to make sure that my students will thrive when they leave my classroom.

-routine jobs replaced by jobs emphasizing collaboration, communication & knowledge processing skills:  The landscape of the workforce has changed and therefore the way future workers are trained needs to change also.  As mentioned in a previous post, technology is everywhere from corporate America right down to the blue collar manufacturing jobs.  If upward career mobility is the desire, it starts with the right education and training.

-my goals vs my students’ goals:  I have to take myself out of the equation.  This is not my education; it is my students’.  I need to remember to look at everything from their perspective and not my own.  I can certainly draw on my past experiences but I in no way should expect students to replicate them.

-my own fears:  I fear that treasured parts of my education will be lost to students in years to come.  Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology sounds as if certain subjects will become lost to make room for others.  It sounds as if anything that does not have to do with computers will be dropped.  I have to rethink how I can create enthusiasm for my favorite subjects the same way that my teachers inspired me.  With the help of technology, I should be able to excite students the same way I was.

Ch-ch-ch-ch Changes

What does it all mean?

Well, what it means is that it really doesn’t matter how or what I learned.  What it means is that I need to teach in a manner that will resonate with this generation of students.  They are going to acquire the same set of skills as previous generations, just in a different way.  What it means is that things I believe to be valuable may or not be to my students.  What it means is that they will learn that which is important to them.  What it means is that I need to move forward the same as my students rather than trying to get them to turn back to how things use to be.  What it means is that I need to change how I teach.  What it means is that I need to become as much a student as a teacher.  What it means is that I need to learn w/ technology along side my student because I cannot go through life making statements such as, “When I was in school…,” or “I just don’t know anything about all these gadgets,” or “I just don’t get this.”  I liked the suggestion in the book to learn alongside children.  What it means is I am going to have to learn about Facebook, texting, twitter and the like not because I want to use these tools but because that is how students communicate.

Change in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.  This is not change just for the sake of change.  I need to remember that this change is not just to change but it has purpose.  It is not change to make my job more difficult or to drive a wedge between parents and children.  It is change to give students every advantage they could possibly have in order to fulfill their dreams. 

New Way of Learning = New Way of Assessing

Weeks ago, I would have defined the digital divide as the difference between students that have access to technology and the students who don’t.  As I see it, there is another divide, that being the difference in technology levels in the community and the levels in the schools.  As I have mentioned previously, technology will not cease to exist in the world so it can not be expected to cease to be in the schools.  Our job as educators is to equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to thrive outside of school.  Exposure to technology is the only way to accomplish that.  Exposure in one district may be higher or lower than another district.  Then comes another dilemma; how to demonstrate actual learning in an age of standards based assessment?

New ways of transferring knowledge can not be measured by old ways of teaching.  I found the idea of acquiring “credentials to certify a learner’s expertise with respect to specific skills” interesting.  Credentials could be earned in different skills groups: academic, generic and technical.  Learners would move through different levels of the curriculum amassing credentials along the way.  It sounds very much the same as passing grammar school before going to middle school and then passing middle school before going to high school and so on.  The credentials would be mini-diplomas if you will.  Students would pick and choose which credential they wished to gain and then set forth on earning it.  If the long range plan is college, then the student would need to earn one set of credentials.  If the student planned on attending a technical or vocational school, then a different set of credentials would be required.  The idea is that what ever path the student takes, he would be properly prepared. 

My objection to this type of system comes from my own experience.  If I had to decide back in 3^rd grade what educational path I was going to take based on what I wanted to be when I grew up, I would not be writing this blog right now.  I would be sitting in vespers with the other sisters.  Or, I would be frustrating myself trying to figure out how to become the first female center for the Chicago Bulls.  If parents are to help youngsters on their path to what they are to become, I would be in nursing school right now.  My point is, there are students out there who have many and varied interests and then there are students who have no idea what they want to be.  If students are put on a particular path and decide that they want to change, how much would it delay finishing school?  It is much like changing majors in college.  If you change from social studies major to a physiology major, how many credentials would not transfer?  Lifelong learner should not equal lifelong schooling.

I am afraid that this suggested way of progression will produce learners who are very strong in certain areas and extremely weak in others.  I know that traditional ways of assessing students can produce the same, however I think that the gaps will be larger.  I do agree that new methods of assessing learning need to be developed because new ways of learning are being developed. 

You know, num chuck skills, computer hacking skills…

As education shifts away from the universal schooling to creating lifelong learners, there will be some things lost and some things gained.  That is inevitable but not unique.  Many changes have occurred in education already.  And as much as I fear the loss of social cohesion, a decline in liberal arts and a loss of social skills, I must look for the possible gains to balance this.

If technology can aid in creating engaged lifelong learners, then I am all for that.  I do realize that it is not the technology itself which can excite students.  It is what the classroom teacher does with it.  If I can show enthusiasm then perhaps my students may demonstrate it too.  What I would really like to see happen is to have technology infused classrooms create interest for a student in a subject that was not there before.  I dream of the student who steps foot into my classroom hating poetry but leaves with a new appreciation for language, complex characters and an unexpected plot twist all thanks to Edgar Allen Poe.  Podcasting original works created with the same structure as the master may help with that.  Producing video versions of Poe’s stories may reveal the next Vincent Price.  I do like the customization that these tools offer all within a set of guidelines.  I would want to make sure that the students do not get distracted with tool as I did when it came to creating my IWB lesson and iRLO.  Having multiple tools in my toolbox can quell the argument of, “I just don’t want to do that.”  If one option is not appealing, then the student can tackle the task in another way.  I have found that no matter the technological vehicle, many skills are utilized including organization, communication as well as computer skills. (you know, num chuck skills, computer hacking skills…)

As I use technology, specifically the internet, for my own learning I continue to gain appreciation for the 24/7 availability of information.  In (many) years past, I spent countless hours working on research at libraries until closing time often without finishing my work.  With anytime access, I can work day or (more often) night.  I also appreciate that I can “visit” any library.  In high school, I spent many Saturdays riding the train into downtown Chicago to go to a “good” library.  Even though I live in Northern Wisconsin, I can go to the Harold Washington library any day I want.  I can even go back to Normal, IL and visit the Milner Library at ISU.  For younger students who do not drive yet, this is wonderful, not to mention that the parents do not need to chauffer students around.  Information is just a click away and so is help from the teacher.

Lifelong Learner

Lifelong learner.  That has such a nice sound and brings to mind such a wonderful picture of people constantly at awe and treasuring each and every new discovery.  How can we possible get to that place?

I must admit that at this point in time, I lean toward Horace Mann’s vision of education.  By providing a common curriculum to students, they have the opportunity to become successful American citizens.  I agree that learning the same body of knowledge teaches the same body of values, those being American values.  I agree that a broad base education gives students the opportunity for social mobility.  Although it has been noted that universal education led to a discrepancy between parents’ and their children’s attitudes & values, I do not believe that this is necessarily a bad thing.  Students are presented with the same information and then asked to form their own opinion about it.  This allows students to become independent thinkers and not just regurgitate what they hear either from their parents or their teachers in school. 

I think a combination of approaches at different ages could provide an overall better education.  At lower levels, I think the universal approach is most appropriate.  Let’s face it, students can not go on and investigate what interests them if they can not read.  All students need the same foundation of reading, writing – that being the process of putting thoughts down on paper in a coherent manner  not penmanship- and arithmetic.  I think through the middle grades kids should be exposed to all sorts of topics.  If a student finds a subject which interests him, he will most likely always be interested in it.  He should not stop there but continue to explore.  As much as he may enjoy trains, once he learns about planes and flight, he may have a new love.  In the upper grades as students prepare to head to college, trade school or the workforce, education could become more interest led.

I do believe that at any age, technology must play a role.  It is simply how knowledge is now acquired.  There is no denying this.  As the students progress through their years of school, the technology will change but it will never cease to exist.  To ignore that fact is not doing the students justice in their education.  I am just hesitant to give complete control of the direction of education to the individual students. 

Too Many Choices

Home schooling, workplace learning, distance education, adult education, learning centers, educational television & videos, computer based learning software, technical certifications and internet cafes have all come about as the result of the perceived deterioration of the current educational system.  All are “an answer” to the same problem which is that the current educational system is not working.   The problem with that is that not everyone sees the same problem within the system.

The home schooling movement which has been fueled primarily by a number of Christian churches believed that the absence of morals in the public school system was at the root of the problem.  Workplace learning has come about because employers believe that employees have not been given the proper set of skills to be effective or productive workers.  Distance education is on the rise for busy people who want to return to school to further their education but do not have the time to attend traditional universities.  Adult education is there for retirees and older Americans who want to further their education in a fun or recreational way.  Learning centers help average or above average students get ahead or to help the students who are lacking to catch up.  So on, and so on, and so on.  With so many different approaches trying to reform education, does it increase learning or not?  Do these different approaches address the “problem” with education today or only specific pieces of the problem?

As I see it, there is no one problem with our educational system. But a variety.  There are some school districts that are right on the money and then there are others that don’t have a clue.  What is lacking in one building may not be in another.  I agree that when a deficiency is identified, it needs to be rectified.  However, all of these different and private approaches don’t solve the problem for the school body as a whole.  It only solves the problem for the student who is fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of a Sylvan Learning Center or the like.  Computer based learning only benefits those with a computer. 

I know that education means different things to different people and that a variety in learning has the potential to reach the most people.  But, at the same time, is too much choice a bad thing?  With only pieces of a framework, would the individual student get lost?  Each of these new ways of learning address parts of the problem but I don’t think that it makes for an all around well balanced education.  If the method of teaching is centered on a technical certificate, the result will be a person who is very knowledgeable in a small area.  If an employer wants an individual in a technical position to also in an area that depends on communication skills, then that person will need to go for more training because one set of skills may be stellar but the other lacking.  It doesn’t seem to make sense to spend more time to retrain.  If a person is given a broad and varied education the first time around, then the employer would have an employee who is adequately trained in multiple areas.