Joe McConda on Technology, Education, and Culture

How many times have we, as teachers, been asked the question, “Is this going to be on the test?” It seems that students who ask this question, generally, are thinking like students rather than learners. These students may actually learn something, however, that is not a “given”. Stephen Downes, in his keynote address to the AECT convention said that “We can remember without learning and we can learn without remembering”.  I think I also read that from him as well. That says, though, that students can remember something long enough to pass the test, but that is not learning. I think as teachers we can see and experience the student who is truly concerned about learning.  These students are probably also concerned about grades, but they show themselves to be interested in much more than that.  In fact, sometimes their grades on tests may not be the best, but grades alone don’t give the full story.  Assessing the learner, I think, involves talking with them whether face to face or at a distance.  Get to know the student and have conversations with that student.  To me, this type of informal assessment is very valuable.

I read a paper by Helen C. Barrett, Ph.D called Electronic Portfolios as Digital Stories of Deep Learning.   She states that a major challenge with electronic portfolios is to maintain learner intrinsic motivation to willingly engage in the portfolio process.  She basically is concerned that while there are many new engaging tools such as blogs and wikis that motivate learners, the current approach to electronic portfolios is turning learners in teacher education off.   She says that portfolios have multiple purposes, two of which are as assessment tools to document the attainment of standards (a positivist model-the assessment portfolio) and as digital stories of deep learning (a constructivist model-the learning or process portfolio).  The following statement defines a sort of conflict of interest when it comes to portfolios and the philosophy behind them:

While administrators often implement electronic portfolios for the assessment purpose, the students usually view this type of portfolio as something “done to them” rather than something they WANT to maintain as a lifelong learning tool. A portfolio that is truly a story of learning is OWNED by the learner, structured by the learner, and told in the learner’s own VOICE (literally and rhetorically).

The article is pretty lengthy, but worth reading.  The idea is using the portfolio for assessment of learning rather than assessment for a grade or a checklist of skills.  She cites research conducted in Britain on Assessment for Learning and provides this definition from the Assessment Reform Group:

Assessment for Learning is the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there.

One more thing I liked. ( and I think it makes more sense if I just copy it rather than trying to paraphrase)  She quotes Pearl and Leon Paulson from the early 1990s.

In the early 1990s, Pearl and Leon Paulson created a metaphor for portfolios as a tool to construct meaning. They stated, “The portfolio is a laboratory where students construct meaning from their accumulated experience.” (Paulson & Paulson, 1991, p.5) They also pointed out that portfolio tell a story:

A portfolio tells a story. It is the story of knowing. Knowing about things… Knowing oneself… Knowing an audience… Portfolios are students’ own stories of what they know, why they believe they know it, and why others should be of the same opinion. A portfolio is opinion backed by fact… Students prove what they know with samples of their work.” (Paulson & Paulson, 1991, p.2)

Again, it goes back to what the goal of the portfolio is.  In many cases, it is a final grade for the student and the school in terms of accountability.  The key word is final.  It is often not used to further learning in any way.

As a teacher today, one has many encounters with portfolios.  In the student teaching experience a portfolio must be compiled that demonstrates proficiency in each of the required standards.  Then, again as an intern teacher, another portfolio is compiled to demonstrate competence in each of the standards.  The portfolio has become a way of making teacher education programs more rigorous and standardized.  However, I feel that like so many other things in education, it is just another hoop through which to jump.  If anything, it probably creates a better understanding of expectations in the field of teaching and ideas of what makes a good teacher, but good teachers are not “made”by completing the portfolio process.

In my opinion, a portfolio should be a compilation of the student’s best work.  That would be different for each student.  Yes, teachers should meet the set of standards, but so much artificial proof is unnecessary and takes time away from the student showcasing his/her best work.  The only portfolio for high school student with which I’m familiar is the writing portfolio done in Kentucky.  Here, again, I think it is worthwhile to try to have all students reach a level of success in writing.  However, I think a senior portfolio should reflect the student’s interests rather than the artificial set of writing standards.  The on-demand writing could assess students’ writing abilities. Perhaps, each student should have a portfolio that reflects his/her own intelligence based on Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory. That would seem much more natural to me, although much less standardized, and that seems to be what it’s all about…..

In reading Clarence Fisher’s post, I find that he is very pleased with what he sees from his students.  He talks about his frustration a little with the inability to have his students chatting using a moodle.  When the students try to log in all at once, they end up getting kicked off.  He is collaborating with a couple of different schools and they end up allowing the students to use IM outside of school.    He ends up being amazed at the maturity and responsibility the students exhibit.  He doesn’t indicate what the content is that they are to discuss, but learning is shown by this example.  In my mind, this represents infomal assessment in which the teacher is assessing the level of commitment to learning.  I think this shows that when students are invested in the learning, they do what it takes to learn. Assessment took place in his example.  While it may not have been what he intended, he assessed that the students were really responsible and were learning.

I found a very interesting article written by Stephen Downes entitled E-Learning 2.0 . In this article, he traces the evolution of online learning. I was very interested in seeing the progression from “radical idea” to what is now considered mainstream. Of course I was looking for learning theory and I found that in the article as well. Downes states that traditional theories of distance learning such as transactional distance have been adapted for the online world. I took the link to Michael G. Moore’s editorial in The American Journal of Distance Education to find his explanation of Transactional Distance Theory.  He says that the first attempt to define a theory for distance education was in 1972 and this theory was named the theory of transactional distance in 1980.  He summarizes that when we talk about distance education, it refers to more than  just a geographical separation of learners and teachers.  There is a distance of understanding and perceptions, caused only in part by the geographic distance.  This distance has to be overcome by teachers, learners and educational organizations if effective, deliberate, planned learning is to occur. (Moore)  He says that the concept of Transaction was derived from Dewey.  As I understand it, transactional distance theory is the idea that learning requires special techniques within two sets of variables. These variables are dialogue and structure.  Dialogue is the interaction between the teacher and the learner.  The structure is elements of the course design.  Moore points out that distance education is education and that we can apply much of what we know about teaching and learning from conventional education to the theory and practice of distance education.  However, it cannot be just like conventional education.

All distance education is education and all education is at a distance.  Overcoming the distance by dialogue and structured learning activities that are relevant  can  cause learning to be achieved.

Is Constructivism a religion? That could be a debate that could go on forever. It depends on what one’s definition of religion is. My definition of religion is a set of beliefs that explains our existence and purpose and our destiny. It involves the worship of a deity. Constructivism, on the other hand is a learning theory that describes individuals as constructing meaning from their own environment and experiences. Jean piaget suggested that individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences either by assimilation or accomodation.  In a sense, constructivism may have been the catalyst for religion, but I don’t see it as a religion in itself.

After reading Dancingnancy’s blog post on this, I realized when I wrote about change, I didn’t discuss the changes that are taking place or are needed today. I definitely think that all of the tools we’ve learned and the technology available today are good things. I believe students are different and that we should use methods that are familiar to them. I don’t have any problem with a student teaching me how to use something or showing me something new. Something that was written in Backwards into the Future: Seven Principles for Educating the Ne(X)t Generation by Helen Sword and Michele Leggott was,

We know much more than our students do. But they also know much more than we do. When we renounce our own exclusive status as erudite experts, placing our students in the role of teachers and ourselves in the role of students, not only do we model for them the benefits of life-long learning, but we allow them to experience firsthand what every seasoned teacher already knows: If you really want to master a subject, teach it. While direct responsiveness to student input might not be practicable or indeed advisable in all teaching situations, instructors can find many ways of granting increased intellectual authority to their students, even in large, highly structured lecture courses (Exhibit 1)

I don’t believe that most good teachers would feel threatened by this. While changes have and will continue to take place as far as the authority of the teacher, I think good teachers have always acknowledged that they don’t have all the answers. Those who pretend to are probably not good teachers because they are more than likely insecure. I think the wide span of information available today underscores the fact that all of us are very limited in the amount of information we know, and that in itself makes it easier for everyone to acquiesce to the role of facilitator rather than that of king or queen of the classroom.

Other changes that have been proposed include changing the school day to make it more flexible to meet the needs of students today. Starting school at 10:00 am was a suggestion being tossed around when I was teaching in public school. It wasn’t really given any serious consideration, but there was discussion of how students don’t go to bed early enough to get up and be prepared to learn at 8:00am. Of course, there were those who said that students need to conform to the real world. However, is the real world changing, too?  My son who works in the corporate world works for a company that has flexible scheduling. Everyone is required to work an 8 hr. day, but as long as you are there between the hours of 10:00 am and 2:00 pm, you can work the other hours any time you wish. Just a thought…… I think online learning fits well into this scenario of changing the way the school day looks as well. Are we ready for sweeping change? Probably not at this point, but we need to look at the impact and consider the consequences carefully. We need to make sure of what we are wanting to become rather than changing just to meet various needs.

George Siemens makes many good points in his post On Distinctions Between “Change” and “Becoming”. One doesn’t have to have been in the field of education very long (we’ve all been there as students as well…….I remember “new math”) to see the many waves of change that come and go. It’s often a joke among teachers who end up saying such things as “This too shall pass.” It sounds like this type of teacher just has a bad attitude, but more than likely, teachers have seen so many new trends and have been involved in change for change’s sake so many times, that they are not very committed when it comes to each new wave of change. Rarely, does the change bring about a lasting difference or do we “become” anything other than what we were.

Siemens states that education has always played a dual role. The role of reacting to trends and adjusting our methods to reach students is one. The other is that of impacting society. Helping students, communities, and society in general to become something better is a positive goal. If change is necessary to do that and the changes sought are the right ones, then it should definitely take place. The results of the changes should be well thought out before jumping in head first.

“Supposed to” is the operative phrase in the blog Truth in Advertising on Phaedrus

The core problem is that what is supposed to happen in Education is that the people doing the teaching are supposed to be organizing the theories and evidence, sorting and winnowing the content, and arranging what’s left so that the student can see the evidence and can learn from the method.

In education today what should be happening is not happening. Is it because we have teachers who just accept the status quo, or who don’t care if what they are teaching is relevant? I don’t think so. They educational system in which we operate doesn’t allow time for the k-12 teacher to operate in the above mentioned way. The average day in a secondary school consists of 7 periods with 20-30 students each. The teacher often has three to four different preparations within that day with one planning period. The planning period doesn’t allow enough time to grade even one set of papers, let alone research the latest findings in the field of education. It’s a treadmill from August to June over which the teacher has little control. What this says to me is …..something’s gotta give. If we are going to make things happen as they are supposed to happen, the system is going to have to change some things.

I guess I’m just spouting off here a little bit, but the things I’ve read about and learned from this class have just made me feel like a terrible teacher. Of course, my situation is different anyway, but I can still relate to the public school classroom. The expectations for the teacher are really unrealistic. One thing many teachers take pride in is their ability to “multi-task” I’ve always felt very inadequate in that area. My wife says women are better at that than men. I’ve always had a one track mind and I focus on one thing until it is complete and have never once claimed to be a multi-tasker. I have always seen that as a hindrance. But, I saw something the other day and I can’t remember now where it was, but I think it was on one of those headlines on the MSN page. I’ll have to go back and look it up. At any rate, the article stated that now, it is being said that multi-tasking is not such a good thing. It said something to the effect that it leads to ineffectiveness.  I need to find the research that backs that up.  Until then, it makes me feel a little better….

I think our current system leads to ineffectiveness in a lot of cases. If best practice is that we should be constantly organizing the therories and adjusting the content and the methods, there must be time built in to the system in which to do that. Like I said, I’m just writing what is on the top of my head here.  I think most teachers really want to be good at what they do and they start out having the students’ best interests in mind. Given the current way things are done, though, it’s wonder there are so many who do a good job.

In reading Downe’s Truth In Advertising with its various links to other articles, I read the controversy (that I didn’t know existed) about Prensky’s writings about Digital Natives.  For another class (EDUC 688),I had read Prensky and watched a video of him speaking.  I accepted his references to the research by Dr. Berry (really Dr. Perry)  without questioning it.  It was a thought provoking idea.  I didn’t have time to check out his sources and was amazed at the results of the digging that someone else had done.  There was a comment there that stated his ideas could have been accepted as the thought provoking ideas that they are if he hadn’t cited research to back it up.

Once again, I am just throwing out concerns.   I am overwhelmed by all the reading and thinking I have done this week.  This is the first time I’ve written anything and it probably doesn’t make sense, but I’m going to publish it anyway.

The role of the learner is changing. According to this article in the “priority topics” section of Edutopia our whole educational system is in the process of much needed change. There are many more experimental programs that employ a more project based learning environment in which the learner does more hands on learning. The topics also focus on instruction in emotional intelligence which is one of Howard Gardner’s (he’s up to nine now) multiple intelligences. By the way, I’m glad that Gardner is not on our growing list of superstitions and myths.

The article links to another article, Big Ideas for Better Schools in which many innovative ideas are discussed. The role of the student would involve four areas described as engage, expand, connect, and share.  The video   that is included with the article shows several new ideas being implemented, specifically project based learning.  Students are shown actively engaging in their own learning in projects in which they are interested.  The learning is relevant to real world situations.  This is great and while I can see how many previously deemed unreachable students may be motivated in this way, there will be many who won’t be.  Our current system seeks to educate all students and often levels the field by holding back the most precocious while trying to bring up the most unmotivated.  Some other countries allow those motivated students to go on while they find other avenues for the others.  As the role of the learner changes, will the type of learner change as well?