Joe McConda on Technology, Education, and Culture

I was glad to read in Solomon chapter 11 that along with learning in the 21st century, the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic are still important to master. The idea that all learners emerge as the following:

• Information seekers, analyzers, and evaluators
• Problem solvers and decision makers
• Productive and creative users of technology tools
• Communicators, collaborators, publishers, and producers
• Informed, responsible, and involved citizens (Solomon, p. 149)

The key word here is ALL.  Not all students are going to fit this criteria any more than they fit the mold of “school”  as we now conduct it.  I agree with the authors that professional development is going to have to be transformed to help teachers to utilize technology and incorporate it into the learning process as much as it is ingrained in the lives of students.  The last bullet (above) as a goal for all students is more attainable with careful consideration of the way in which each student approaches the prior ones.  For example, what motivates them to seek, analyze, and evaluate information?  They all do it, but it may not be the type of information seeking that “we” see as productive.  They solve problems and make decisions and if they have access to technology, they find ways to use it creatively.  Guidance and high expectations according to individual needs are important factors to be considered here.

I joined Twitter, but then felt that I should join another social networking site, so I also joined Facebook. I have not done a whole lot with it, but I have invited others to join and have added to my profile. I have browsed various groups and have found other people that I haven’t heard about in a long while. There will be no way that I can interact with my students on Facebook, but I have noticed that other teachers have.

As I was reading the first two chapters of The Children’s Machine, I was thinking about the way that I was taught calculus in college, and the way I actually learned it. I struggled with it because I was trying to make sense of all of the new concepts and ideas of calculus that are so unlike the concepts of arithmetic and algebra. It wasn’t until I was well into my physics studies that I started “getting” calculus. I got it because I realized what Newton was trying to do in determining the motion of the planets and the nature of gravity here on earth. This made it clear to me why we needed a way of measuring the rate of change of parabolic and other non-straight line curves associated with gravity, and why we needed a new type of math to analyze it. I, too. very interested in understanding the physical universe, and I realized that calculus was the tool needed to achieve this.

Later, when I was preparing to be a teacher, I decided that I would teach calculus this way. Although I liked math, I knew that many students didn’t, and they needed a more interesting reason to learn it than just for a required credit. I felt that if we followed Newton’s path, and diverted our attention as he did from the wonder of the universe to the laborious task of developing a math that uses limits that approach infinity, we would see that calculus is a necessary tool that we need to learn about this world around us.

As it turned out, I was never able to teach anything more than algebra and geometry. I tried talking about Pythagoras in the way I would have talked about Newton, but it never went over too well with the type of students I had in public school and the ones I have now in the correctional setting. This leads to the dilemma that all teachers face: How do we get kids to want to learn? Papert has a lot of good ideas, as do the many other educators I have read and studied, but I feel that if this desire to learn isn’t there (for whatever reason) by high school, then there is not much a teacher can do to instill it at this point. We can usually motivate these kids by telling them that they need this stuff to get their diploma or their vocational certification, but it all comes down to just learning enough to pass a test.

We have had a few kids at our school who are very talented in art, particularly in drawing. It is easy for our art teacher to “empower” them to learn what they want and to develop themselves as artists. When they get to us academic teachers, however, they must do the prescribed schooling required to get their diploma or GED because, as they are told, they won’t go very far as an artist without that piece of paper. It would be difficult for me to let them go in their own direction to learn math because they lack many skills that they should already have and they need to learn a pre-determined list of things to pass the test. So, as usual, they leave the fun art room to come to my boring math room, and I tell them to get this stuff down so they can go out there and do their art.

In The Children’s Machine, Papert asks the question, “Why, through a period when so much human activity has been revolutionized, have we not seen comparable change in the way we help our children learn?” (p. 2)  He shares a parable in which time travelers, including surgeons and teachers from 100 years before visit their respective work sites.  Papert believes that while the surgeons would be amazed at the vast differences in the field of medicine, the teachers would not see that the classroom had changed all that much and would be able to step right in and take over the class.  I agree that educational practices and philosophies have not changed that much, however, I would argue that the culture has changed a great deal.  I don’t think teachers from 100 years ago would be able to step right in.  They would be appalled at the lack of discipline and the low expectations place on the students.  The lack of respect for the teacher would be seen as intolerable.  So, what am I saying here?  I’m trying to figure that out myself.  What I’m coming up with is that education has not changed with the culture.  The behavior of students today is not like it was 100 years ago and that is not going to change.  We shouldn’t waste our time trying to make the students fit the mold of 100 years ago.  It won’t happen.  Papert goes on to say that if the teachers in the parable visited the homes of the students, they would be amazed at the amount of effort by the students into learning video games.  I think I am left with more questions than answers.  It is true that schools are not reaching all students and change is necessary.  Questions?

How can we use the technology students are so familiar with to help them learn what is essential?

Can we let students determine their own direction for learning?

What would Megachange look like?

As far as the first question, I had a class last semester called, “Educational Games and Simulations”  We learned how these tools could be used in the classroom to achieve learning goals. This is a good start and we should use these tools.  However, it is difficult to find and use games for every learning goal.  Even if we could do that, we would not want to use the same method for everything.  In addition, there are still some students who would be “turned off” by these methods of learning.

Student directed learning probably means different things to different people.  At first glance, it seems like “anything goes”.  However, if the learning goals were agreed upon, perhaps students could take a self-directed approach in achieving those goals.

Megachange? More than likely, the educational system will change gradually.  I actually think we are in a process of change.  It won’t happen all at once and when it does happen slowly, it doesn’t appear to be as great.

Maybe, if we change the way we “do”education, we could spend more time on learning than on trying to manage a classroom and deal with disciplinary issues.  I believe that, however, I also think that requiring students to show respect even when they don’t feel like it is an important learning goal.   Modeling and showing mutual respect is as an important part of education as anything else and is more important than content.  To quote an art teacher friend of mine….”I teach kids how to live, then I teach them art.”

I actually liked reading the Papert book. It was much more readable and interesting than the Solomon book. As a math teacher, however, I was humbled to learn the origin of the word “mathematics” (and ashamed that I had never explored it) and to realize that those first mathematicians thought that math was the only real thing to learn.

I agree that the art or science of learning does need to be given the same status as pedagogy, and that it does deserve its own name. I guess “mathetics” is a good enough word, although it sounds like “pathetic”. ( I always thought that “pedagogy” sounded strange, too.) As I was reading this, I thought about all of the learning theories that we covered in our education classes, and why he wouldn’t consider them as mathetics. I thought it was funny that he said that these are just “watching a rat run through a maze”. He even admitted to writing one of these books also.

Well, I joined Twitter today. I was thinking about which SNS to join and Lee sent an invitation to Twitter, so I signed on. Several of you will be getting an invitation from me if what I think I did is actually what I did?…. I really am just getting my feet wet as I don’t know much about it at all. I was thinking I would do Facebook or MySpace and I still may do that, but I now have the Twitter account, so I’ll see what happens.