We Teach We Learn » Leadership

5 Things I Finally Understand About Teaching and Learning

Contributor — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:43:33 +0000

By Rita Platt

What is your philosophy of education? This was the question that the professor asked us in my second year of my teacher education undergraduate program. Philosophy of education? I had no idea. In fact it wasn’t until very recently that my philosophy was anything but an inchoate slush of ideas, inclinations, and questions. Though I know that my philosophy will grow and change, almost 20 years after that question was asked, I think I have an answer. Okay, I know. I’m a little on the slow side.

I have taught grades 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and remedial classes in high school. I have worked as a mentor, a cooperating teacher, a professional development coordinator, a reading specialist, and a librarian. I have loved students in tiny Eskimo villages on the Bering Sea Coast, in inner-city Las Vegas, and in rural Wisconsin. I have sat on every possible type of committee and attended more meetings than anyone should ever have to attend. I earned National Board Certification, published in journals, and presented at conferences. Most importantly each year I have loved my profession more deeply and each year has been seminal in my growth as an educator and as an educational philosopher.

Students will learn if they work, they will only learn if they work, and they want to work. A teacher’s job is to lend students their expertise and allow them to get busy.

Today my philosophy boils down to a list of five things I know to be true about teaching and learning. In my experience these are among the most important truths for successful educators. If I had to distill them into a few sentences it would read something like this: Students will learn if they work, they will only learn if they work, and they want to work. A teacher’s job is to lend students their expertise and allow them to get busy.

Without further delay, I am happy to share my list of the 5 things I finally understand about teaching and learning. For each I will give a brief overview and link to resources when possible. All of the resources are quick and easy-to-read. Teachers are busy. I respect this.

1. The brain can be exercised and grown! EVERY single student can grow, learn, and achieve at high levels.

All children want to learn and all crave challenge. This comes from the research of the brilliant psychologist Carol Dweck. Dweck teaches us that our brains are malleable and that humans can actually get smarter. She also reminds us that failure is a part of learning and should be celebrated as part of the process.

Carol Dweck’s Mindset site
Carol Dweck Video on Mindset (MUST watch!)
In Praise of Failure
You Can Grow Your Brain
The Perils and Promise of Praise

2. Motivation is key, but the way we think of motivation must change.

Motivation comes from success. Motivation comes from feeling good about your work. Motivation comes from “seeing” growth with hard data. Motivation is not something we give to students is something we teach to students. Daniel Pink and John Hattie have done outstanding work in this area.

Daniel Pink’s Site
RSA Animate Video on Drive by Daniel Pink (MUST watch video!!!)
Profession John Hattie’s Site
Slide Share Presentation on Visible Learning

3. Classroom management is absolutely foundational to teaching and learning.

Excellent teachers know how to run a classroom, how to manage children, how to differentiate instructional experiences, and how to proactively ward off poor choices. Differentiated instruction is a big part of classroom management.

Cooperative Discipline by Linda Albert, the best book ever about classroom management.
Carol Tomlinson’s Site Tomlinson is a professional leader in differentiated instruction:

4. The answers are out there.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Years and years of research by our professional leaders have given us some solid answers about what works. We must let go of our egos and allow ourselves to be open to the possibility that someone else might have better answers. Teachers are trained in colleges that mostly subscribe to a problem-solving approach. The thing is, you’re not in college anymore, you’re in a profession and professions are defined by shared knowledge and resources. Thinking as a professional means using the body of knowledge that is out there. Of course, each of us has something to add to the body of knowledge but we don’t have to and shouldn’t treat all of education as a do-it-yourself endeavor.

Common Core Standards
What Works Clearinghouse
Florida Center for Reading Research
Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analysis Relating to Achievement by John Hattie
Robert Marzano’s Site (Marzano has been synthesizing research about what works in education for over a decade.)

5. The best teachers are coaches not facilitators or bosses.

Okay, despite what I said in number 4, this comes mostly from my own head but also seems to be emerging and converging from a variety of sources as we move from the teacher as facilitator model. But, if you’ve ever watched a coach work with her/his team. You know I’m right. Coaching can be defined as the art and science of helping someone achieve their goals through explicit teaching, modeling, hand-on guided practice, and lots of independent practice. That just oozes good teaching.

That’s it. A full 20 years after I was asked about my philosophy of education I finally know the answer. Too bad the brilliant old professor who asked this of my cohort of novice educators isn’t around to hear it. His only possible response would have been, “Duh. What took you so long?”

Before I close this essay I’ve got to talk about Finland. Finland public education has gotten a lot of press recently for the amazing international test scores they’ve been posting. Last week the Finns shared what they consider the reasons for their great success. In a nutshell they cited the following as foundational: universal social services (health care, extended maternity/paternity leave, free quality education), allowing students to grow in developmentally appropriate ways (kids learn when they’re ready not when a grade or age says they should be ready), and treating teachers as professionals (paying them well, respecting them, and offering them generous planning time.)

These are not things America is yet prepared to consider, much less do. While the philosophy I’ve outlined above still holds true, I believe that no systemic change can happen for our public schools until we start taking lessons from Finland.

We will come to realize that fair is fair and equal is equal and we must do right by our most precious American resource, our students.

That may sound negative, but it’s not! Think about understanding number 1 and 5. Idea number 1: Americans can grow their brains! We will come to realize that fair is fair and equal is equal and we must do right by our most precious American resource, our students. Idea number 5: The answers are out there all we have to do is implement them! Finland found some answers and they’re willing to share.

Now, the question is, what is your philosophy of education?

For more information about the Finnish school system, link to the articles below.

Rita Platt is a Nationally Board Certified teacher. Her experience includes teaching learners of all levels from kindergarten to graduate students. She currently is a Library Media Specialist for the St. Croix Falls SD in Wisconsin, teaches graduate courses for the Professional Development Institute, and consults with local school districts.

Expectations: A new paradigm

Chris Wondra — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 01:25:57 +0000

When it comes to expectations, most teachers will tell you,

“When in doubt, raise ‘em.”

Often, I think that works. I’ve seen it in my own teaching . When I set, articulate and work toward higher expectations, things generally turn out better.

It’s the old,

“Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.”

thing–right?

But what if we swapped the word, “expectation” for the word “target?”

Hear me out.

Expectations are a double edged sword. Set them too low and they become a self fulfilling prophecy–an artificial ceiling. Set them too high, and you’re setting yourself (and/or your students) up for failure.

I know it sounds strange, but what if we consider not having expectations? Instead, what if we set the targets, take aim, work as hard (and smartly, and efficiently, and effectively) as we can, and then simply observe the outcome. Like a scientist. Objectively. Without judgment.

It’s not semantics. It’s a paradigm shift. And it’s not easy. But creating an intention to let go of expectations in order to see your craft through a more objective lens will eliminate much of the drama and confusion swirling around your work.

And . . . it will turn you into a professional.

Who wrote your list?

Who wrote your list?

Chris Wondra — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:22:51 +0000

If I ask you, of any of the hundreds of daily tasks you perform each day, “Why are you doing that?”

How often will you say:

“It’s in the curriculum/schedule/contract. I need to do this for my principal/PLC/RTI/a mandate/progress reports/awards banquet/ . . . we’ve always done this.”

In the beginning–when you were still dreaming of being a teacher–I bet the answer was different.

Maybe . . . You wanted to make a difference. You thought you could relate. You had a passion for your subject.

Whatever the case, you probably had a burning conviction that your reason was important–and that you brought something special to the table.

Clearly, regardless of your profession, you can’t be part of a system without agreeing (at least to some extent) to follow someone else’s lead.

Sometimes though, we’re not even aware that we’re checking off the boxes on someone else’s agenda–and, as far as agendas go, we’ve completely forgotten that we used one of our own.

As soon as you relinquish all responsibility for setting the agenda, your “why” changes. And so does the energy with which you approach your craft.

Expectations: A new paradigm

John F. Kennedy

Chris Wondra — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:25:41 +0000

Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other. Related posts: John Kotter John Ruskin Seth Godin Related posts:

Building a new university

Chris Wondra — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:51:25 +0000

Change Theories in Education

Chris Wondra — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:42:36 +0000

By Merrilee Henk, WTWL Writer

Merrilee Henk is a teacher and life long learner. She has a background in psychology and emotional and behavioral disabilities. Merrilee currently teaches elementary special education and is working on her doctorate in education. She has written numerous articles on parenting, discipline, behavior modification, and other child related topics. Merrilee gives presentations for the Wisconsin Public Library Summer Reading Program for Children and recently began writing for eHow. Follow these links to view non-teaching related articles by this author: How to Attack the “After Christmas Naughty” and How to Change Your Life. . .Pick Your Vice.

Public education has been evolving with society since its conception, and reform efforts continue to drive that evolution. Reform efforts that do not address reform from a systemic perspective have overwhelmed public education institutions (Gabriele, 2000). Ravitch (2004) described the existing failure of many reform efforts as, “… forgotten innovations [that] continue to live in schools where they were introduced with great fanfare . . . schools are like archeological sites; digging would reveal layer after layer of fossilized school reforms and obsolete programs” (as cited in Jones, 2007, p. 189).

Different theories approach systemic educational change from varying philosophies, strategies, models, and methods (Gabriele, 2000), searching for the theory that will create conditions necessary for systemic change. Gabriele declared these conditions to include an “ideal-based, holistic, continuing, participatory, user-friendly, easy to adjust/improve, and emancipatory” for effective change to occur. Three theories of change utilized by school districts are institutional theory, free market theory, and round table theory.

Institutional Change Theory

John Meyer and colleagues developed the institutional change theory in the 1970’s (Huerta & Zuckerman, 2009). Institutional change theory is a framework based on the relationship between schools and their cultural environments. Society’s cultural norms shape organizational structure by encouraging schools to conform to the accepted rules and rituals of an institution. Scott (2003) described institutional theory as “[emphasizing] the influence that an organization’s cultural environment has on organizational structure and behavior, and it seeks to understand the ways in which cultural rules from the environment shape or constrain organizational action” (as cited in Huerta and Zuckerman, p. 415).

Established institutions, operating with rules and rituals that have come to represent legitimate schooling, become role models for other institutions seeking legitimacy. But not all institutions want to maintain the status quo and are constrained by societal and institutional norms. Huerta and Zuckerman (2009) cited the example of charter schools seeking to break away from the “long-standing institutionalized patterns of teaching and learning…” (p. 416). The institutionalization of the public school system has provided direction and limitations concurrently.

Free market theory

The free market theory proposes that educational change occurs as schools compete for excellence (Marion, 2002). The assumption that all schools begin with an equal opportunity to achieve excellence is attractive to proponents of school choice because it justifies the removal of their children from a failing school to one of greater success. According to the free market theory, the blame for failure lies with the school district.

Adnett and Davies (2000) and Lubienski (2006) proclaimed that federal regulations make it impossible for educational institutions to be genuine free markets, resulting in the failure of the free market theory in educational change (as cited in Eyal, 2008). Eyal deduced that a free market system, if possible to create in the public school system, would fail to produce significant change because the characteristics of the free market system would not create an environment conducive to change.

Roundtable Theory

The roundtable theory (RT) is a shared leadership theory for school change. Gabriele (2002) explained RT as distributing leadership and learning equally across participants. Involving stakeholders in the decision-making process through shared leadership can lead to higher levels of commitment. Gabriele described the ideal RT practice as being run according to a Leader’s Guide developed by consensus and periodically reviewed. The RT sessions would include a reading and review of literature on a topic during a 60 minute session, a time for participants to respond individually and uninterrupted by other members, and all participants would have an equal voice.

A change theory positively focused on strengths, rather than problems would be an ideal choice for school change. Gabriele described the RT model as based on achieving an ideal state, including all stakeholders, and being conducted within the regular school day. RT is an on-going process allowing schools to progress toward excellence. Gabriele noted that RT is a research-based model proven to lead organizations toward the “self-transformation of participants and goal attainment.
Discussion

Change will affect staff regardless of the change theory chosen or the changes proposed. Bueker (2005) stated, “One of the most difficult aspects of implementing a whole school reform is striking a balance between proper program implementation and individual teacher flexibility” (p. 411). Bueker noted that empowering teachers, treating teachers with professional respect, and providing structured and continuing support for staff, could minimize the negative effects of school change.

National trends, such as the accountability movement and federal mandates like the No Child Left Behind Act, can prescribe change. H. K. Meyer and Rowan (2006) described the affect that trends can have on education when they stated, “we might apply new institutional constructs that can account for both an evolving theory and its application to changing policy contexts, including the “tightening control of government over the core technology of schooling” linked to standards and accountability reforms” (as cited in Huerta and Zuckerman, (2009), p. 417). The choice for school reform can be beyond the control of the school district, the administration, and the teachers it will affect.

Conclusions

School change is constant. Eyal (2008) suggested, “despite the prevalent image of public institutions as highly conservative and stagnant, it might be interesting to investigate their potential as sources of innovations that are no less radical than the alternatives proposed by free-market ideologues” (p. 487). School reform creates stress on all stakeholders and requires careful consideration of theoretical framework. Vernez, et al. (2004) reported that there is little evidence to support the validity and effectiveness of many school reform initiative policies, which makes research of the different strategies essential.

An analysis of change theory models prior to setting a course is critical. The RT model described by Gabriele is research-based and proven to be an effective school change theory. The effectiveness of the RT model in practice, during the call for reform to meet the skills of the 21st Century, warrants further research on the applicability of RT in meeting the educational needs of the future. School structure will continue to evolve, and the reform theories proven effective by research will continue to be refined.

References

Bueker, C. (2005). Teachers’ reports of the effects of a whole-school literacy reform model on teacher turnover. Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 395-416. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com

Eyal, O. (2009). Degeneracy, resilience and free markets in educational innovation. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 26(4), 487-491. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com, doi:10.1002/sres.940

Huerta, L. & Zuckerman, A. (2009). An institutional theory analysis of charter schools: Addressing institutional challenges to scale. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 414-431. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com, doi:10.1080/01619560902973621

Gabriele, S. F. (2002). The “roundtable” for school learning and planning groups: Planting a seed for systemic renewal. Kybernetes: Special Double Issue: Systems and Cybernetics: New…, 31(9/10), 1361-1368. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 277870851).

Marion, R. (2002). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Jones, B. A. (2007). “Table top theory” as a policy framework for gauging the confluence of teaching and private sector interests. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 185-204.

Empowering Change in Education

Chris Wondra — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:26:06 +0000

By Merrilee Henk, WTWL Writer

Introduction

Teachers in every district face the frustrations of working under poor leadership, as well as the satisfaction and personal growth that can be realized when working for exceptional leaders. Cunningham and Cordiero (2006) stated, “leaders need to ensure that the focus, structure, and process of their work with faculty and staff is always focused on teaching and learning” (76). Maintaining this focus can be challenging, especially when faced with change. The choice of leadership style and reform model becomes critical to the success of an educational organization in need of reform. Transactional leadership, shared governance, and transformational leadership are some leadership styles that can affect the success of the reform model used by the district leader to initiate change.

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leaders can be effective in achieving performance goals. According to Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio (as cited in Avolio and Yammarino, 2008) transactional leaders “[exchange] rewards or recognition for cooperation and compliance behaviors consistent with task requirements” (p. 38-39). Transactional leaders closely follow the task accomplishments of their followers. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) stated that “the leaders react to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have ‘transacted’ to do” and Burns (1978) described transactional leaders as motivating their followers by satisfying the self-interests of the followers (as cited in Lo, de Run, and Ling, 2009, Literature Review section, para 3). Transactional leadership can be effective. One study by Lo, de Run, and Ling suggested that transactional leaders have followers that are more committed to change than those of transformational leaders, yet other studies suggest the opposite (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin and Popper, 1998; Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003, as cited in Lo, de Run, and Ling, 2009).

The traditional hierarchical transactional style of leadership often found in school districts may achieve compliance, but not commitment. Commitment is essential when educational reform is needed. Senge (1996) stated initiatives directed from the top down often backfire and prevent forward movement by organizations. Marion (2005) stated that the “bureaucracy legacy [is] clearly evident in the way we organize and run schools” (p. 22), but it can be replaced.

Shared Leadership

Shared leadership follows common sense reasoning that “many minds are better than one”, yet has not taken hold in K-12 public schools (Lindahl, 2008). Sarason (1996) wrote, “the failure of school reform was predictable because of the power relationships that exist in schools” (as cited in Lindahl). Shared leadership, in theory, removes the power relationships with shared decision-making. Lindahl asserted, “Teachers can share leadership, however. In schools, leadership can be shared among many people, not only the select few who might be formally designated as administrators or teacher leaders” (Why Have K-12 Schools Struggled with Shared Leadership? section, para 7). Yukl and Lepsinger (2007) explained that when complex school reform is needed, it takes more than one person to gain understanding of, and commitment to, a new vision and the decisions needed to successfully realize that vision (as cited in Lindahl).

Beach (2006) listed six leadership responsibilities that teachers could feasibly contribute to: assessment, culture, vision, plans, implementation, and follow through (as cited in Lindahl). Lindahl listed other leadership responsibilities related to the vision of the school. Teachers can take a leadership role in creating the vision, demonstrating it in their classrooms, and making it real for students, parents, and other stakeholders in the district. Lindahl asserted that strong involvement from teachers in the implementation of the vision would lead to greater likelihood of success.

Transformational Leadership

Organizations require employee willingness to cooperate with and believe in a common vision (Barnard, 1938, as cited in Marion, 2002). Transformational leadership is associated with achieving high levels of employee performance in organizations (Kark and Shamir, as cited in Avolio and Yammarino, 2008). Yukl (1998) suggested that transformational leaders transform the “values and priorities of followers and [motivate] them to perform beyond their expectations” (as cited in Avolio and Yammarino). Teachers managed by the use of strict rules and demeaning supervision may perform only to the level that satisfies the rules and never be motivated to pursue a level of excellence (Marion).

Pratt (1998) cited social identification with the leader or the organization as a common effect of transformational leadership behavior (as cited in Avolio and Yammarino) by building strong bonds and emotional ties with their followers. Social bonding could produce critical benefits for a superintendent attempting to improve the work of employees by positively affecting the motivation of employees to improve performance. According to Burns (1978) and Bass (1985), the most important effect of transformational leadership is “getting followers to transcend their self-interests for the sake of the group, organization, or movement” (as cited in Avolio and Yammarino, p. 85).

There are many leadership models proven effective in times of school reform, which all public school districts are facing as they move into the 21st century. One model suggested by Goddard and Clarke (2007), follows in the style of transformational leadership. This model includes eight stages, the first four that focus on institutional change are individual mobilization, community building, creating an enabling environment, and focus on student learning.

Individual mobilization begins with relationship building. Cunningham and Gordiero (2006) stated, “Good leaders do not communicate with people because they need something, but to enjoy the shared experience of working toward exciting outcomes. They have a genuine interest in the staff and their optimal performance” (p. 23). As teachers and students develop interpersonal relationships, they begin to redefine their identity within the school (Goddard and Clarke). Self-actualization can lead teachers to develop new ideas and beliefs about their roles and responsibilities.

Salisbury and McGregor (2002) discussed a strategy for community building, which would also follow in the transformational leadership style. School culture could be enhanced by reaching out to the community, encouraging meaningful participation by parents, positively altering the community’s perception of the school district (as cited in Goddard and Clarke, Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 5). Parents, teachers, students, and administrators could become parts of a cohesive group. Kohm (2002) and Lick (2002) suggested strategies such as teacher study groups (as cited in Goddard and Clarke, Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 5).

Goddard and Clarke described administrators acting in this capacity as “catalysts, willing to take a moral stand on their beliefs and bringing teachers together in collaborative approaches to student learning” (Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 5). Godard and Clarke suggested that this strategy would create a culture in which “staff and students adopt the school culture in a deep personal way and…take responsibility for making sure the [school] culture survives” (as cited in Goddard and Clarke, Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 5).

Creating an enabling environment is necessary to improve student achievement. Schools need to make data driven decisions and strive to change teachers’ views of students from a deficiency model (Goddard and Clarke). Cummins (2001) stated:

When we choose to frame the discourse about underachievement primarily in terms of children’s deficits in some area of physiological or linguistic functioning, we expel culture, language, identity, intellect, and imagination from our image of the child, and we eliminate these constructs from our image of the effective teacher of that child (as cited in Goddard and Clarke, Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 7).

Teachers are motivated by the ability to engage in the art of teaching. Davies (2002) acknowledged, “There is a tension between compliance and performance. Excessive compliance reduces the scope for creativity and limits performance. It will also put undue emphasis on outcomes, with processes having to be ignored” (The Changing Tensions Between Autonomy and Recentralization section, para 4).

In stage four the focus turns to individual student learning. Resources are dedicated to research based materials and programs, and teachers and parents align in supporting student needs. The outcomes measured must go beyond reading and math. Davies (2002) claimed that the process of teaching “thinking skills” is critical to the development of deep learning and that “The outcomes addiction also diminishes the central importance of a vision of education that is wider and deeper than simple test results. (The Changing Tensions Between Autonomy and Recentralization section, para 4).

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has fueled the outcomes addiction at the expense of real learning. Rothstein and Jacobsen (2006) described the unbalancing of instruction between the individual subject areas, creating a focus on reading and math, reducing the amount of time spent on non-tested curriculum. Curriculum has been narrowed as a result. School leaders focusing on individual student learning will provide a rich curriculum that includes critical thinking skills.

Conclusion

Educational change is an evolving interaction of individual mobilization, community building, creating an enabling environment, and focus on student learning. Institutional complacency must be avoided in place of constant revision and renewal with the holistic picture in mind (Goddard and Clarke). Transformational leaders can have a powerful effect on educational institutions and teachers for lasting change through strong relationships and a shared vision. Goleman, Boyatzis, and Mckee (2002) stated that leaders of reform need to build relationships with many, those who think like they do and those who don’t (as cited in Fullan, 2002). Goleman, Boyatzis, and Mckee claimed, “In complex times, emotional intelligence is a must. Emotionally intelligent leaders are able to build relationships because they are aware of their own emotional makeup and are sensitive and inspiring to others” (as cited in Fullan).

References

Avolio, B. J. & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (2008). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Cunningham, W. G. and Cordeiro, P. A. (2006). Educational leadership: A problem-based approach (3rd ed) Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Davies, B. (2002). Rethinking schools and school leadership for the twenty-first century: Changes and challenges. The International Journal of Educational Management (16)4/5, 196-207.

Fullan, M. (2002, May). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Goddard, J. T. & Bohac-Clarke, V. (2007, Fall). The cycles of school change: Toward an integrated developmental model. The Journal of Educational Thought. 41(2), 105-124.

Lindahl, R. (2008). Shared leadership: Can it work in schools? The Educational Forum, 72(4), 298-308.

Lo, M., Ramayah, T., de Run, E., & Ling, V. (2009, May). New leadership, leader-member exchange, and commitment to change: The case of higher education in Malaysia. Proceedings of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology, 41, 574-580. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Marion, R. (2005). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Rothstein, R., & Jacobsen, R. (2006, December). The goals of education. (Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 264,272. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Senge, P. (1996, December). Leading learning organizations. Training & Development, 50(12), 36. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database

Myths, History, Technology, Control, Critical Thinking, Lobsters

Chris Wondra — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:16:10 +0000

Myths and Opportunities: Technology in the Classroom by Alan November from Brian Mull on Vimeo.

The Future: Where “winging it” becomes best practice

Chris Wondra — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:47:59 +0000

“Students today depend on paper too much. They don’t know how to write on a slate without getting chalk dust all over themselves. They can’t clean a slate properly. What will they do when they run out of paper?” –Principal’s Association, 1815 1, 2

“Students today depend upon store bought ink. They don’t know how to make their own. When they run out of ink they will be unable to write words or ciphers until their next trip to the settlement. This is a sad commentary on modern education.” –The Rural American Teacher 1928 1,2

by Chris Wondra, WTWL Editor

The problem with blind spots is that you don’t know you’ve got them. I mean, it’s obvious to us today that students weren’t going to need a slate or homemade ink in order to be successful.

But imagine living in that time. There was no way those people could have foreseen the changes that make us snicker at those statements today. Might we also be clinging to faulty beliefs about what will make our students successful? If so, how do we identify them? How do we differentiate between the beliefs that are no longer relevant and need to go, and the ones that are and we need to keep? What skills and content are we teaching that will be irrelevant in five years? What tools are we still using that are already outdated?

And how can we possibly determine that?

Out with the old, in with the new

As a quick exercise, take a part of your curriculum, any part, and imagine for a moment that it’s totally irrelevant to our students’ realities in the 21st century. Then make a bold and crazy statement–or two. I’m an English teacher. Let me start.

The traditional research paper in English classrooms is dead.
So is the traditional works cited or bibliography–you know, that MLA or APA formatted way of documenting your sources.

In some districts, those two statements would probably be grounds for my dismissal. But we’re all friends here. So let’s just play around with this for a while.

The research paper: A closer look

Why do we have students write research papers in the first place? Why include a works cited? Well, we assign the paper to instruct and assess skills and knowledge related to researching, organizing, analyzing, and synthesizing information. We have students include a works cited to show that they’re not just making stuff up as they go along. But works cited and bibliographies also serve two other important purposes:

They give credit for ideas, and
they point us in the direction of those ideas–so that interested readers can follow up and learn more.

Organizing, analyzing, synthesizing, writing, and attributing ideas are valuable skills. So what could possibly be wrong with the research paper?

The problem is two fold:

If we want to read some of the sources, we have to do more work. We have to order a book, go to a library, find a specific journal, magazine, or article. This takes effort. But perhaps, more importantly . . .
This takes time.

What would happen instead, if we assigned students a research blog or asked them to collaborate on a research wiki? Like this.

Couldn’t they then simply link to the actual source that they used, and/or help the reader along by linking to a definition for potentially confusing terms or concepts (as I did above)? Doing so simplifies the whole process by attributing, defining, and also actually supplying the source of the ideas referenced.

Yes, I know. Sometimes that’s not entirely possible. One can’t always link to an entire book or periodical. Alas, not everything is on-line and free. But we can still link to a listing of the book on Amazon.com, an author page, or biography. So we can get pretty close–much closer than a properly formatted APA citation.

So, in comparing this approach to the traditional research paper: What skills are we missing? Nothing. We’ve enhanced it. We’ve taken the research paper and made it better, faster and stronger.

But that’s not all . . .

Perhaps the most glaring weakness with the traditional research paper is who has access to it. If the topic and writing is truly relevant, aren’t they also potentially valuable to greater audiences? And isn’t that audience’s feedback also valuable?

Today’s tools make all this possible in ways we couldn’t imagine as recently as five years ago.

So is the traditional research paper, in fact, going the way of the slate and homemade ink? I’m pretty sure it is.

And if that’s the case, and we’re still attached to the research paper (and we are), to what else might we teachers be clinging?

And how can we possibly know?

We can’t. But I think we can shine a little light in this darkness by asking ourselves two basic questions:

What will the future look like? and,
How do I prepare my students for that?

The engine of change revs to exponential speeds

If Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod are right:

there are five times as many words in the English language than when Shakespeare lived, and
the amount of technical information we have available to us is now doubling every 72 hours.

We think we’re supposed to know what our students need to thrive in the 21st century? C’mon. Let’s get real.

These kids are going to have fourteen jobs, many of which don’t even exist today, before they turn thirty-four. How do you prepare students for jobs that don’t yet exist, using technologies that haven’t been invented, to solve problems that we don’t even know are problems yet? How can we–how can they–possibly plan for that?

We can’t. They can’t.

The bottom line (and perhaps most important reality to consider) is that the rate of change is accelerating exponentially. We can’t possibly keep up. Ergo we can’t plan. Apple or PC? Explorer or Firefox? Google or Yahoo? Photoshop or Fireworks? A blog or a wiki? Ford or Chevy? It doesn’t matter. Today’s standards will not survive the night. Tomorrow will be completely different. By the time these kids hit the job market, we’ll be snickering at questions like these.

In fact, somebody somewhere is probably snickering already. The cost to communicate has fallen through the floor and the speed to do so has gone through the roof. This creates a whole new world. A flat one. Ideas, collaboration and creativity no longer have borders. Technology is removing the traditional constraints that used to slow progress. Today, our students can collaborate in real time, with information and people half way around the world, to solve problems, create solutions and to change everything.

We don’t know what, and we don’t know when. All we can be assured of is that, eventually, everything will change—again. And again. And again. It’s time to face the music. We can’t possibly plan for that. That’s the bad news. Welcome to the 21st century.

The Good News

The good news is that we can coordinate like never before.

Let me explain.

Remember what it was like a few years ago, before we all had cell phones, when you had to pick someone up at the airport? Remember what had to take place in order for that to happen? Lots of planning. You had to consider where the baggage was. You had to get there early to park the car. You had to meet at a prearranged time and place. And hope the plane was on time.

You don’t have to do any of that now. Just check the flight schedules on-line, and have your party call you when they land. If the flight’s late, run a few errands. If it’s early, just pick them up outside. Figure it out on the fly. No planning. Just coordination.

Now, with cell phones, it makes more sense to just wing it. Flight schedules change, baggage takes time to pickup, stuff happens. But now we can adjust on the fly. It’s easy to just roll with it.

Preparing our students for their futures is a bit like using our cell phones to coordinate an airport pick-up.

Successfully navigating the chaos of the pace of 21st century change will not require our students to know how to use today’s technology. It will not require them to plan very far ahead. It will, however, require them to connect to people and information and be able to create and collaborate in real time–on the fly.

It will require that they be able to “roll with it.” To “wing it.” To improvise.

Think of life in the 21st century as improvising in a jazz quartet. You never know exactly what’s coming, so you can’t plan too far ahead. Still, it’s not chaos. You are connected to the other players through the structure of the music. The notes of the piece flow from a combination of that structure and the harmony of your collaboration and creativity.

Our job as teachers is to show students what is possible within the structure of our time and space, an how to coordinate information and people in ways that create music with our lives . . .

. . .and then to dance.

Your Turn

Reflect on your beliefs and add your thoughts in the comment section below:

What skills and concepts are you teaching that will help students be successful in the fast paced changes of the 21st century?

If the “Research Paper” is going the way of the Cuckoo, what are some other instructional techniques/strategies/tools that might soon be outdated, or look very different in the near future?

Sometimes the more things change, the more things stay the same. So what essential understanding are you teaching today that won’t change in the 21st century. What do you believe will stay the same?

Source of quotes:

1. Thornburg, David. Edutrends 2010: Restructuring, Technology, and the Future of Education. Starsong Publications, 1992. (link)

2. To see additional statements read and scroll to the bottom of this article .

How Teachers Are Like Superheroes

Chris Wondra — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:36:52 +0000

A teacher affects eternity; no one can tell where his influence stops. –Henry Adams

“It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!” –my wife (more times than I can count)

Guys, let me tell you, I’ve been married for fourteen years now, and the moment you hear that, it’s pretty much over. Sure, you can debate semantics and linguistics all you want, and logically, on paper, I’m sure you’re on the money. Still, I hate to break it to you—you’ve got no shot. It doesn’t matter how airtight your logic. Your best option is to run up the white flag and surrender. Apologize as sincerely as possible and try to change the subject. Drop it and move on. This is fourteen years of marriage speaking. Trust me.

There is no way to win this fight, because what you said doesn’t mean a thing. The only thing that matters is what she heard. And what she understood about your meaning has a lot more to do with your tone of voice, facial expression, posture, and proximity than the words that came out of your mouth. Forget that you were in the process of pulling a bee’s stinger from your eyeball. It doesn’t matter.

I’ve noticed this to be true in the classroom as well. Regardless of how I feel on any given day, if I make a conscious effort to bring energy to my craft, the kids always seem more upbeat too.

It doesn’t matter what I say. If I say it with a smile, if my tone is upbeat, if I’m standing straight with my head up high, if I’m moving around the classroom, making eye contact—the kids are more engaged.

And thus, more learning takes place.

The opposite is also true. If I’m blah, to a certain extent, so is the rest of the classroom environment.

But this is all common sense stuff, right? Much like the stand-up comic, as teachers, we all know that our “delivery” matters . . .right? This isn’t rocket science.

Turns out, however—it is brain science.

How Feelings Are Contagious

According to research done at Harvard and the University of California at San Diego by Dr. Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, who have been mining data collected from nearly 5,000 people over a period of twenty years, “Happiness spreads through social networks like an emotional contagion.” So if you bring positive energy to your lessons, that energy is going to rub off on your students.

But why is this? Here is where it gets truly fascinating. They’re called, mirror neurons, and their job in the brain is to literally mirror observed emotions so that a person actually feels the pain and joy of others.

This truly astounding neural WiFi was discovered by neuroscientists in monkeys in 1992; but they have since also confirmed the presence of mirror neurons in the human brain through a series of experiments so sensitive it boggles the mind. It turns out we now have electrodes so laser-thin that they can be implanted within a single brain cell. Not only are they small, but these electrodes are so sensitive that they can measure the firing of a single neuron.

In his book, Social Intelligence: The Revolutionary New Science of Human Relationships, Dan Goldman reports of a remarkable study. After implanting and monitoring an electrode in a fully conscious person, scientists found that the same specific neuron will fire when a person anticipates pain (of a pinprick) as well as when watching someone else receive a pinprick. As Goldman puts it, the lighting up of that electrode is the equivalent of taking a “neural snapshot of primal empathy in action.”

Tiny electrodes can take “neural snapshots of primal empathy in action."

Mirror neurons are responsible for the feelings we have at the movie theater. The actors are sad, we are sad, the actors are excited, we get excited. It’s no different in the classroom.

But that isn’t even the most powerful discovery. To understand that, we have to revisit what Christakis and Fowler discovered about happiness. As it turns out, the energy you bring to the classroom doesn’t merely stay there for the benefit of only that class with only that lesson. It ripples outward and affects people you don’t know, have never met, and in places you may have never been.

According to Christakis and Fowler, if you project positive energy, you increase the chance of feeling good in those near you by 25%, but it doesn’t stop there. When your students leave the classroom, people close to them (friends, family, neighbors, etc . . .) enjoy a 10% chance of experiencing positive energy. Likewise, a person close to that person has a 5.6% chance of getting a positive charge.

Ever wonder what happiness looks like? Each node in the diagram represents one person (circles are female, squares are male). The lines indicate relationships (black = siblings; red = friends, spouces). Color represents degree of happiness, with blue indicating “the blues,” and yellow indicating sheer joy. Green is somewhere in between. Images by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, courtesy of BMJ

The Impact of One Teacher

What does this mean? Let’s just say, for the sake of simplicity, that you come in contact with 50 students a day, and each of those students then interacts with just five other people. That’s 250 additional people that you can affect–bringing your total to 300. But it doesn’t stop there. Remember, you still have a 5.6% chance to affect all those who connect with those additional 250. If we keep it simple and give those 250 each five contacts, that increases your potential outreach by 1,250–bringing your grand total to 1,550 people each day.

And that’s just based on the students in your classes! (Yes, yes I know you teach more than that, but, “Dammit Jim! I’m a Language teacher not a mathwiz!”) Now calculate, if you like (and you are a math wiz), the rest of your contacts in a day, and you’ll truly begin to understand the scope of your influence.

. . . as a teacher, you have great power to affect a great number of people.

Simply put, as a teacher, you have great power to affect a great number of people. And as Spiderman says, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” That’s right, as a teacher, based purely on the number of people you interact with each day–and your potential to ripple joy into the lives of those connected to the students you teach—you are a superhero. Numbers and logic don’t lie.

You should feel good about that. Still, guys, it would NOT be wise to bring that up during your next communication snafu with your wives or girlfriends. It won’t help. Trust me on this one. Sometimes it is what you say.

Image credit

Front page image credit

Technorati Profile