We've just had yet another review of teacher education. The group convened to examine how well (or not) we do as teacher educators, contained one person qualified to talk about it from a teacher education point of view: the others were from schools. They were qualified to discuss the issue from one side of the coin. But coins have two sides- they are equal and go together to make a whole. The imbalance in what is proposed (well, almost finalised) is marked. For those of us who teach people to be teachers, introduce them to pedagogy, theories of learning and what it means to be a reflective practitioner, open up the field of ethical behaviour as an educational professional, visit them on practicum and provide evaluative feedback, help them explore notions of curriculum, learning processes and puzzles of practice, must now get a teaching certificate - because this certificate proves we can do our jobs.
As someone who is both passionate about supporting people to become secondary teachers, and tries to model what I preach, I find this insulting. This is especially since I know that when our students go on prcticum, it is quite likely they will hear comments from teachers that we- those of us in teacher education- don't know what we're talking about. That 'them and us' mentality is really sad. From where I'm standing, such a belief appears to assume that because I'm not in front of a class of adolescents every day, that I don't know about curriculum, thinking, ethics, professionalism, classroom mangement, assessment - and all the other things that go to make up a school day. There is, it seems, a view that reading, research, thinking, experimentation about pedagogy and how it might manifest itself for the benefit of learners, don't matter as much as being in a classroom. I'm tired of that argument. I was in secodnary school classrooms for 20 years- I know there's more to education and effective practices than jsut being there.
On the other hand, I've also heard from others (such as PD providers or conference organisers) that teachers only want practical things - and some do. This is partly a workload thing - there is an urgency to get on and do stuff - considered, informed, evidence-based thinking and preparation doesn't get much of a look-in. But if professional development is only ever about about practical stuff, how do teachers continue to learn and grow in their profession? Opportunities to learn about theory and research and provocative ideas - these can feed the mind, inspiring really good practices. If it's only about practice, then it trivialises and undermines the reality of teachers being knowledge workers.
So, the insistence on a current Teacher Registration certificate (I let mine lapse after 3 years as a teacher educator - it didn't seem to accommodate my role) to be the guarantee of my ability to do my job - including visiting students on practicum - is therefore, an insult. It's an insult to my experience, knowledge, practices, and commitment.
I feel a bit better now.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
summarising ideas about pedagogy and ICT
Yesterday, I spend time working with the secondary graduate group explaining how and why I organised their PICT (=pedagogy & ICT) module as I did. Now that they are nearly at the end of their programme, it was time to show them what had happened and why.
I also confessed that I hadn't actually taught them anything about how to use any particular technological tool: I only gave them permission to try them out - in groups and individually. I then needed to explain why- it's because technology changes so much. I argued that if I taught them a particular tool, in 6 months it may be superceded by something else. Instead, I hope I gave them courage to experiment, to wonder 'what if I...?' and to think about pedagogical purposes to drive any use. I also argued that if they had a good learning reason to try things out in a school, it's really hard for a school to refuse - especially if they already have in place answer to the 'yes, but...' counters.
What was lovely, was that generally they left the session in a really positive frame of mind, remembering how overwhelmed they were at the start of the year, and how differently they feel now about they can do and what they've learned.
And a lot of that learning has been from each other. By making them use some kind of technological tool in their practicums and write about it in Moodle, they are now (more or less) grateful they had to do it. They even discussed how they sometimes had to think creatively to get things to work, or even think creatively about tools they could possibly use when their schools had limited access, few or creaky equipment. However, they also cursed me at the time!
This is a really good example of assessment driving creativity and learning. Sometimes it takes ages for the understanding to come, but the wait is truly worth it! All power to the cohort of 2010.
I also confessed that I hadn't actually taught them anything about how to use any particular technological tool: I only gave them permission to try them out - in groups and individually. I then needed to explain why- it's because technology changes so much. I argued that if I taught them a particular tool, in 6 months it may be superceded by something else. Instead, I hope I gave them courage to experiment, to wonder 'what if I...?' and to think about pedagogical purposes to drive any use. I also argued that if they had a good learning reason to try things out in a school, it's really hard for a school to refuse - especially if they already have in place answer to the 'yes, but...' counters.
What was lovely, was that generally they left the session in a really positive frame of mind, remembering how overwhelmed they were at the start of the year, and how differently they feel now about they can do and what they've learned.
And a lot of that learning has been from each other. By making them use some kind of technological tool in their practicums and write about it in Moodle, they are now (more or less) grateful they had to do it. They even discussed how they sometimes had to think creatively to get things to work, or even think creatively about tools they could possibly use when their schools had limited access, few or creaky equipment. However, they also cursed me at the time!
This is a really good example of assessment driving creativity and learning. Sometimes it takes ages for the understanding to come, but the wait is truly worth it! All power to the cohort of 2010.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Some exciting teaching experiences
I'm now marking my graduate students' descriptions of their teaching practicum experiences using e-learning tools. There are some really innovative things going on. Here are two:
1. Graphics and Design class
This student teacher was teaching the concept of perspective and vanishing point. Normally, he would use a blackboard/whiteboard, but it would mean his back would obscure part of the drawing. This time, he mounted a webcam directly above a drawing board that was exactly the same that the students were using. It was made from melamine so he could use white board markers as pencils. The webcam then projected whatever he was drawing through his laptop and projector onto a big screen. His drawing desk was angled so he could see the class and the screen, so it was a bit like having a horizontal interactive white board. With a mouse he could also draw digitally over the top of his live drawing in the laptop screen to emphasise areas of importance. He said that he "had total student engagement so management was a non issue and the standard of work students were doing had risen and understanding of the work doubled".
Now that's a creative way to support learning using readily available tools.
2. English class
This class was creating a number of things: writing lyrics, creating a static image, film analysis (Pirates of the Caribbean). Instead of doing the lyrics on Word, printing them out and laminating for the classroom wall, the student teacher did the following. She got students to take images of images of themselves in a pose that represented a big idea they wanted to portray, plus an image of the static images they had created on paper. They did so using the computer's webcam. These two things, plus the lyrics, became part of a DVD cover task they created as their interpretation of the movie. In order to present this to the class, each student created 3 presentation slides containing their product items. She reproted that student engagement was high, collaboration (sharing how to do things technologically in particular) was high, and commitment to completing the work to a high standard was also obvious.
And all of this was from a student teacher who, at the start of this year, was personally challenged by the PICT (pedagogy & information communication technology) class.
Don't you just love it when people experiment with new ways of doing things, and they have such a great effect?
1. Graphics and Design class
This student teacher was teaching the concept of perspective and vanishing point. Normally, he would use a blackboard/whiteboard, but it would mean his back would obscure part of the drawing. This time, he mounted a webcam directly above a drawing board that was exactly the same that the students were using. It was made from melamine so he could use white board markers as pencils. The webcam then projected whatever he was drawing through his laptop and projector onto a big screen. His drawing desk was angled so he could see the class and the screen, so it was a bit like having a horizontal interactive white board. With a mouse he could also draw digitally over the top of his live drawing in the laptop screen to emphasise areas of importance. He said that he "had total student engagement so management was a non issue and the standard of work students were doing had risen and understanding of the work doubled".
Now that's a creative way to support learning using readily available tools.
2. English class
This class was creating a number of things: writing lyrics, creating a static image, film analysis (Pirates of the Caribbean). Instead of doing the lyrics on Word, printing them out and laminating for the classroom wall, the student teacher did the following. She got students to take images of images of themselves in a pose that represented a big idea they wanted to portray, plus an image of the static images they had created on paper. They did so using the computer's webcam. These two things, plus the lyrics, became part of a DVD cover task they created as their interpretation of the movie. In order to present this to the class, each student created 3 presentation slides containing their product items. She reproted that student engagement was high, collaboration (sharing how to do things technologically in particular) was high, and commitment to completing the work to a high standard was also obvious.
And all of this was from a student teacher who, at the start of this year, was personally challenged by the PICT (pedagogy & information communication technology) class.
Don't you just love it when people experiment with new ways of doing things, and they have such a great effect?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
2010: two years on
I haven't posted for two years *blush*.
So what have I been doing since then? Learning a huge amount, actually, particularly about e-learning and mLearning tools and pedagogical uses. I guess sometimes learning is like life was like for Henderson The Rain King (Saul Bellow)- 'truth comes in blows'. The blows I've had have been in a good way -those OMG moments. Getting my iPhone was one of those - suddenly I could see how I could work more flexibly, be in contact when I needed to without being tied to a place or computer, and still be productive. Another blow has been hearing how Steve Wheeler uses and conceptualises Web 2.0 tools educatively. It's given me lots of ideas for changing what I do with my students - it's that lovely synergy of moving ideas on.
Perhaps too, this change in how I undertake my own pedagogical practice is what teachers do- that constant search to make learning more meaningful for learners. It's about constant experimentation, sometimes without knowing what will happen, how it will go, or if it will even be successful in relation to the plan. This means that teaching isn't always a safe thing to do. Instead, it can be destabilising -for me as a teacher, or my students. Sometimes it's the pedagogical design that makes it so, sometimes it's the nature of the experiment.
Experiments, by their nature, are about what you don't yet know. Last year, I tried to model to my secondary graduate students that you can still try out stuff, even when you know it all beforehand. In such cases, it's about learning as you go with your students, in an iterative process. I can't have done a good job of modelling this, because many of those students thought (going by their end of year evaluations) that they just thought I didn't know what I was doing, and was therefore ill-equipped to teach them. What I guess I hadn't done was make explicit - on a regular basis - that I did know what I was doing, pedagogically, but I was trying out tools I hadn't used before, in order to see what it was like to use them. This was about teaching as inquiry - judging the efficacy of the tool/approach through learning from both doing, and students' feedback. This then fed into ways to adjust and adapt what I would do next time. It's that process of development and refinement we engage in as educators, as we ponder the question 'is this helping my students learn?'
A big experiment this year was to re-design one of the teaching sessions (a 4hr block) and get these graduates and career-changers who wanted to be secondary teachers to examine some websites. it was about checking they understood the notions of 'truth' and validity on the web. Four of the six sites I provided for this task were spoof sites (treeoctopus, guineaworm, floral sculpture, Victorian robots) the other two were political- a Holocaust denial site, and a misogynist one. Questions they responded to (in small groups about one site each) were:
The questions were designed to elicit critical thinking, but perhaps I should have also followed up with a session on how to read between the lines of questions...Perhaps I'll add that to next year's lesson. When they learned what the reality of the sites was, they were, generally, stunned. Some were embarrassed and probably didn't appreciate feeling that way.
However, the news is pleasing. Later on teaching practicum, some of these same people attempted to show their students how to be critical readers of web sources. So, while the 'lesson' I provided created some discomfort at the time, the learning appeared to be significant for them. Yes!
So, what does that mean? Perhaps it means that being challenged, discomforted or destabilised is important for learning to have more than a fleeting effect. Perhaps sometimes, even when you aren't sure what will happen, brilliant things you have no control over, can occur beyond the lesson you design, and you can take heart because you created the conditions precipitating a ripple in other people's thinking so they too, can help others learn something new.
So what have I been doing since then? Learning a huge amount, actually, particularly about e-learning and mLearning tools and pedagogical uses. I guess sometimes learning is like life was like for Henderson The Rain King (Saul Bellow)- 'truth comes in blows'. The blows I've had have been in a good way -those OMG moments. Getting my iPhone was one of those - suddenly I could see how I could work more flexibly, be in contact when I needed to without being tied to a place or computer, and still be productive. Another blow has been hearing how Steve Wheeler uses and conceptualises Web 2.0 tools educatively. It's given me lots of ideas for changing what I do with my students - it's that lovely synergy of moving ideas on.
Perhaps too, this change in how I undertake my own pedagogical practice is what teachers do- that constant search to make learning more meaningful for learners. It's about constant experimentation, sometimes without knowing what will happen, how it will go, or if it will even be successful in relation to the plan. This means that teaching isn't always a safe thing to do. Instead, it can be destabilising -for me as a teacher, or my students. Sometimes it's the pedagogical design that makes it so, sometimes it's the nature of the experiment.
Experiments, by their nature, are about what you don't yet know. Last year, I tried to model to my secondary graduate students that you can still try out stuff, even when you know it all beforehand. In such cases, it's about learning as you go with your students, in an iterative process. I can't have done a good job of modelling this, because many of those students thought (going by their end of year evaluations) that they just thought I didn't know what I was doing, and was therefore ill-equipped to teach them. What I guess I hadn't done was make explicit - on a regular basis - that I did know what I was doing, pedagogically, but I was trying out tools I hadn't used before, in order to see what it was like to use them. This was about teaching as inquiry - judging the efficacy of the tool/approach through learning from both doing, and students' feedback. This then fed into ways to adjust and adapt what I would do next time. It's that process of development and refinement we engage in as educators, as we ponder the question 'is this helping my students learn?'
A big experiment this year was to re-design one of the teaching sessions (a 4hr block) and get these graduates and career-changers who wanted to be secondary teachers to examine some websites. it was about checking they understood the notions of 'truth' and validity on the web. Four of the six sites I provided for this task were spoof sites (treeoctopus, guineaworm, floral sculpture, Victorian robots) the other two were political- a Holocaust denial site, and a misogynist one. Questions they responded to (in small groups about one site each) were:
- In 1-3 sentences, explain what the site is about and what you're expected to understand from the content on first glance.
- What do you learn from this site?
- What do you think of the site: Would you recommend it to anyone? What leads to your decision?
- Note two key ideas to report to the whole class about the site.
The questions were designed to elicit critical thinking, but perhaps I should have also followed up with a session on how to read between the lines of questions...Perhaps I'll add that to next year's lesson. When they learned what the reality of the sites was, they were, generally, stunned. Some were embarrassed and probably didn't appreciate feeling that way.
However, the news is pleasing. Later on teaching practicum, some of these same people attempted to show their students how to be critical readers of web sources. So, while the 'lesson' I provided created some discomfort at the time, the learning appeared to be significant for them. Yes!
So, what does that mean? Perhaps it means that being challenged, discomforted or destabilised is important for learning to have more than a fleeting effect. Perhaps sometimes, even when you aren't sure what will happen, brilliant things you have no control over, can occur beyond the lesson you design, and you can take heart because you created the conditions precipitating a ripple in other people's thinking so they too, can help others learn something new.
Monday, December 15, 2008
standards and education
We've recently had an election, won by the conservatives who, as part of their electioneering, decided that standards weren't good enough in our education system (despite PISA and TIMMS results to the contrary, and existing accountability and evidence processes in place). Their answer was to ram ahead with legislation forcing schools to test and report on primary school kids' achievement results.
Generally, I admire Pita Sharples' comments- they're usually sound and sensible. However, I have to say that his outpouring on behalf of Maori students, as a justification for intensifying testing regulations per se, is ill judged. That is not to say that Maori students have not been well served; his answer regarding testing just isn't the right one.
I think this new administration have forgotten to look at the evidence from elsewhere about the effects of such accountability. The evidence is easy to find, and is reported on in peer reviewed academic journals. Basically, it means at least the following are possible scenarios:
1. that a testing regime mooted by this government appears to assume, on the face of it, that all schools and students and all teachers are the same, with the same resources and opportunities (ie, that educational achievement is affected by neither poverty nor wealth, nor visual nor aural ability, physical dexterity (eg in holding a pen or using a keyboard), verbal or mathematical skills, or existing cultural capital/habitus students and teachers bring to school; or that all teachers are all highly competent and knowledgeable about their subject matter, students, and have a wide pedagogical repertoire to draw on, or that no classes contain disruptive students)... Given that this government wants to increase the amount of state money to private schools it is hoped it will also increase the the amount of money available to state schools, so that all can better balance the opportunities for learners.
2. that educational achievement is not affected by levels of maturity or readiness (in some domains of learning, there is documented evidence for specific levels of maturation before particular concepts or motor skills can be readily introduced)
3. that making results of primary-aged students' achievements public (ie via school/year etc) will not adversely affect teachers' and schools' desire to support all students, compared with those who will make them look best (as has sometimes happened at NCEA levels, where some students have been steered away from entering certain Achievement Standards and/or not counted in the school's attainment levels in order to improve the overall look of the published achievement rates)
4. that teachers won't begin to teach to the test, and forgo/bypass actual learning - which can be cumulative and gradual; there is quite a lot of evidence about the relationship between teaching to the test and suboptimal learning opportunities
5. that experimenting with risk-taking in learning wouldn't be in jeopardy, because when learners take risks with their learning, it often destabilises learning in the short term. In such cases, students and teachers can become disheartened, because it looks as if introducing this new concept/skill has had an adverse effect - they may be looking to the test, not the potential for learning - when it is temporary, and necessary in order to restabilise with the new knowledge/skill in place after practice.
I hope that this new regime will not end up with a withered plant- like the cartoon I saw years ago. A farmer kept pulling up a growing sapling to check the state of the roots as a measure of how well it was growing. Eventually, the plant withered and died from the exposure of the roots.
Generally, I admire Pita Sharples' comments- they're usually sound and sensible. However, I have to say that his outpouring on behalf of Maori students, as a justification for intensifying testing regulations per se, is ill judged. That is not to say that Maori students have not been well served; his answer regarding testing just isn't the right one.
I think this new administration have forgotten to look at the evidence from elsewhere about the effects of such accountability. The evidence is easy to find, and is reported on in peer reviewed academic journals. Basically, it means at least the following are possible scenarios:
1. that a testing regime mooted by this government appears to assume, on the face of it, that all schools and students and all teachers are the same, with the same resources and opportunities (ie, that educational achievement is affected by neither poverty nor wealth, nor visual nor aural ability, physical dexterity (eg in holding a pen or using a keyboard), verbal or mathematical skills, or existing cultural capital/habitus students and teachers bring to school; or that all teachers are all highly competent and knowledgeable about their subject matter, students, and have a wide pedagogical repertoire to draw on, or that no classes contain disruptive students)... Given that this government wants to increase the amount of state money to private schools it is hoped it will also increase the the amount of money available to state schools, so that all can better balance the opportunities for learners.
2. that educational achievement is not affected by levels of maturity or readiness (in some domains of learning, there is documented evidence for specific levels of maturation before particular concepts or motor skills can be readily introduced)
3. that making results of primary-aged students' achievements public (ie via school/year etc) will not adversely affect teachers' and schools' desire to support all students, compared with those who will make them look best (as has sometimes happened at NCEA levels, where some students have been steered away from entering certain Achievement Standards and/or not counted in the school's attainment levels in order to improve the overall look of the published achievement rates)
4. that teachers won't begin to teach to the test, and forgo/bypass actual learning - which can be cumulative and gradual; there is quite a lot of evidence about the relationship between teaching to the test and suboptimal learning opportunities
5. that experimenting with risk-taking in learning wouldn't be in jeopardy, because when learners take risks with their learning, it often destabilises learning in the short term. In such cases, students and teachers can become disheartened, because it looks as if introducing this new concept/skill has had an adverse effect - they may be looking to the test, not the potential for learning - when it is temporary, and necessary in order to restabilise with the new knowledge/skill in place after practice.
I hope that this new regime will not end up with a withered plant- like the cartoon I saw years ago. A farmer kept pulling up a growing sapling to check the state of the roots as a measure of how well it was growing. Eventually, the plant withered and died from the exposure of the roots.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
so what?
Ok, this is probably going to be a bit niche- but I don't care. I reckon that more people need to understand more about education. I know, everyone's been there (except maybe for the chronic truants) and so everyone's an expert. However, most of us have been tot he doctor or the hospital, but we don't think we're experts about being doctors or patients, do we? So why do people think that because they've been to school they know what school or education's about?
Other than the tales of woe about subjects people hated/disliked or loved, the other topic seems to be about teachers who inspired and teachers who astounded. Both have rather idiosyncratic anecdotes attached to them. Yes, yes, - it shows that schools and teachers are influential for both fair and foul reasons, but does that mean they know what learning means? So what it means to be a teacher?
There are many schools of thought about what a teacher is and does. Some would say it's about delivering a curriculum; some would say it's about subject specialty; some that it's a craft or profession. Some think it's a rather technical and straightforward job of filling kids full of stuff so they can come out the other end. And that this factory process can be used for political ends- the usual criticism is that it's about social engineering. This makes me laugh- since when has education NOT been about social engineering? Think about what people want schools to do - teach kids about being safe - drugs, road safety, sex; teach worthy skills like cooking, literacy and mathematics; teach students knowledge we think is important (whoever 'we' is). Even making decisions about whether or not students should have access to other languages and at what levels is about both social and knowledge engineering.
I reckon that education is about teaching students to be 'incendiary citizens' (Birmbaug & Emig) - able to change the world. We cannot do that if we chuck stuff at them, we need instead to teach them how to sift, sort and critique everything they read (and by 'read', I mean any kind of text - written, verbal, visual, physical, still, moving, wikied, blogged... whatever).
So, if this is the job of a teacher (as well as parents and other who have vested interests in what their kids are up to), then it cannot just be about filling kids full of stuff (aka subject content). It has to be about metacognition (aka understanding how to learn and think). Teachers have to challenge and take risks and invite students to do the same so they can learn how to create their own knowledge, while being guided and supported along the way. Even if they don't think they want to be, or even when other things in their lives are getting in the way.
So what? This is the quintessential scholarly question. 'So what' does this mean? 'So what' is a big question, implying critique and an ability to deal with the notion of significance. Developing this is a very BIG thing and takes time to help students do this naturally. It is not necessarily something everyone wants to be able to do, because it's hard work but is rewarding, and what kids, in my experience anyway, appreciate- eventually. However, at this time, they make be in their 20s and not around to talk to. If ever there was a profession about delayed gratification, then this is it! Those moments, when you're in a public place and someone bowls up and says, 'you may not remember me, but when I was in year 12, you taught me and....', are magical and hugely important to teachers. Knowing you've made a positive difference to someone's experience of school is the biggest thrill of all.
So, being a teacher is about doing hard things, not straightforward ones; complex rather than simple ones, with people who may prefer (especially if they're teenagers) to be somewhere else. And one of the hardest things is to guide kids about what they need to do to do even better; to praise, and also tell them hard things that make them uncomfortable so they can improve.
I think I'll have to carry this on another time...
Other than the tales of woe about subjects people hated/disliked or loved, the other topic seems to be about teachers who inspired and teachers who astounded. Both have rather idiosyncratic anecdotes attached to them. Yes, yes, - it shows that schools and teachers are influential for both fair and foul reasons, but does that mean they know what learning means? So what it means to be a teacher?
There are many schools of thought about what a teacher is and does. Some would say it's about delivering a curriculum; some would say it's about subject specialty; some that it's a craft or profession. Some think it's a rather technical and straightforward job of filling kids full of stuff so they can come out the other end. And that this factory process can be used for political ends- the usual criticism is that it's about social engineering. This makes me laugh- since when has education NOT been about social engineering? Think about what people want schools to do - teach kids about being safe - drugs, road safety, sex; teach worthy skills like cooking, literacy and mathematics; teach students knowledge we think is important (whoever 'we' is). Even making decisions about whether or not students should have access to other languages and at what levels is about both social and knowledge engineering.
I reckon that education is about teaching students to be 'incendiary citizens' (Birmbaug & Emig) - able to change the world. We cannot do that if we chuck stuff at them, we need instead to teach them how to sift, sort and critique everything they read (and by 'read', I mean any kind of text - written, verbal, visual, physical, still, moving, wikied, blogged... whatever).
So, if this is the job of a teacher (as well as parents and other who have vested interests in what their kids are up to), then it cannot just be about filling kids full of stuff (aka subject content). It has to be about metacognition (aka understanding how to learn and think). Teachers have to challenge and take risks and invite students to do the same so they can learn how to create their own knowledge, while being guided and supported along the way. Even if they don't think they want to be, or even when other things in their lives are getting in the way.
So what? This is the quintessential scholarly question. 'So what' does this mean? 'So what' is a big question, implying critique and an ability to deal with the notion of significance. Developing this is a very BIG thing and takes time to help students do this naturally. It is not necessarily something everyone wants to be able to do, because it's hard work but is rewarding, and what kids, in my experience anyway, appreciate- eventually. However, at this time, they make be in their 20s and not around to talk to. If ever there was a profession about delayed gratification, then this is it! Those moments, when you're in a public place and someone bowls up and says, 'you may not remember me, but when I was in year 12, you taught me and....', are magical and hugely important to teachers. Knowing you've made a positive difference to someone's experience of school is the biggest thrill of all.
So, being a teacher is about doing hard things, not straightforward ones; complex rather than simple ones, with people who may prefer (especially if they're teenagers) to be somewhere else. And one of the hardest things is to guide kids about what they need to do to do even better; to praise, and also tell them hard things that make them uncomfortable so they can improve.
I think I'll have to carry this on another time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)