3 Big Ideas

After watching the five videos of FutureWatch 1, it was clear to me what the big ideas were:

1. Use the technology tools that students are using already to engage them.
2. Students need to be taught how to think and learn, rather than focus on content.
3. Since what needs to be taught is different, the role of the teacher needs to be different.

Digital Natives are considered to be the people growing up during this technological revolution and are considered to be more intuitive with things like computers, iPods, Web 2.0, etc. So now we have Digital Learners, aka 21st Century Students. The idea is that these kids use these tech tools, they like to use them, so why not use them for teaching? I have seen first hand how much more engaging a PowerPoint can be than just me up at the whiteboard talking. But it is more than just entertainment value, there is also opportunities for interactivity with many of these tools. I remember hearing from someone (professor?) that since students use technology, they expect their teachers to be using them also. According to the article written by Gregory R. Roberts, Technology and Learning Expectations of the Net Generation, "a key component of the Net Generation's definition of technology is customization, or the ability to adapt technology to meet individual needs, rather than vice versa." Customization? Meeting individual needs? Sound like good teaching to me.


Teachers are faced with the task of preparing students for the 21st century workforce, which apparently means we need to prepare them for jobs that don't exist yet! So what needs to be focused on is a skill set that can be transferable to all things -- thinking and learning. A simple example of this idea is comparing and contrasting. This is a thinking strategy, whether it is looking at different representations in math or comparing writing styles of two authors. It is a thinking skill that can be transferred to other disciplines. So are we teaching our kids to think or are we teaching them to pass a test? Are we teaching them how to learn? This is the information age; the idea of going to a library to research a topic seems almost absurd! So, are we teaching students how to find the information that they need to learn about a topic or to solve a problem? That will be a skill that they will need for that job that doesn't exist yet!

To be able to teach students how to learn, how to acquire information, the role of the teacher must evolve. The Networked Student video describes Connectivism: "learning occurs as a part of a social network of many diverse connections and ties...made possible by various tools of technology." The teacher does not lecture, there is no text book. The student is guided through an information gathering process, with the teacher acting as a facilitator (though as you can see in the photo, more descriptive titles have been used). I remember learning in my Ed Psyche class during the credential program that when a student learns or discovers something on their own, it is stronger learning. The role of the teacher as lecturer is disappearing; the role of teacher as facilitator is increasing.

So here is the problem -- many schools do not have access to the technology. But many schools are starting to catch up. With the passing of Prop. S, the San Diego Unified School District has developed a plan to upgrade the technology in every school. Every classroom will be an 21st Century (i-21) Interactive Classroom. So here's the new problem -- the teachers in these classrooms are mostly digital immigrants. There is nothing intuitive to them about blogs, or wikis, or podcasts. You can give teachers all the tools there are, but if they don't know how to use them there is no point. So training will be the key for a successful transition to 21st Century Classrooms. Teachers need to learn to use the tools, learn to be a faciltator, and focus on teaching how to learn.
There should be lots of work for us Ed Tec graduates!

Team Work?

So I'm reading about two different models (GSTE, SUTE) for implementing change at an organizational level (e.g. school district), and for the most part it's all theoretical. So I found myself trying to make connections to what's going on or has gone on in the past in my own school district. Currently the San Diego Unified School District has a new superintendent, Terry Grier, who is still in his first year. He is the third superintendent we've had since I began teaching. By far the most infamous of the three is Alan Bersin, whose sweeping reforms angered many teachers.

Bersin definitely was shooting for systemic change; there was nothing piecemeal about what he was doing. I had a discussion with my current principal, who was my vice principal during the Bersin era. At the time Bersin took over, overall district test scores were dismal, so the school board hired him to bring about change quickly. "Bersin is a sledgehammer," my principal described. This really goes against these models of change I have been reading about. Both models describe lots of team forming. GSTE describes Starter Teams, Leadership Teams, different levels of Design Teams. SUTE describes Community Forums, Strategic Leadership Team, Cluster Improvement Team, Site Improvement Team. All these TEAMS! Collective effort of teams. These models do seem to be rather lengthy processes, in fact a continuous ongoing process. But the average life span of a superintendent is about three years. That's not a lot of time when you are charged with getting immediate results. Also, one of the necessary conditions for the SUTE model to be successful is "Senior leaders who act on the basis of personal courage, passion, and vision; not on the basis of fear or self-survival." I'm sure that many of our senior leaders do exhibit some of the first three qualities, but since school board members are also elected officials, I'm not sure self-survival can ever truly be removed form the equation.

Another condition for success was "Senior leaders who conceive of their districts as whole systems; not as a collection of individual schools and programs." Bersin was treating the district as a whole system, but this was also one of the things that most angered people. Many of the failing schools had large English Learner populations, so he felt needed longer periods of literacy instruction (to his credit, Bersin did not come up with his ideas all on his own -- he relied on studies and experts). Thus the 3 hour Literacy Block was born and ALL schools in the district were expected to implement it -- even the schools that were high-achieving. I have doubts that an entire district really can be treated the same, any more than a classroom of children can all be taught the same way. Decentralizing the district has actually been suggested recently.

One thing Bersin was very good at was soliciting funds for his programs which included extensive professional development for teachers, which I personally benefited from being a new teacher at the time. Even though test scores did go up, Bersin was constantly criticized for his top-down management style. Curiously enough, Terry Grier is not also starting to receive the same criticism. Grier so far has only made piecemeal changes; their is an emphasis on analyzing student assessment data to direct instruction. Teachers are now saying that they are having to give too many tests. Instructional Leadership Teams is another thing he has put into place. These teams are made up of a teacher from each grade level, which meet together once a month to go over student progress and come up with ways to improve. But since most teachers don't volunteer to be on the ILT, the principal ends up asking the teachers s/he thinks will be willing to do it. Many of the other teachers simply see the ILT as a vehicle for the principal to implement the changes s/he wants to make. Again, top-down. Mostly I think teachers just do not like to be told what to do. This is where all those teams come in to play. The teachers are the major stakeholders in systemic change, and they need to be on board for any change to be successful. But then again, trying to get a room full of teachers to agree on anything can be a formidable task as well.

Differentiationism

My sister often tells me about how she is displeased with her children's teachers. Usually it is because she does not believe her kids are being challenged enough. Undoubtedly, she will bring up differentiated instruction in these conversations. Although individualizing instruction is not a new idea, it has become a more common battle cry among many parents (not just my sister). Certainly there is no argument against differentiation. All would agree that it is needed, whether it is to challenge a GATE student or to try and raise the achievement of English Language Learning students. You can not use a "cookie cutter" for all kids.

Now think of all the different instructional theories there are (behaviorism, constructivism, information processing theory, situated learning, cognitive load theory, etc.), and all the different learning modalities and styles there are (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, multiple intelligences, etc.). How on earth can you figure out what is best for each and every student? But that is what we are striving for isn't it? We want each student to have their own individual plan that takes into account what type of learner they are and what kind of instruction they will best respond to. That is why Differentiationism will be the learning theory of the future.

Having read a bit about different instructional strategies, I have come to these two conclusions: 1) They are all reasonable theories. 2) No one can prove which one works best. So, seemingly it is a matter of taking three things into consideration when designing instruction. What is it that you're teaching? What is the learning style of your learner? What instructional theory best fits these two factors? And there you have it: differentiationism.