How Do You Know What You Know?

My daughter, almost three years, has reached the stage in her cognition where she is always asking "Why?" Sometimes, she's questioning authority or a statement or even a reality and I respond with an assertion such as "because that's the way it is". Often it's a good question, and I respond with what I can in order to take this simple question and produce a bit of true understanding for her. I want her to grow up curious about her world. I want her to explore it and build understanding that leads her toward an increasingly successful future. But it's what she says after I provide a response that leads me to the following: "Why?"

How do we know what we know? Seems like an odd question, but there is not a consensus about the answer. You're not likely to ever really consider what this question entails, or pursue it through to it's end. But follow me as I try to capture some of my thinking as I ponder the implications of this question, specifically related to educational technology. 

Constructivism is a theory that states that the way we learn is through a process of building understanding as a result of an active cognitive encounter with a new learning experience. The understanding we have about our world changes, but it may or may not change significantly depending on how a learning experiences challenge the way we understand something to be. We we add into this process, the people with whom we learn, directly or indirectly, we have social constructivism - building or constructing knowledge together through our shared experiences and understandings. 

Recently I was engaged in a conversation regarding the debate over how we know what we know. The other camp in opposition to constructivism asserts a very objective position. What this means is that scientific research and the scholars that have participated in building this body of knowledge we rely upon and teach to our children is truth, fact, and larger than humanity. This knowledge of the world is bigger than just "how we see it". They state that if we cease to exist, our understanding of the world would live on. This differs from the subjective camp in that constructivists claim that our knowledge is dependent upon culture and the people that have created that understanding. 

The conversation I was engaged in was focused on educational technology. Regardless of where individuals stand, the way in which we employ technology has always had an impact on this debate. So, where does educational technology fit?

Educational technology is critical to the subjective camp - at least it is inherently associated. This is so because never before have participants to the construction of knowledge been so superfluous and involved. No longer is information so tightly controlled by aristocratic academics. Some may see this as decreasing the aggregated wealth of knowledge and understanding, but civilizations have known the cost of knowledge being too limited (Dark Ages). Society rests upon the accumulated wealth of understanding we all build every single day. Students are the future of this wealth and it is the station of educational technology to continue it's advance through investment in it rather than deposits from it. 

We have the chance to become participants and to allow our students to become participants as well. Are we controlled by the body of knowledge or do we take part in controlling it? How do you know what you know?

Educational Technology and Constructivism

		My daughter, almost three years, has reached the stage in her cognition where she is always asking "Why?" Sometimes, she's questioning authority or a statement or even a reality and I respond with an assertion such as "because that's the way it is". Often it's a good question, and I respond with what I can in order to take this simple question and produce a bit of true understanding for her. I want her to grow up curious about her world. I want her to explore it and build understanding that leads her toward an increasingly successful future. But it's what she says after I provide a response that leads me to the following: "Why?" How do we know what we know? Seems like an odd question, but there is not a consensus about the answer. You're not likely to ever really consider what this question entails, or pursue it through to it's end. But follow me as I try to capture some of my thinking as I ponder the implications of this question, specifically related to educational technology.  Constructivism is a theory that states that the way we learn is through a process of building understanding as a result of an active cognitive encounter with a new learning experience. The understanding we have about our world changes, but it may or may not change significantly depending on how a learning experiences challenge the way we understand something to be. We we add into this process, the people with whom we learn, directly or indirectly, we have social constructivism - building or constructing knowledge together through our shared experiences and understandings.  Recently I was engaged in a conversation regarding the debate over how we know what we know. The other camp in opposition to constructivism asserts a very objective position. What this means is that scientific research and the scholars that have participated in building this body of knowledge we rely upon and teach to our children is truth, fact, and larger than humanity. This knowledge of the world is bigger than just "how we see it". They state that if we cease to exist, our understanding of the world would live on. This differs from the subjective camp in that constructivists claim that our knowledge is dependent upon culture and the people that have created that understanding.  The conversation I was engaged in was focused on educational technology. Regardless of where individuals stand, the way in which we employ technology has always had an impact on this debate. So, where does educational technology fit? Educational technology is critical to the subjective camp - at least it is inherently associated. This is so because never before have participants to the construction of knowledge been so superfluous and involved. No longer is information so tightly controlled by aristocratic academics. Some may see this as decreasing the aggregated wealth of knowledge and understanding, but civilizations have known the cost of knowledge being too limited (Dark Ages). Society rests upon the accumulated wealth of understanding we all build every single day. Students are the future of this wealth and it is the station of educational technology to continue it's advance through investment in it rather than deposits from it.  We have the chance to become participants and to allow our students to become participants as well. Are we controlled by the body of knowledge or do we take part in controlling it? How do you know what you know?

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Stresses on Education - Learning Abilities, Culture, and the Brain

I've been asked to describe the role of education on intelligence. It appears as though education may not have a “role” in any of the differing views on what intelligence is, how to measure it, or how to increase it. Considering the inability to generate a consensus as to what intelligence is or how to classify, categorize, and interpret different types of intelligences, this tells us that we may never understand it to the point of developing structures and environments to “produce” it. Intelligence is elusive. Unfortunately, so much pressure and stake is placed on that which we are unable to describe. Our institutionalized educational practices such as grading provides little to no insight into one’s intelligence. This could be a product of flawed grading methods used by the teacher, low motivation but high efficacy of the student, and many other alternatives. However, it still stands that education has long had a problem of identifying, producing, and increasing intelligence. That all sounds a bit paradoxical.

What then of the great push toward free, compulsory education? Our culture has developed from the simple melting pot into what has become a “mixing bowl”, consisting of a greater diversity than America has ever seen. The statistic that was striking was that by 2050 (within our lifetime) there will be no majority race or ethnicity. A nation that prides itself in the great maxim that “out of many, we are one” (E Pluribus Unum) has never been farther from it. We’re not one of anything. Since WWII, our society (I can’t even say “our culture”) has increasingly become more accepting of ethnic and cultural differences - almost, it seems, against our will. In the golden ages of public education, when the government first started funding millions of dollars to education in order to produce scientists and engineers to combat communism, the classroom was not diverse; at least the segregated schools weren’t diverse. SInce the Civil Rights Movement (and the subsequent spin-off equal rights movements) and through the 70s, American society has pushed public education to serve the greater needs of all demographics, no one is expected to assimilate. Johnson’s Great Society ushered in a wave of ideological reforms to close the income gap and increase the likelihood of a chance to succeed, putting American society on the path toward multiculturalism.

Since then, schools have grown into the provider of all things. It seems that every piece of educational legislation passed since has increased the demands of schools, and none of them have made teaching students any easier. While this all certainly makes a strong case for civic education, the effects of diversity on education is difficult to grasp. To do so involves conversations on motivation, expectations, stereotyping, gender differences and bias, and language acquisition and barriers. These effects exact a staggering toll on the teachers and students. Consider the perspective of a Hispanic girl, whose parents speak no English, and are unable to overcome unemployment - the odds stacked against her are seemingly insurmountable! What if she is labeled as having a learning disability, what then? This is not a far-fetched scenario. As we have been frighteningly unable to educate children out of poverty (meaning the cycle of poverty continues despite increased educational opportunities), how are we to educate the whole packages?

This makes us wonder, do we even stand a chance? Does education hold the promise for our future?

Final Thoughts on Motivation

There are few things that are as perplexing and complex in the study of psychology as motivation. In the educational setting the factors that influence student learning behaviors are interwoven and dynamic, changing from classroom to classroom, hour to hour. A good question for the teacher, parent, administrator, or ed psych student may be “How can teachers possibly make a difference?” The first step to identifying an answer for that question is to look into the role schools play on affecting student motivation. Fortunately, as complex as motivation is, it is also well-studied. Learning environments play a significant role in the students’ ability to sustain efforts in the classroom. However, this role is too often negative. This is not likely to be intentional, therefore making understanding motivation even more important.

Students’ need to belong, defined by Maslow, generates a strong pull for students to become engaged intensely within a community of learners. The concept of legitimate peripheral participation suggests that even novices are motivated to participate in order to acquire and maintain their membership and identity. In this sense, online communities can effectively motivate learners to become involved in ways they may not be able to in face-to-face settings. Consider communities such as Classroom 2.0, or the MACULSpace, two Ning networks where teachers are encouraged to join to learn more about the role technologies play in learning. By creating an environment where learning is important, teachers can take great strides toward increasing students motivation. Additionally, self determination theory asserts that motivation is high among students who feel a sense of relatedness to teachers, peers, and parents.

Within the realm of learning, students’ personal needs are greatly overlooked, underestimated, and ignored. Often, parents and students alike tend to prefer teachers and classrooms that are controlling. These classrooms have the appearance of order and focus, but may instead be decreasing students’ need for autonomy. Rules, deadlines, schedules, orders, and limits are all external controls that students struggle against. Increasing the pressures beyond these elements may allow teachers and classrooms to increase students’ self determination.

Goals are a very common source of motivation. Regardless of size or scope, they can provide the necessary impetus to achieve. There are many aspects of the school setting that alter the kinds of goals students make. Although performance and competition are often very motivating forces, these kinds of activities can lead students to become ego-involved learners, setting goals that focuses on the performance rather than the learning. Additionally, teacher feedback can assist students to relate positively to goal achievement. By providing feedback appropriately and timely, student achievement toward that goal, and therefore their motivation in the task, can be greatly improved.

School has a significant influence in the self-efficacy of students. Every time a student receives feedback on work, tests and quizzes, comments, and other interactions, this feedback likely alters the student’s beliefs about his or her abilities. Taken together, these can create students who are empowered to achieve and students who believe that their abilities are fixed and uncontrollable. The differences between these are vast and generate the complex environment in which we teach.

Schools, therefore, are both the cause and the promise for creating and sustaining motivated learners. The solution is in the increased understanding of the impacts that teachers have on motivation and learning.

Be sure to read the post that came before this one: "Understanding Motivation"

Understanding Motivation

If you were asked what motivated you, what would you say? My wife would say she is motivated by competition, which explains a lot of things; particularly it explains why I have never beaten her in a game of "Horse". Often, our motivations extend much deeper into our cognition and who we really are as an individual.

I sought out to explore this in response to an assignment called "Understanding Motivation" given this past week for my graduate proseminar. The task was to interview someone to seek what motivates them to learn. Funny how that assignment seems so simple, yet within it reside two of the broadest terms in all of psychology - motivate and learn. Truly, these provided for a vast amount of freedom within the task, but also made it nearly impossible to determine what I wanted to produce as a result of this activity. I decided to put a few notes on paper, but to really let my interview determine the outcome of my final product; perhaps as a journalist would proceed.

 

For my interview subject, I wanted a student whom I knew was available, but would also provide the best responses without worrying about the content of his/her answers. I teach freshman U.S. History in a public school, so finding an adolescent who fit this description isn't as easy as it sounds. However, I probably picked the best subject imaginable for this interview.

 

Chris is a fifteen year old who is as teenage male as it gets. I was able to secure a few hours with him between practices and games, as this is the intense part of his summer baseball schedule. I sent him a text message asking him if he'd honor me with his time, and, upon agreeing, I asked him to give me a call when he had the chance so I could relate to him a few of my questions and allow him a chance to prepare. This was on Sunday, and we agreed from the phone conversation to meet Tuesday. He sent a text Monday evening saying "Mr. Bruce, Is there anyway you can make that interview Wednesday? I won't be ready tomorrow. Thank you much :)" I knew then I had the right person.

 

We spoke for over two hours Wednesday afternoon, discussing his passions for math and physics, baseball, football, how those interests inspire him, the role that his passions affect his relationships with friends and family, etc. He related examples of times when he was particularly challenged, and how, after a test on which he did poorly over a topic that he could not comprehend, he pursued understanding because of the challenge. With no reward, the challenge motivated him. He explained the difference between loving something because you are good at it and being good at it because you love it. His drives to learn and achieve are powerful, deep, and intensely intrinsic.

 

I had over two hours of audio to sort through, but the experience was great. He shed light on aspects of motivation I had not considered. When the conversation moved into work - something he does almost strictly for money - he motivated himself by making it personal, to advance himself for his future by having this to refer to when applying for more rewarding work later on. However, once he was at work (cooking in a restaurant) his motivations had a very moral and ethical flavor. The desire to do his best at this task, one in which has consequences far greater than many occupations, Chris competes with himself to serve the best dish possible. And if he wouldn't eat it, he won't serve it. 

 

Where else can morality and ethics play a role in motivation? In our conversation about sports, Chris related a situation where he was expected to play basketball, almost solely because he is good. He decided against it because his enjoyment for it did not exist and he would not allow himself to take the position of someone who really does enjoy it. By stating this, he provided insight into the question "can you love something because you're good at it?" However, his decision follows an unwritten social code. By not playing, his considerations for unknown, unaware classmates are unthanked. His decision to do what he felt was right is a profound motivator.

 

The study of motivation continues to explore the interplay between internal and external forces. As sure as we are about why we act or behave, a little digging can reveal hidden motivations. Aspects of personality, morality, social constructs, and situations all affect our behavior - all at once. On the surface, Chris may have been considered lazy by some classmates (potential teammates) by not playing basketball, but within, he made a decision that affected unknown others. He may mope his way to work, but once there, you'd never see it in the intensity of his efforts in the kitchen. On the field, he performs as though he has been coached from birth, but really it's the aspiration of overcoming greater talent. In the classroom, his teachers can revel in their success, but their PowerPoint is scratching the surface of what is possible.

  
Download now or listen on posterous

Understanding_Motivation.m4a (6080 KB)

Testing the Waters

Below is a piece written as part of a debate regarding the "Bowling Alone" post from last week. In this particular step in the debate, I assume the position of the other side in this argument that technology will continue to drain our social capital. Essentially, "The way I understand your side is..."

By increasing the quantity of communication and reducing the substance of conversations that once challenged people’s beliefs and intellectual structures, technology has watered-down the interactions that once built and sustained the social capital necessary for a self-governed people.

Interactions among and between humans in a society is a necessary part of American political culture. The conversations, discussions, and arguments that occur as a result of gatherings, conferences, leagues, and church potlucks (a few of the many examples), create a social capital that exists within and among the civic body. This capital is comprised of the ideas, understandings, opinions, and debates that, taken collectively, drive engagement in civic responsibilities and allow a population to self-govern. When identifying the underlying factor to a significant, threatening decline in social capital, there is no need to look any further than television.

The ferocious rate at which Americans purchased televisions through the 1950s created a generation of children wired for the consumption of television. As this generation trickled into adulthood, comprising an increasing quantity of the population, their values began to impact and upset social capital. The consumption of television programming created a demand met by broadcasting corporations set in motion a vacuum of social capital, the impacts of which still resonate and will continue to do so.

The interaction and discourse necessary to increase or even sustain social capital cannot be achieved through technology-based communities. The connections that are created are often superficial and will not lead to the substantive exchanges as were commonplace in the pre-television bowling alley. Additionally, the political or cultural activism that sparks from time to time built in a social networking platform may seem hopeful. However, this is a collection of like-minded individuals who are uninterested in discourse that challenges them to defend a position and, therefore, perpetuates the decline. 

As people disengage from social experiences, so goes with it the construction of our world as it were. As technology advances beyond the television into an era in which social communication and interaction has been relegated to vapid exchanges devoid of substance and worth, the reservoir of social capital will continue to drain.

 

So what's the verdict? Are there pieces to this controversy that have been neglected? From the "Bowling Alone" post to this one, have all considerations been made?

A.V. Undercover | The A.V. Club

via avclub.com

If you know me, then you know I enjoy The Onion for it's socio-political satire. Disregarding this for a moment, I'd like to share a great break from whatever consumes you for a moment, coincidentally brought to us through The Onion.

As a music lover, I've sought a variety of resources that provides insight into music that breaks the mold, transcends the old, and serves as a refuge from the trash that often pollutes the radio waves and, too often, the inter-tubes. Enter A.V. Club.

This source is a great way to discover or uncover "new" music. My favorite thing they do is invite and challenge bands to cover songs that they've chosen for whatever reason that week. What is produced is remarkable and speaks to those of us studying the limits of creativity.

So for those of you in my EPET cohort: Take a break! That goes for the rest of you, too.

Bowling Alone

It's warm. Our heat index is somewhere in the upper nineties and I's not even reached the hottest part of the day. A good thing to do on a day like today is to sit; relax, rest, do that which requires almost no physical movement at all. The best part about this is that while you sit, you can also read. 

That's right. There's no better opportunity for some cognitive stimulation than when it's 90+ outside (and perhaps inside for those unfortunate souls without air conditioning). 

I've taken this opportunity to read a 1995 work from Robert Putnam called "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strage Disappearance of Social Capital in America". This lecture was actually a precursor to a book Putnam later wrote called Bowling Alone. His work seeks to identify the factors that are responsible for the significant decline in social capital in America. 

He identifies social capital as the civic "engagement in community affairs" (p. 664), or the networks created by the engagement in groups or possibly created for specific purposes or to achieve a goal. This social interaction produces a civic efficacy that leads to a more productive civic body; Putnam concludes with a quote from his predecessor, Ithiel de Sola Pool, stating that the decline, caused by technology, "will promote individualism and will make it harder, not easier, to govern and organize a coherent society."

The question that struck me comes from his assertion that technology will reinforce a generational trend that has produced a society very detached from each other. I question, "How can the socially charged, connection-dependent technology of today - becoming increasingly ubiquitous - be responsible for continuing a trend toward individualism and a decline in social capital?"

First, some observations. Recent elections, national and state, have produced results that do not demonstrate a significant degree of disparity between candidates. Runoff elections, manually recounting ballots, and elections in which official's seats remain unfilled due to the prolonged nature of elections that are essentially 50-50 suggest a trend that Putnam was getting after. In teaching social studies to high school students, I have proposed this inquiry as a public policy issue. What does it mean when popular elections fail to choose a candidate? Is it because the candidates have attributes that are equally appealing across ideologies? Or, rather, is it suggestive of the apathetic nature of the civic body? With a population that has become disengaged civically, elections (regardless of how many people actually vote) become a coin-toss. See John Stossel's 20/20 report on why it may be unfruitful for some to vote.

The trend identified by Putnam pointed to the television as the single most responsible culprit in causing the loss of social capital. Television, as a technology, has forever changed society in many ways, particularly through the mass communication mode. It is responsible for delivering the realities of a distant war in Vietnam and for demonstrating the power of intellectual achievements when the approximately 600 million people around the world watched Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin dance on the Moon. Can television really have also caused the disengagement of citizens from their civic nature?

Putnam's arguments are compelling, specifically his assertions regarding the role of television on time displacement (time spent watching TV is irrevocably removed from the available 24 hours of the day) and the effects on children (TV consumes as much time as all other discretionary activities combined, effectively de-socializing youth).

However, the question remains, "What about the technologies we enjoy today?" Certainly these technologies cannot be compared to the "brain-drain" nature of the TV. Putnam suggested that the current social capital "low" is a generational effect caused by television. There is no way to alter or counter such a significant social change or development. This suggests that it will be a half century before the current generation imprinted with current socially-driven technologies can counter this effect. However, are we sure that this generation of youths, the Y-Generation (weird calling them that, because I don't get much inquiry from them in the classroom...) are using the technology in a way that will produce an increase in social capital? I am not so sure that the social nature of the technology they use is inherently creating a more engaged civic body. 

This opens up opportunities for further research to see what conclusions, if any, have been made regarding a generational shift back toward civic engagement due in part to social technologies. Keith Hampton from MIT, along with Barry Wellman from the University of Toronto, has attempted to tackle this very question. In his publication, "Neighboring in Netville" (2003), Hampton concluded that a wired, "always-on" community demonstrated a reversal of the trend observed by Putnam and "intensified the volume and range of neighborly relations" (p.305). 

Much has changed since 2003. A major shift in the community nature of social networking sites has exponentially increased the contacts we have. These may or may not be substantive affiliations, but they do speak to the work to be done in analyzing the impact of technology in society. 

Order in Chaos

My dad was a man who appreciated hobbies. He wasn’t the kind to collect stuff, but rather he was a man of construction. He knew what he could do with his hands. It seems that you never appreciate things until after it’s gone, and this knack that dad had I am only beginning to understand in the years since his passing.

 

Dad grew up as a logger. Timber was his trade, but in his late twenties, he took a job in the booming mining industry in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. He would work at the Empire Mine excavating iron ore from what would become the world’s largest open iron ore pit. By the end of his career, he became the General Foreman of Pit Operations, overseeing everything that would come in and go out of this hole in the ground that measured two miles long, a mile wide, and a mile deep (a roughly 7.7 billion cubic meter hole - See it here). 

 

Of the many things he was good at, I’ve come to recognize that masonry may have been his favorite craft. I believe that he recognized that masonry was more than a trade but rather an art. Our home began as a rather modest pre-manufactured log home, but grew with the family (my parents would have 8 children). At the front of the house, dad built a four-foot stone facade that served simply for aesthetics. This low wall was comprised of huge flat stones carefully selected to fit like puzzle pieces and held together with only enough mortar to keep them in place. For me, it was largely under-appreciated and taken for granted. His masonry work can be seen all over the small rural community in which I grew up; the most recent of which is the stone chimney in my brother's house.

 

In 1963, Bernard K. Forscher had a letter published in Science, titled “Chaos in the Brickyard”. In this letter, Forscher told a story about the relationship between builders and brickmaking and the consequences of building bricks without concern for the edifice. His story describes how “once upon a time” builders would design and build edifices using bricks they themselves made in order to specifically meet the needs of the edifice. In this story the builders were analogous to scientists, the bricks facts, and the edifices laws or explanations. The story falls apart when Forscher describes how, in the interest of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the making of bricks was a task assigned to someone who could specialize in that area (junior scientists). Serving their own interests, the brickmakers created such a plethora of bricks of every different shape, size, color, and purpose, that the builders would have the flexibility to pick and choose from the multitude, rather than special-order kinds of brick.

 

As a result, the story concludes:

 

“Unfortunately, the builders were almost destroyed. It became difficult to find the proper bricks for a task because one had to hunt among so many. It became difficult to find a suitable plot for construction of an edifice because the ground was covered with loose bricks. It became difficult to complete a useful edifice because, as soon as the foundations were discernible, they were buried under an avalanche of random bricks. And, saddest of all, sometimes no effort was made even to maintain the distinction between a pile of bricks and a true edifice.”

 

It is understandable how this applies to science -- medical research in particular -- and the pitfalls of losing sight of what is important in the work of constructing “edifices”. However, I see a very contemporary relevance to a rather unrelated aspect of our society and culture. 

 

Education in the 21st century is plagued with a barrage of challenges, each with it’s own army of activists working to affect change.  When we consider the social, cultural, and ethical implications of an excessively dynamic technological surge, we must begin to see the need to carefully and intentionally include proper technology tools in our instruction. 

 

A problem that hampers the push to more effectively integrate the right technology tools is that there seems to be a large contingency of educators interested in the tools. Conferences and conventions are bringing unneeded attention to the multitude of technologies that may or may have no or limited affordances on student learning and cognition. Topics and sessions like “Cool Tools for School!” and the “Top 20 Web 2.0 Tools for the Classroom” are all about the glamour of 21st century education. 

 

With the field of educational technologies (and tools not intended for technology working their way into the field) doubling at such an alarming rate, teachers in the classroom are incapacitated by an inability to integrate technologies already out-of-date. Similarly, schools are trying to meet the social demands of student technology use by employing some technologies and outright banning some. This uninformed policy-making is costly in both budget and in time lost, meaning that when student technology use has been limited so has the education that accompanies it - forever. It is no wonder why a large percentage of teachers in our schools are resistant to technology integration.

 

It seems like the rush to create - and the fool-hardy consumption of - technologies intended for education has trained us to respond too quickly to what is best for education. It pays to tread carefully and to intentionally explore what works best, not for someone over there, but for you and your students.

 

Let’s bring these analogies full-circle. I remember when I was young, my dad and I went for a ride out to a portion of our property where he had excavated a portion of a field to expose the bedrock below the surface. In my dad’s craft of stone-masonry, he never simply put stones into a wall. Stones were laid a few at a time, having been carefully selected for that spot in the wall. The stone itself had properties, however, when taken into the context of the wall was part of a greater whole, and dad was sensitive to this perspective an artist knows the whole mural even as she works on a small area. In that particular visit to the “quarry”, he would select only two.

 

I see the value in that contemplation; the deliberate nature of his efforts, and the design of the whole from individual pieces. I see a very practical application of this methodical process in our integration of technologies into education. I also see the contagion of “cool” tools crippling this at every turn. So what’s the answer?

 

Chris Lehmann, principal of the Science Leadership Academy in Philidelphia, PA, wrote what he felt made a “great teacher”. Written in 2003, this blog post still strikes me as stunningly grounded on what’s important in any age. Among the twelve elements he thought were critical (see them all here), I identified two that are increasingly needed, but increasingly left out of training and professional development:

#5 - A willingness to change

#7 - A willingness to reflect

 

When taken in combination as a cycle, these are powerful elements that allow us as teachers to never be caught up in the hype of new tools, but to rather be mindful that there are things that can make instruction better, and after the employment of any aspect of a lesson/unit/or year, to reflect on how that could have been better and to seek that which may have been missing striving to make instruction better. Dan Maas recently tweeted (6/29/10) “The killer app for 21st century learning is a good teacher”. Prescient.

 

Take pride in being a “builder”.

Inaugural bonfire at the Bruce's.

Looking Ahead

"What are you going to school for?" While going to college, a student should prepare him/herself to answer this question at least a hundred times. My response was always "to teach", or "to become a teacher", or even to some, "I've always wanted to teach history". Of the many times that I had been asked that question, there's one particular dialogue I'll never forget.

I was working with a beverage distribution company and had finished up a stop and was in conversation with the owner when he asked me what I was doing in college. In reply I was quick and concise. He enthusiastically offered the following: "I have a friend who teaches. What a great gig! He works from 8 am to 3 pm nine months of the year; his vacations line up with his kids; and he never takes anything home, because the school's textbook gives him everything he needs to teach the class!" 

That conversation left a mark on me. Granted that the dialogue may be misconstrued a word or two, but I retain literary license. Regardless, something kept me from going home and promptly discarding the extensive work I had accumulated to the practice and craft of teaching social studies. Perhaps it was the disdain in the stereotypical reference to the perception of teachers, or maybe that my "profession" was tarnished by the representation and reputation of others before I was even in the classroom. Whatever it was, I became determined to ensure that no one could say those things about me.

As I sit in my den and look up at the wall, I see the two diplomas earned. One is a BS in Education earned at Central Michigan University. This diploma marked the beginning of my professional career, transforming me from a student into someone certified to practice the craft of opening students minds to the world in which they live. The second is a MA in Educational Technology, a degree earned from the College of Educational Psychology and Special Education (CEPSE) at Michigan State University that was designed to challenge the personal and social assumptions of the role that technology plays in student learning and achievement. 

These diplomas are symbols of academic achievement, representative of ground gained, progress made, and a shift that has occurred in my role as a professional and/or an academic. This shift has also been accompanied with a change in self-awareness and creates assumptions and expectations regarding the new knowledge. Both of the aforementioned degrees instilled a responsibility to become the greatest teacher I can be and to pursue methods and technologies to design instruction that transforms learning. This has become part of who I am. As a teacher, it is not enough to remain content in the curriculum, textbook, or classroom pedagogy that "worked". Rather I have been informed through the pursuit of the MA, as well as my experiences since then, that contentment in the classroom leads to complacency in the craft of teaching and ultimately the kind of teaching that is plaguing the system of education - the kind described above.

Recently I was accepted into a Educational Psychology and Educational Technology doctoral program through CEPSE at MSU (the same department that issued the MA in Ed Tech). This degree program is designed to explore the affordances and constraints of technology and to provide understanding to a field ripe for research given the rapid expansion of technology resources in social environments. Given the nature of the previous two diplomas, and the nature of the work ahead of me through this research degree, this diploma will not be another simple step in the academic ladder. Rather this diploma will place me in a position where I can advance a multitude of educators to see their profession for what it should be by allowing teachers to reach new levels and to take pride in their craft, transcending the constraints placed upon them by social and political pressure to perform. 

This diploma will have a particular symbolic reference, one that is larger in magnitude and in meaning. I hope it's bigger.

My Study Companion

Download now or watch on posterous

IMG_0002.mov (14223 KB)

As I sit in my den reading, writing, and completing coursework for my grad classes, I'm accompanied by my daughter Carmen. We have a good time talking about her pictures and what she likes about various things. She's a pal...