Did public education fail Humpty Dumpty? (Reflection 6712)

Synthesis is hard. It is difficult to take information from many sources, transform that information into something that makes sense to you, and then adapt your understanding of the world to accommodate the new way that you see the world. This is where learning gets personal. There is an investment. This is one of the key processes for really embracing information…and I am not good at making sure that my students know how to do this.

I am like most teachers in that I don’t model this step in the learning process very well because I have always thought that the students knew how to do this. This may not be true (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007). Synthesis is a complicated process that requires students to understand the individual pieces of information that they have found AND how those pieces fit together in some sort of way that is new for the students.

Questions are the foundation of learning. Questions allow you to go off and try to find answers if you are committed enough, and, while our searching strategies have changed with the use of new technologies, the search is still essential. Evaluating resources is still essential. Making meaning is essential and sharing out is still essential. All of these parts of the puzzle I knew were important, but what I didn’t realize until I reflected on my practice was how little effort I go through on a regular basis to make sure that my students understand how to bring all the pieces together.

The irony here is that I preach about how we have set our students up for failure in this area because we send them from subject to subject in school as if each subject were a stand alone part of the human knowledge base and I bemoan the student responses to discussions in my class that are cross curricular because I hear, “This is English, right? Why are we talking about philosophy, physics, free will and Moby Dick?” My reply is usually, “Everything is connected. You have to be able to transfer knowledge from one kind of class to another and from one situation to another. You understand that don’t you?”

If they have never been taught to put it all back together and had it modeled for them, the answer may very well be no. This is a shame considering that the ability to synthesize is part of almost every unit (Darrow, 2005). Sometimes, I wonder why something obvious is so hard to notice. That rocks with eyes would sell, that a piece of wire could be molded into a shape that would organize life for you, that superglue shouldn’t be applied generously to hands AND other items at the same time, and that we should be actively teaching our students how to put the fragments of knowledge that they find on their own (or more often that we give them) back together again.

Synthesis is hard. This is apparent from the fact that I didn’t consciously think about how to teach my students the process that I go through and processes that they could go through. If I am good at synthesis and have a hard time sometimes putting the pieces back together, how can I expect students to know how to do it? Hopefully they have had teachers who see that this skill needs active modeling (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007). I have a feeling that this doesn't happen most of the time though, based on Eagleton and Dobler’s (2007) statements and the statistics shared by Pitler and Hubble (2010) at the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Leadership Boot Camp about the delivery of instruction in the average classroom based on McREL’s observations.

Perhaps the reason that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again was the fact that they attended schools where their teachers thought that they knew how to put things together and never actually taught them how to do it. That is a change I am going to make. I am going to explicitly teach my students how to put the fragments of knowledge they have together in a meaningful way by demonstrating how I do.

This is an important change because we are about to move into attempting to work on a global scale. This last year my students decided that they were going to adopt an orphanage in Africa and while they did a great job, it is time for them to begin interacting with the people they want to help. That is why I am attending ISTE 2010 in Denver. Many of the sessions I am signed up for deal with collaborative tools and collaboration in global communities. Before I can teach my students how to interact in a global community, I need to understand it myself. I am attending sessions that I believe I will be able to meld into a single approach for this next year.

The whole time I am sitting in my sessions I will be looking for the threads that tie the information together and will be reflecting on the ways that I synthesize my knowledge into an understanding of how the parts fit together. That way, when it comes time for the school year to start, I will be able to teach my students how to interact with their world and how to make sure that they understand how they think about their world. Perhaps if teachers would have taken a little more time to teach how they thought they would have ended up students who were better at putting the pieces together and poor Humpty could have been superglued.

Darrow, R. (2005, October). Meaningful products: Making the whole greater than the sum of the parts. Library Media Connection, 24(2), 28.

Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the web: Strategies for internet inquiry. New York: The Guilford Press.

Pitler, H., Hubble, E. (2010). Informing policy on communication tools with McREL's research. Presented at the International Society for Technology in Education 2010 conference.

Full Circle

Sometimes in life we set out on a journey in order to find a better understanding of the world around us and end up in a new place. Sometimes, we return to the same place we started and find it changed in ways we would not have imagined before the adventure. Occasionally we return home to find that our perceptions of home have been altered in simple, but powerful ways, and yet remain very much the same as when we departed. This class was an adventure of the last kind for me. At the beginning of the class I argued that an eclectic approach to learning theories was the best approach for a teacher to have because it allowed for the inclusion of many different ideas in a single class. It is important that teachers are informed on the new research regarding the brain and new ideas about learning styles so that they can be selective and intentional with their inclusion of this research into their classrooms.

Each approach to learning has a place in education. From the behavioral to the social constructionist, each learning theory has valuable ideas to contribute to a teacher’s toolbox. Each student is unique and their brains are constructed in different ways (Laureate, 2008d). Because this is true, it is important for the teacher to know the different theories of how students learn so that he or she can use the research behind each in order to build the learning environment and activities with intentionality. Each of the learning theories supports specific types of classroom practices. Take behaviorism for example; when used in subjects like mathematics, where practice is important and reinforcement is a key to successful development of key skills, behaviorism can be an effective learning theory to incorporate (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). When creating a wiki about social change and a unique service learning project, where innovation and collaboration are needed to create a understanding of a topic through social interaction and construction of a product, connectivism would be a better learning theory to incorporate (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008b). The power of these theories comes not from the theories necessarily but from the application of the theoretical principals by the professional in the classroom. Each of the theories has a part to play, and an eclectic approach to teaching allows for a modification to the practices and beliefs that one holds as new information is discovered and synthesized.

So in terms of those thoughts, this last class only deepened my awareness of the validity of those beliefs that I had held and provided me an opportunity to delve into the research supporting my initial thoughts. In that way, I ended up in approximately the same place that I had originally embarked from. I do, however, find myself in the same location with some subtle, but powerful changes to the lens I see the world through. Throughout this course my understanding of the connections of the tools to the theories of learning has increased dramatically. I can see now how certain technologies support the learning objectives and theories that I am trying to impart. I also am able to see that the technology should be used as a tool to support learning and not as an end in and of itself. We need to make sure that the technology is appropriate to the tasks we want our students to complete and try to stay away from using technology as a way to do only standardized test prep to the exclusion of truly engaging, powerful experiences that can mold our students (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008a). 

When I plan out a lesson now, I will be more cognizant of the type of learning I am asking my students to do so that I will be able to pick the tools that will support that specific kind of skill. I will also keep in mind brain research and be sure to include as many modalities as I can so that students have the best chance of grasping the information I am presenting to them or that they are discovering for themselves as Dr. Wolfe suggests (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008d). Providing students with a purpose, understanding, and explanation of the assignments they are engaging in is also important, especially when embarking on a new technology, so that they can attend to the subject (Pitler, et al., 2007). I will continue to think about when it is appropriate to use the technology in class as an instructional tool and when it is appropriate to use it as a learning tool (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008c). The goal though will be to have the students in charge of their learning because, as I pointed out earlier in this class when the students are in control of their own learning and are creating, through experience, their own understandings of the world around them, they are using content knowledge, decision making processes, analytical skills, creating an understanding of the history of the problem or issue, and expanding their vocabulary (Pitler, et al., 2007).

The goal of learning should be to create students who are capable of applying all of the skills and content we teach them independently in new situations in order to come up with innovative solutions to problems we never addressed with them. They should be able to select the most appropriate tool to support them in that endeavor, and they should be able to explain why they are using the tools they selected to propose the solution that they created. Our teachers need to be able to do the same thing in the classroom so that we can prepare our students to take those actions. If a teacher can not explain why they chose a certain tool for a certain task and explain the research that supports their practice, then the teacher is not adequately preparing his or her students for the world they are about to enter.

For me, this means that I need to adjust my practice a little bit. After going through ED 6711, I realize that I need to be more intentional with the technology I bring into my classroom. I also need to make sure that my students understand the strengths and weaknesses of the technologies that we are using. At the high school level, sharing the brain research and how the tools are related can be a powerful way of engaging the students in the use of specific tools because they are at a place in their lives where they are capable of understanding the basic principals of the research. Over the last week I adjusted the way I introduce new technologies and have begun to focus on providing the students more scaffolding and modeling of the technologies. This was true for creating hypertext timelines and reading hypertext versions of literature. Once the students understood how to use the technology and why to use the technology, most students actively sought new venues to use the technologies in.

For a little further down the road, I have thought a lot about starting with the end in mind and selecting the technology tools that would support the achievement of goals at the end of a school year. After thinking a lot about social constructionism, I have come to the decision that I would like to engage my students in a cooperative service learning project at the end of each school year that encompasses the skills that we have studied from the first day of school so that they can see a practical application of the work they have done all year. With this in mind, for next year I would like to develop a skills based curriculum that builds from project to project throughout the year. The final service learning project will be student identified, student run, and focused on affecting change in their community. In order to do this, I will define the technology tools students will need to be able to use to communicate their message to a variety of audiences and to work collaboratively. Then, I will build the curriculum backwards to the first week of school making sure to provide multiple opportunities to practice each skill with the tools that support that skill. As we go through the year, students will be able to become experts with specific skills and should be able to use the tools they have at their disposal to create a wholly new product through collaboration with their peers and explain why each tool was the correct tool for their specific purpose.

I also have been working on forming a technology committee at my school, as well as at my district, so that we can identify a clear vision for the place of technology in the future. I met with our superintendant and am meeting with my principal in order to begin talks about the role of technology in education and the path that needs to be outlined for professional development if we are going to truly engage teachers in meaningful discussions about 21^st Century learning. ED 6711 convinced me that my district is floundering on this issue because we are not incorporating technology intentionally. On a more local level, my school is not intentional either. I have already run one professional development class in my building to try and address a part of this, and have mobilized a small cohort of my colleagues to discuss and propose solutions.

At the end of this class I feel a little like the hobbits at the end of the Lord of the Rings by J.R.R Tolkien, a favorite selection of mine. They left their homes, had grand adventures, and returned home. They found themselves surrounded by their families and friends who were much the same, but the main characters had the benefit of having seen grand sights and a world full of many things their peers could not imagine. I feel like I have taken a small adventure and, while not completely changed, can see my environment in a different light. I feel like the knowledge I have gained can be used to improve the lives of those around me and that I have a better understanding of how the tools at my disposal can be leveraged to have the most impact. I also feel the responsibility to share the knowledge I have gained with the decision makers in my school and district who have been absent from the classroom, or from the research, or from both. I have actually begun to work on a concept map through Webspiration, a tool I discovered in this class, that illustrates the path I believe that we should take as a district when discussing technology integration. I am going to be inviting some of my peers to help me use this tool as both a visual aid and an interactive model of 21^st century learning that I can engage my colleagues in so that they can see the disparity between what we should be using with our students and what we are using with our students.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008a). Program four. Behaviorist Learning Theory [Motion picture]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008b). Program nine. Connectivism as a Learning Theory [Motion picture]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008c). Program thirteen. Technology: Instructional Tool vs. Learning Tool [Motion picture]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008d). Program two. Brain Research and Learning [Motion picture]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with  classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.