Engaged Learning Class Session 3 Reflections: Schools of the Future

After listening to each group’s responses to our discussion questions (“Would you want to be a part/teach at this school?”) last Tuesday night, it struck me that so many answers hinged on “test scores” and “how will they will be evaluated?.  For many people, NCLB and the emphasis on standardized testing played a key role as to whether or not they wanted to be part of a school like the Philadelphia “School of the Future.”  Our discussion was a mirror of the fearful and tense climate that has been created by NCLB; what troubles me most about The Age of NCLB is that the focus is on test scores (out of necessity, I understand) rather than what students are really learning.  Not one person said they wanted to be a part of the school or did not want to be a part of the school because of his/her philosophy of education and what he/she believed about teaching/learning.  Instead, most everyone (whatever role the group took on:  teacher, student, administrator, taxpayer) seemed to circle back to the questions of evaluation and assessment. 

When I first began teaching, everything seemed to revolve around one’s philosophy of education and teaching/learning; now, it seems irrelevant because NCLB dictates the dominant “philosophy”:  produce test scores that meet or exceed the expectations of the state department or whoever it is that sets the testing bar in any given year.   Please note I am not being critical of any individual—I am just noting my observations of the responses.I think a strong argument can be made that the testing frenzy of recent years has actually limited student achievement rather than raising the amount and depth of learning because teachers feel compelled to focus on standards and benchmarks that are emphasized on the standardized tests. 

I say all this because I see NCLB as a key obstacle to teachers embracing strategies that will engage today’s learners and a learning environment that values inquiry-driven project based learning.   While all of us had some legitimate and valid concerns about the approach of the Philadelphia Schools of the Future, I think the majority of us are hungry for a public education system that looks different from the one we know all too well.    I believe it would be rash to embrace one particular model for the school of the future that really is the school of the here and now; instead, I think we have to “think outside the box” and explore many models that will offer something for the diverse learners who trod our halls.    We don’t have to throw out the “things” that work to infuse new methods and strategies.   Do I believe the Philadelphia model is “the answer”?  No—in my opinion, there were too many non-technology aspects of education missing (fine arts, actual books to name the two that struck me immediately), but I do believe there are “pearls of wisdom” to be gleaned from what this school is doing.

What are barriers to change, though?  If we all agree that public education must change, what is stopping us?

1.  Politics—like it or not, public education is political.  I wish someone had told me that as an undergraduate student.  UGA did a much better job of opening frank discussions about how political agendas impact public education in ways that are insidious and frankly, somewhat frightening!  For better or worse, politics play a major role in what is taught, how it is taught, and to whom it is taught.

2.  Reluctance to step outside our comfort zone:   John Dewey may be long dead and gone, but there is still wisdom in his words from Experience and Education:  “It is easier to walk in the paths that have been beaten than it is, after taking a new point of view, to work out what is practically involved in the new point of view” (30).

3.  Change comes slowly.  Revolution does not happen overnight.  Developing a pedagogy that is liberating, not oppressive (read Paulo Freire if you don’t believe people are oppressed by educational systems) will take time.  Unfortunately, I believe we are running out of time to make changes that are needed to make our public education system more relevant, meaningful, authentic, equitable, and fruitful to all learners. 

I have probably oversimplified these obstacles, but those are the three that stand out to me.

So what does School 2.0 (and beyond) look like?  What roles do school media centers play in School 2.0?

First, I love Kristine’s post about the Future of Learning Manifesto!  This is a witty, sharp, and insightful look at today’s learners and a vision of the future of learning.  It is a “must read” if you have not seen it!

Secondly, check out Joyce Valenza’s blog post, “Shift Happened:  The Librarian Divide”; I think the same can be applied to teachers who don’t get that tapping into technology is not an option; it is essential.  While the goodies are definitely a carrot for most teachers to enroll in Teach 21, I see Teach 21 (and Media 21) as a means to help the 1.0 folks move to 2.0, and those are who are 2.0 to kick it up a notch to whatever comes beyond 2.0.   

Since Kristine got me thinking about manifestos, I remembered Joyce Valenza (the queen of school library media specialists) came up with a manifesto for 21st century teacher-librarians.  Since I am in Media 21, I thought it would be fun to revisit her manifesto and consider how I am applying it in my work and to think about how Media 21 can help me better implement some of the key elements of this manifesto.  You can view the manifesto in one of several ways:

• View it on the Information Fluency Wiki
• Listen to Joyce’s podcast on her 21st century librarian manifesto
• View it on her SLJ blog in chunks:  Part 1, Part 2
• Here is another manifesto:  Library 2.0 Manifesto
• Not a manifesto, but a group blog:  Designing Better Libraries
• Take a look at this Librarian 2.0 Manifesto from Teacher Tube

PostScript

• It occurs to me that the very challenges of creating an engaged learning environment are similar to challenges we discussed in my READ 8300 “Inquiry Based Literacy” class I took Fall 2002 at UGA.  Although this class was for language and literacy educators, I think the issues are strikingly similar….take a peek at my notes from one of our group discussions.  This postscript might be especially relevant since my professor, Dr. Bob Fecho, taught in inner city Philadelphia (high school English) for nearly 25 years. 
• For more on Paulo Freire,  see this link or read my reactions and musings on Freire.
• Why are you doing this?   I asked myself this as a teacher back in 2002, and I have been asking myself this question as a librarian since 2006. This is a question I think about a lot as I try to break the “status quo” of being a high school librarian.  How can the library be an alternate site of literacy?  How do we, in the words of Kristine Woods, “burst the bubble” of what people perceive about “traditional” library media programs in the high school?  How do we disrupt tradition and harness technology to create a new model of inquiry and learning with the high school media center at the heart of this brave new world of School 2.0?
• These postscript “musings” are here because I do believe inquiry and taking a critical (as in critical theory, not “dissin’”) stance are essential to Learning 2.0 and School 2.0.

Moral of This Post:  No one ever said being a pioneer was easy!   

Aha!: Library 2.0 Moments of the Week!

While I am on the “high” of my “Library 2.0″ moments of the week, I want take time to jot down a few thoughts!

VoiceThread, 12/11/07

For the last few days, I have been working with a student on a VoiceThread project.  This student is one who has not had a successful school experience in the last year.  In an effort to help introduce research concepts, I collaborated with this students’ teacher on a research pathfinder; we decided to have him create a VoiceThread as his learning artifact.  Patiently he researched his topic using books and our research databases; he also used some web resources he liked.  With help from both me and his teacher, he drafted mini-paragraphs so that he could have about 1 minute of narration for the four major strands of information he focused on related to his topic.

The “aha!” moment for me came on 12/11 when we recorded his first slide in VoiceThread.  When he listened to the playback of what he had read and recorded, his eyes lit up, and I saw an excitement in this student I had never seen before.  Last year, he was frequently sullen and not excited about his schoolwork at all—to literally see his eyes light up with joy and pride in his work—words really can’t describe how wonderful it felt to see that in this student. 

Thank you, VoiceThread!  This web 2.0 tool helped this student see that research could be fun and helped him feel good about his work—huge steps for this pumpkin!

Google Scholar, Google Library, Google Books, Del.icio.us

I used a combination of Web 2.0 tools to locate information sources not in our collection as well as to tap into existing information sources we do have as part of our virtual collection.    I then integrated the RSS feeds for these resources into a pathfinder I created for one of our Honors English teachers.

Conversations I’ve had recently with UGA librarian Nadine Cohen and UGA Professor Mary Ann Fitzgerald have had me thinking about how I could harness the power of Google to point students to quality information sources with more ease.  First, I used Google Scholar and Google Books to search for nonfiction texts that we did not have access to through our databases or print collection.  I then created a “My Google Books Library” to create an online collection that the students could access through a RSS feed link. 

 

If you have not used Google Books, you MUST check it out!  Books are searchable and some can even be downloaded as PDF files; plain text options are also available for viewing.  Students also get “similar books” suggestions available through Google Books, and they also have bibliographic data available at their fingertips for that particular book.  Students can also subscribe to our RSS feed for this feature and keep up with the latest additions to our Google Books!  These tools are powerful because they provide access to materials you might not be able to obtain in print and increase accessibility to these resources to EVERYONE 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

The other tool we have been using as part of our research pathfinders this year is del.icio.us.  Del.icio.us is a social bookmarking web 2.0 tool that allows you to bookmark and catalog your favorite web resources with “tags”—think of tags as keywords or subject headings.  You can access these resources from any computer—not just your home computer.  For this assignment, I tagged some articles from our GALE Virtual Reference Library (GALE is the only vendor right now that we can “infomark” directly to articles, but we are hoping more vendors will get on board with this feature). 

I then used Google Scholar to search for scholarly articles related to our research topics.  While we can’t use Google Scholar to interface with our databases in the ways that college libraries can at this point in time, we do have access to JSTOR, a college level database of scholarly research articles covering all disciplines.  Because JSTOR is a vendor partnered with Google Scholar, we can use Google Scholar to search for articles and then “tag” those articles with our del.ici.ous account.  While some would argue doing this takes away the element of students searching for articles on their own, I would counterargue that this method is more of an “entry” into the database that will hopefully entice students to further explore that information source once they have acquired a “comfort zone” by looking at what we have put on the “menu.” 

The teacher was extremely excited about these new tools and felt it was a major improvement on the research pathfinder from last year (we collaborated in 2006 on this same assignment).  The students will be in here tomorrow and Friday, and I think once they have time to get “immersed” in these tools, they too will feel excited and energized about the research project. 

It makes me feel good to know that I can provide our students access to new materials we don’t physically own!  I also am excited that I can use web 2.0 tools to help my students “mine” or find an entry into quality information sources we own but that may be intimidating to students.  I hope that this hybrid of web 2.0 tools will make our database resources and books seem “cooler” and more relevant to our students.

That is today’s Library 2.0 roundup!

Engaged Learner Class 2 Reflections: Prensky

Reactions and Reflections:  Prensky

In Class 2, I was part of the group that read “Engage Me or Enrage Me” by Marc Prensky.  Our group agreed that teachers must be open to new strategies for engaging today’s students, but we disagreed with his premise that games are the “magic bullet” for helping students see the relevance of school.    I do believe that we must tap into 21st century technology tools in today’s classrooms, but the use of those tools still must be underpinned by sound and effective pedagogy.   Anyone who has worked with me will tell you that I embrace technology as much as anyone.  At the same time, I firmly believe that technology in and of itself will not guarantee engaged learning, but technology can be a tool that can scaffold engaged learning.   The key is that we as teachers must not be afraid to use it in meaningful ways to help students be more productive and to think more critically.  Too many educators use technology as another means for information regurgitation. 

The article led to a larger discussion of the challenges of teaching in today’s “instant gratification” society:  today’s teachers certainly try to make learning as fun as possible, but the reality is that learning is not always easy or fun.   We have to help students learn how to work through challenging learning tasks; I believe the pride and satisfaction a student can feel when he/she successfully overcomes a learning challenge will result in intrinsic motivation that will lead to lifelong learning skills.   Learning is an attitude and way of life.

Three elements of the article really bothered me:

1.  I felt Prensky (as did others) made too many broad assumptions.  For instance, he assumes that all of today’s students are wired and love being wired.  I know from experience as a librarian and an English teacher that this is not the case for all students.  I also think he is dead wrong when he assumes that people who went to school before the “digital age” did not have engaging or rich learning experiences.   My childhood was one of imagination fueled by everyday objects, books, and music—I honestly don’t think technology would have enriched my learning experiences as a child any better except that I could have had even more access to reading materials.  Books, though, were the fabric of my life and profoundly shaped who I am, what I know, and how I think (and continue to grow) today.

2.  I did not like the “binary” way of thinking that Prensky established in his article. 

3.  Prensky’s implication that something must be fun to be engaging.

Here are two additional resources I found that will give us more food for thought about Prensky’s article:

• Chris Lehman’s blog post in response to “Engage Me or Enrage Me”
• Jamie McKenzie’s article, “Digital Nativism:  Digital Delusions and Digital Deprivation” (November 2007)

LOTI

I took my LOTI survey as a “media specialist/instructional technology specialist.”  Throughout the survey, I frequently felt confused because the wording of the questions continually asked me about “my staff.”  I felt I was supposed to answer the questions based on what the teachers at my school are doing, but the questions were difficult to answer because I wanted to answer based on what I am doing or would do if I had a greater role in collaborating with our classroom teachers on unit design.  As a result, I felt my LOTI scores did not accurately reflect my personal practices.  Two other media specialists in my group also encountered the same challenge in answering their surveys.

The three of us then discussed this question:  “How do we help teachers design units and use technology in ways that reflect a higher skill and integration level on the LOTI scale?”  As media specialists, we walk a fine line of trying to be instructional and technology leaders for our teachers while not imposing on the classroom teacher’s space and right to make instructional design decisions.  Sometimes it is really difficult to collaborate when you see that the research assignment is not tapping into higher level thinking skills—you try to nudge the teacher to come up with a learning product that requires the higher ends of Bloom’s taxonomy, but if the teacher resists, you have to respect that teacher’s decision even if you disagree with it.  Did any other media specialists encounter these challenges with the LOTI, or do you face these challenges in your daily life as a librarian? 

One final thought about LOTI:  I do like how the survey and our class activities emphasize that “using” technology is NOT the same as “integrating” technology as a seamless tool of instruction.  I am looking forward to learning more about how we can integrate technology into our 21st century classrooms and libraries to improve student learning and engage not only our students but also ourselves as lifelong learners!

Article 1 Reflections: “Meaningful, Engaged Learning”

“Meaningful, Engaged Learning”
Reflection 1
December 4, 2007Buffy Hamilton  

Responsible for their own learning
engaged learning
Challenging, authentic, and multidisciplinary
engaged learning
Collaboration
engaged learning
Authentic
engaged learning
Problem-based learning integrated
engaged learning
Performance based assessment
engaged learning
Knowledge-building community
engaged learning
Diversity
engaged learning
Flexibility
engaged learning
Heterogeneous
engaged learning
Equity
engaged learning
Teacher=Facilitator, guide, learner
engaged learning
student=explorer, contributor to world’s knowledge, reflective learners
engaged learning 

What Stood Out to Me 

I think all of us would agree with this model of learning and this kind of paradigm that creates an environment that is conducive to engaged learning—these ideas have been around well before the 1994 study referenced in the article (just read anything by John Dewey).   Most teachers I know would embrace a learning environment that completely integrates these eight indicators. 

Yet how many classrooms around America actually implement this philosophical approach to teaching and learning?  What obstacles or barriers do teachers face in truly implementing this kind of classroom environment?  What additional scaffolding might be needed in this kind of environment for students who do not become from the socioeconomic backgrounds that are typically privileged in public school (see studies and research by Shirley B. Heath if you don’t believe that the home environment plays a vital role in HOW children learn and language development).  How do we tap into technology (as well as other teaching tools) to maximize engaged learning?   I think it is important to explore these questions so that we can effectively identify barriers to this kind of learning environment and overcome those obstacles.   

I also think it is important to talk about how we create this kind of environment for engaged learning because this kind of learning with these eight indicators takes time, can be messy (in a positive way), and requires teachers (and administrators) to “muck about” in inquiry.  In this day and age of standardized testing, a climate exists that makes many teachers feel as though they must use “traditional” methods of teaching to “cover” the standards.  As a media specialist (and a practicing English teacher at Polaris North), I see the struggle to create engaged learning while being mindful of the looming standardized tests in the background.  Certainly, we can do project based learning and not be compelled to “kill and drill” our students for those tests, but at the same time, you have to creatively build in some test prep so that students are familiar with the test format and test vocabulary—I do think we are doing our students a disservice if we don’t recognize that in some way. I do feel we can address multiple standards through engaged learning strategies and a paradigm that values the qualities of “the engaged classroom.” 

One of my challenges right now is helping our classroom teachers see how we as media specialists can support this kind of learning environment through collaboration.  As media specialists, we can help teachers design authentic tasks with a menu of choices that will appeal to a wide range of learning styles.   While teachers often think they don’t have time for research projects because they have to “cover the standards”, project based learning or research projects can actually help teachers address multiple Georgia Performance Standards.  Media specialists can help in the design of learning activities, creation of rubrics and assessment methods, the creation of research pathfinders and pooling of resources, and the selection of learning products or artifacts of learning that students create.  Media specialists are cognizant of the pressures classroom teachers feel, but we sometimes feel frustrated that we can’t teachers to collaborate with us and to help “open up” or “burst the bubble” of the perceived constraints created by the testing environment of NCLB.  I feel that media specialist are some of the most important and support advocates of “engaged learning” strategies and pedagogy, but it is sometimes hard for our voices to be heard by our teachers when the voices of other stakeholders, particularly those that privilege teaching to the test and drown out the voices that advocate authentic learning that goes above and beyond what these tests measure.

I hope that we can perhaps have some dialogue in our course about how teachers and media specialists can work together to create engaged learning environments and how the media center can be a great resource for teachers, especially those who are Teach 21 candidates.   References:

FUJIYOSHI, G., & TAN, S. (1999, January). Engaged learning using technology. Curriculum Administrator, 35(1), 39. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from Professional Development Collection database.