In my first life, I am a person who uses and loves technology - and I still find myself stumbling around at times as if I am a brand new user. When you think about it, given the explosive rate of change in digital media and the many new systems, tools and devices coming on the market each week, that is the stark reality - we are all newbies at something to do with digital technology. A few stories about how tricky technology can be for even the most comfortable of users.
My second life avatar is Michele Helgerud. I regularly meet "in-world" with my doctoral student, who is creating an augmented reality game about climate change in Second Life, in the same virtual world. SL is a 3-D virtual world created by its residents that has grown explosively since its creation in 2003. Today, Second Life is inhabited by millions of Residents from around the globe.
I am only slightly embarrassed to admit that I forgot my SL password and could only use Second Life on my office computer. The reason? I used an automatic "remember my" password feature for the past year. When I cleaned up my cookies, I seemed to lose my password - there is a lesson here. After failing the email and web-based approach, I retrieved my Second Life password using the telephone. A very helpful young woman with a dutch accent walked me through the web-based process to login to change my password. I found this interaction ironic -- I ended up having to use the phone to contact a teenager to get my password to this amazing 3D world that I had been flying around in during the last year.
Over the Christmas - New Year break, my sister and I, fellow techno-pedagogical bibliophiles, went to a popular movie based on the first book in a popular series. I normally gravitate away from vampire stuff, but a colleague told me that Twilight was a good movie. Inspired by this cheeky love story, my sister and I drove to Chapters to buy the books after the show. We tracked down 3 of the 4 books, and I approached the computer to look up whether the last book was in stock. After typing in a query, I couldn't figure out what to do next. No Mouse. My sister, who hasn't spent the last 15 years of her life researching and teaching educational technology, but uses a computer all day every day in her two careers, just reached over my shoulder and said, "Duh, it's a touch screen silly". Of course...
My son, who is an avid gamer, taught me better ways to navigate my iPod. True, I did spend an hour trying to figure it out by logging into iTunes, downloading a few free podcasts, and dropping some music files on board. However, what caught my interest, in a way similar to observing children in any K-12 classroom that has technology readily available, was the intuitive and playful nature in which my child interacted with this digital device -- my son played around with the iPod and got it to play music in about 30 seconds. What had taken me a full hour in my office, took a 4 year old pre-schooler less than a minute.
I have several reasons for sharing these stories: (i) people who regularly use advanced digital technologies still find themselves stumbling around at times as if they are a brand new user, (ii) the number of digital systems, tools and devices increases weekly at an exponential rate, and we cannot keep up, (iii) individuals are all newbies at something to do with digital technology, and therefore we need to draw upon each other's diverse experiences with technology, and (iv) children who grow up with technology have an intuitive sense of interaction with these systems, tools and devices, and we can learn a great deal from them if we cheerfully, enthusiastically and openly accept that they know more than us.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
I don't know how or if I do it...
Balance work and family, that is.
Given that I am committed to both my family and my career, and love both, it takes some major strategic planning and sheer bloody-mindedness to organize my life and to believe that I am balancing the demands of family and career.
Some things that seem to help at home:
- Prepare something for the crockpot and set up the coffee maker the night before
- Make big meals so there are leftovers for lunch and another meal
- Throw a load of laundry in the machine before supper and in the dryer after
- Fold and put away dry clothes before bed
- Scrub the toilet, or windex mirrors, while the kids are in the bathtub
- Handle paper only once, then throw it in recycling or file it
- Clean the kitchen right after supper, and shine the sink
- Write daily and weekly task schedules
- Getting up at 5 am to work for an hour or two before the kids wake up
- Buy precut veggies for meals and lunches
- Declutter or tidy while on the phone
- Organize, give away or toss clothes, magazines and toys often
With children and husbands:
- Family meals at the table, as often as possible
- Ongoing communication
- Hug and kiss everybody at least 5 times each day, preferably more
- Always say I love you to everybody before I leave the house
- Leave love notes around, in lunch packs, on mirrors
- Call often to stay in touch with my "pack"
- Play dates, a Babysitter and Date nights
- Play time everyday
- Organized sports
At work:
- Hang out with the cool, fun and smart people ;-), which is easy to do in my job!!
- Take care of the big tasks first, set priorities
- Avoid dead-end meetings or committees
- Write and read every week (harder than you might think...)
- Limit time on email or phone
- Closing office door when big projects are due
- A good filing system, and ongoing decluttering
- Tubs for each course or big task
- A sign out system for books
- Water plants and tidy desk at least once a week
- Lunch with friends, and make new friends
- A paper day-timer that only I write in (online ones get fuller faster somehow)
- Delegate and share the work, because there is too much for any one person
Just for me:
- Eat breakfast every day, even if its in my car
- Drink water and take vitamins
- Read every night before bed, and early each morning
- A weekly designer coffee
- Hitting my favorite consignment stores
- A movie with a girlfriend or sister
- Buy books online
- Composting and gardening
- My iPod
- Reading my favorite blogs and magazines
Given that I am committed to both my family and my career, and love both, it takes some major strategic planning and sheer bloody-mindedness to organize my life and to believe that I am balancing the demands of family and career.
Some things that seem to help at home:
- Prepare something for the crockpot and set up the coffee maker the night before
- Make big meals so there are leftovers for lunch and another meal
- Throw a load of laundry in the machine before supper and in the dryer after
- Fold and put away dry clothes before bed
- Scrub the toilet, or windex mirrors, while the kids are in the bathtub
- Handle paper only once, then throw it in recycling or file it
- Clean the kitchen right after supper, and shine the sink
- Write daily and weekly task schedules
- Getting up at 5 am to work for an hour or two before the kids wake up
- Buy precut veggies for meals and lunches
- Declutter or tidy while on the phone
- Organize, give away or toss clothes, magazines and toys often
With children and husbands:
- Family meals at the table, as often as possible
- Ongoing communication
- Hug and kiss everybody at least 5 times each day, preferably more
- Always say I love you to everybody before I leave the house
- Leave love notes around, in lunch packs, on mirrors
- Call often to stay in touch with my "pack"
- Play dates, a Babysitter and Date nights
- Play time everyday
- Organized sports
At work:
- Hang out with the cool, fun and smart people ;-), which is easy to do in my job!!
- Take care of the big tasks first, set priorities
- Avoid dead-end meetings or committees
- Write and read every week (harder than you might think...)
- Limit time on email or phone
- Closing office door when big projects are due
- A good filing system, and ongoing decluttering
- Tubs for each course or big task
- A sign out system for books
- Water plants and tidy desk at least once a week
- Lunch with friends, and make new friends
- A paper day-timer that only I write in (online ones get fuller faster somehow)
- Delegate and share the work, because there is too much for any one person
Just for me:
- Eat breakfast every day, even if its in my car
- Drink water and take vitamins
- Read every night before bed, and early each morning
- A weekly designer coffee
- Hitting my favorite consignment stores
- A movie with a girlfriend or sister
- Buy books online
- Composting and gardening
- My iPod
- Reading my favorite blogs and magazines
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Seeking Ethics Review of Ethics Review
Our campus desperately needs to review the current approach to ethics review. Please let faculty researchers who are forced to comply with this often unnecessary bottleneck scrutinize the purpose of these social and biomedical ethics review boards. Perhaps if we use our impressive research and evaluation skills, we can gain some insight into secretive ethics review boards and institute some form of accountability and control.
Currently, faculty and graduate student researchers in the social sciences, who conduct human subjects research that is no or very low risk, are overly delayed and overly scrutinized by an opaque ethics review board. Anonymous reviewers get to criticize research protocols well beyond their own area of expertise, and/or request whatever changes, deletions and additions that they dream up for the protocol under scrutiny -- even if these changes, deletions and additions make absolutely no sense and have no discernible impact on subject safety.
A graduate student of mine once had her research held up for 3 weeks because she refused to change a word in her title -- a reviewer objected to a term in her TITLE - eventually the ethics review board backed down from this "strong suggestion" when I sent a letter with three references citing the terminology as used in our discipline. Blind ethics reviewers, who wring their hands and dream up potential unforeseen risks and fantasy phantoms, do not help the research objective of the university nor do they keep human subjects safe.
I ask that ethics reviewers be named and known to the researchers being scrutinized -- let's level the playing field. Researchers need to know the credentials and background and qualifications of those who seek to fiddle with their research plans and protocols -- just as the reviewers know the credentials and name of the researcher. The reviewers should have to defend their requests for changes, and researchers should be given an opportunity to respond.
Currently, if a researcher disagrees with a "strong suggestion" from the REB, they have to argue their case to the ... REB. Researchers must appeal their case to the same board that denied their request. Big conflict of interest here. Researchers need an opportunity to engage in meaningful discourse with peer reviewers and the REB rather than their only option being to capitulate to unnecessary and often unreasonable demands.
One of the purposes of a University is RESEARCH. At my university, faculty and students have to submit ALL PROTOCOLS to an onerous, nit-picking and timely review process. Like many of my colleagues, and like many of our graduate students, I have become "encultured" in the new politically correct approach to vetting research proposals. Any kind of research about sex or religion or death or learning is automatically subjected to "zero tolerance" for ANY risk whatsoever -- even if the research will benefit the groups involved. Note, I do not believe the current ethics review process is methodologically or philosophically or ethically defensible. What I do believe is that our current ethics review process is nothing more than an intellectual exercise for some reviewers and chairs who seem to be drawn to questions about ethics in research and studying lint in navels.
I do believe that Ethics Review Boards are largely a legal, "protectus thy butticus" industry of the university -- ethics review often has less to do with protecting human subjects from any harm involved in the research itself, and more to do with "finding fault" and justifying the ethics review process and protecting the university from imaginary threats. The uni and ethics review boards want to protect their interests and shore themselves up against any legal threats -- the review process is the point, and gives the uni leave to abandon the researcher to his or her own defense -- after all, the uni did everything in its power to protect the human subjects from the researchers, right?
In early December, my research team submitted a research proposal for ethics review concurrently at my university and the sister institution up North (where members of the team work). In a few days, our team had approval from the sister university. That is, we had APPROVAL in a few days. Ethics APPROVAL with no revisions or changes of any kind. I repeat: "ethics approval with no changes" because it is such a foreign concept at my university. So far, all I have received from my campus Ethics Review Board is a series of nit-picking questions about this or that detail - totally unrelated to the research methods and questions and plans.
I expect to wait several weeks, perhaps 1 -2 months, to get approval for my low to no risk RESEARCH at my RESEARCH INTENSIVE university. Hah. Bah humbug.
At some future point, I will submit to the VP Research, at my Research Intensive University (RIU), a comparison between the ethics review and approval time at the sister university (a few days) and mine (probably several weeks or even months), and the process at the sister university (no changes), and mine (nitpicking, detailed changes and requests for more detail and requests for minute changes and revisions) for comparison and consideration. There may just be a reason why the sister university gets more research funding and conducts more research than my institution...
Let me connect the dots: a reasonable and quick ethical review & approval of research that conveys a commitment to the research objective, and conveys a trust of researchers at the sister institution; versus, a chilling, bureaucratic and overly scrutinized and numbingly arcane bottlenecked ethics revivew process at my university.
A few days versus a few weeks or months for ethical review: The defensive position I anticipate from the REB at my RIU is that "our" ethics review process is of "higher quality" - well, I want proof. I want proof of return on investment -- after all, the Ethics Industry is now a significant budget line item. I want proof that the Ethics Review Board has resulted in some benefit to the University, some benefit to researchers, and any benefit to research. In fact, I suggest we bring our social science research skills to bear on evaluating the processes for ethics review, and demonstrate whether this onerous and timely and nitpicking process has any impact whatsoever on human subject safety, and determine the very real impact on slowing down and limiting the type of research that gets conducted at my "research intensive" university.
Currently, faculty and graduate student researchers in the social sciences, who conduct human subjects research that is no or very low risk, are overly delayed and overly scrutinized by an opaque ethics review board. Anonymous reviewers get to criticize research protocols well beyond their own area of expertise, and/or request whatever changes, deletions and additions that they dream up for the protocol under scrutiny -- even if these changes, deletions and additions make absolutely no sense and have no discernible impact on subject safety.
A graduate student of mine once had her research held up for 3 weeks because she refused to change a word in her title -- a reviewer objected to a term in her TITLE - eventually the ethics review board backed down from this "strong suggestion" when I sent a letter with three references citing the terminology as used in our discipline. Blind ethics reviewers, who wring their hands and dream up potential unforeseen risks and fantasy phantoms, do not help the research objective of the university nor do they keep human subjects safe.
I ask that ethics reviewers be named and known to the researchers being scrutinized -- let's level the playing field. Researchers need to know the credentials and background and qualifications of those who seek to fiddle with their research plans and protocols -- just as the reviewers know the credentials and name of the researcher. The reviewers should have to defend their requests for changes, and researchers should be given an opportunity to respond.
Currently, if a researcher disagrees with a "strong suggestion" from the REB, they have to argue their case to the ... REB. Researchers must appeal their case to the same board that denied their request. Big conflict of interest here. Researchers need an opportunity to engage in meaningful discourse with peer reviewers and the REB rather than their only option being to capitulate to unnecessary and often unreasonable demands.
One of the purposes of a University is RESEARCH. At my university, faculty and students have to submit ALL PROTOCOLS to an onerous, nit-picking and timely review process. Like many of my colleagues, and like many of our graduate students, I have become "encultured" in the new politically correct approach to vetting research proposals. Any kind of research about sex or religion or death or learning is automatically subjected to "zero tolerance" for ANY risk whatsoever -- even if the research will benefit the groups involved. Note, I do not believe the current ethics review process is methodologically or philosophically or ethically defensible. What I do believe is that our current ethics review process is nothing more than an intellectual exercise for some reviewers and chairs who seem to be drawn to questions about ethics in research and studying lint in navels.
I do believe that Ethics Review Boards are largely a legal, "protectus thy butticus" industry of the university -- ethics review often has less to do with protecting human subjects from any harm involved in the research itself, and more to do with "finding fault" and justifying the ethics review process and protecting the university from imaginary threats. The uni and ethics review boards want to protect their interests and shore themselves up against any legal threats -- the review process is the point, and gives the uni leave to abandon the researcher to his or her own defense -- after all, the uni did everything in its power to protect the human subjects from the researchers, right?
In early December, my research team submitted a research proposal for ethics review concurrently at my university and the sister institution up North (where members of the team work). In a few days, our team had approval from the sister university. That is, we had APPROVAL in a few days. Ethics APPROVAL with no revisions or changes of any kind. I repeat: "ethics approval with no changes" because it is such a foreign concept at my university. So far, all I have received from my campus Ethics Review Board is a series of nit-picking questions about this or that detail - totally unrelated to the research methods and questions and plans.
I expect to wait several weeks, perhaps 1 -2 months, to get approval for my low to no risk RESEARCH at my RESEARCH INTENSIVE university. Hah. Bah humbug.
At some future point, I will submit to the VP Research, at my Research Intensive University (RIU), a comparison between the ethics review and approval time at the sister university (a few days) and mine (probably several weeks or even months), and the process at the sister university (no changes), and mine (nitpicking, detailed changes and requests for more detail and requests for minute changes and revisions) for comparison and consideration. There may just be a reason why the sister university gets more research funding and conducts more research than my institution...
Let me connect the dots: a reasonable and quick ethical review & approval of research that conveys a commitment to the research objective, and conveys a trust of researchers at the sister institution; versus, a chilling, bureaucratic and overly scrutinized and numbingly arcane bottlenecked ethics revivew process at my university.
A few days versus a few weeks or months for ethical review: The defensive position I anticipate from the REB at my RIU is that "our" ethics review process is of "higher quality" - well, I want proof. I want proof of return on investment -- after all, the Ethics Industry is now a significant budget line item. I want proof that the Ethics Review Board has resulted in some benefit to the University, some benefit to researchers, and any benefit to research. In fact, I suggest we bring our social science research skills to bear on evaluating the processes for ethics review, and demonstrate whether this onerous and timely and nitpicking process has any impact whatsoever on human subject safety, and determine the very real impact on slowing down and limiting the type of research that gets conducted at my "research intensive" university.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Meaningful Change Versus Nickle and Dime
This week, academic and support staff had the first of many conversations to come about budget and vision for our Faculty. I hope that we can continue to have open and civil conversations about the many changes that are needed, and indeed may become possible(!), given the current economic situation. I am delighted that "all options" are on the table -- from trimming back on unnecessary expenses, to the bigger issues of staff and faculty workload and reworking programs, to the idea of exploring options for revenue creation and growth. I believe in judicious cost cutting along with sustainable revenue building in line with our primary objectives - world class research, excellent teaching in both teacher preparation and our graduate programs and collegial governance.
I appreciated the open call to civility -- in the past few months, I have become very discouraged by the "open season" declared on faculty and the permissive culture towards bullying faculty in certain divisions. I have been very discouraged by the hall-way back stabbing and open season declared on past leaders and recent volunteer leaders who are doing their very best for this faculty - curious thanks for taking on the difficult task of leadership in these trying times. I hope that future discourse can recognize and support our present and past leader's achievements and efforts and personal sacrifice, rather than the opposite.
I love this faculty and I believe it can have a powerful future. I have been here for 20 years, first as an undergraduate, then as a graduate student and now as a faculty member. I have invested my heart and mind in this Faculty, in my colleagues and especially in my students. I work with people who have the brightest minds and best hearts in education and I am thankful for this privilege. I also believe that as a whole, the members of this faculty can do better -- we can be better with and to each other as we chart uncertain territory in the coming days.
I believe that we need to continuously review, revise and renew programs in the Faculty of Education. I hope that this period of transitional instability will yield meaningful change - I see the current upheaval as an opportunity to examine what we do and to make difficult and needed changes - changes that we might not have had the appetite for if we weren't in such perilous economic times. I hope we take advantage of this opportunity for meaningful change rather than hanging on by our fingernails to stagnant and entrenched programs that have become impervious to new ideas.
My Christmas List:
1. I sincerely hope that members of our faculty can put aside individualistic and selfish concerns, and work together on great solutions that benefit the entire faculty.
2. I hope that the faculty and support staff can continue to have open and civil conversations about the many changes that are needed, and indeed may finally become possible(!), given the current economic situation.
3. I hope that fresh ideas and innovative solutions will be welcomed, and that members of this faculty will (re)engage and be heard.
4. I hope that the benefits and burdens of any changes are shared by all faculty and support staff. Plums should not be hoarded by the few, nor should the sticks be imposed upon the more vulnerable members of our community.
A graduate student and I were chatting about the concept of mutual vulnerability yesterday. When complex systems begin to fail, the reverberating effects are felt by everyone. I do not believe we will get where we want to go in this Faculty unless everyone picks up an oar. Now is the time to figure out how we can get and keep everyone on board. Let's utilize all of our diverse and particular talents to build a common vision and hammer out an ethical and effective plan for action.
I appreciated the open call to civility -- in the past few months, I have become very discouraged by the "open season" declared on faculty and the permissive culture towards bullying faculty in certain divisions. I have been very discouraged by the hall-way back stabbing and open season declared on past leaders and recent volunteer leaders who are doing their very best for this faculty - curious thanks for taking on the difficult task of leadership in these trying times. I hope that future discourse can recognize and support our present and past leader's achievements and efforts and personal sacrifice, rather than the opposite.
I love this faculty and I believe it can have a powerful future. I have been here for 20 years, first as an undergraduate, then as a graduate student and now as a faculty member. I have invested my heart and mind in this Faculty, in my colleagues and especially in my students. I work with people who have the brightest minds and best hearts in education and I am thankful for this privilege. I also believe that as a whole, the members of this faculty can do better -- we can be better with and to each other as we chart uncertain territory in the coming days.
I believe that we need to continuously review, revise and renew programs in the Faculty of Education. I hope that this period of transitional instability will yield meaningful change - I see the current upheaval as an opportunity to examine what we do and to make difficult and needed changes - changes that we might not have had the appetite for if we weren't in such perilous economic times. I hope we take advantage of this opportunity for meaningful change rather than hanging on by our fingernails to stagnant and entrenched programs that have become impervious to new ideas.
My Christmas List:
1. I sincerely hope that members of our faculty can put aside individualistic and selfish concerns, and work together on great solutions that benefit the entire faculty.
2. I hope that the faculty and support staff can continue to have open and civil conversations about the many changes that are needed, and indeed may finally become possible(!), given the current economic situation.
3. I hope that fresh ideas and innovative solutions will be welcomed, and that members of this faculty will (re)engage and be heard.
4. I hope that the benefits and burdens of any changes are shared by all faculty and support staff. Plums should not be hoarded by the few, nor should the sticks be imposed upon the more vulnerable members of our community.
A graduate student and I were chatting about the concept of mutual vulnerability yesterday. When complex systems begin to fail, the reverberating effects are felt by everyone. I do not believe we will get where we want to go in this Faculty unless everyone picks up an oar. Now is the time to figure out how we can get and keep everyone on board. Let's utilize all of our diverse and particular talents to build a common vision and hammer out an ethical and effective plan for action.
Friday, December 5, 2008
100 Years to a Balanced Budget
Similar to other industries, the current economic crisis is hitting campus hard.
A large gap between revenue and expenses means that our faculty is going to have to consider ways to (i) increase revenue (which gives the Marxists a rash), (ii) increase workload, (which gives overworked and already time-poor faculty a rash), or (iii) reduce expenses, which can mean lost jobs given that over 85% of the budget is salaries. In other words, our faculty needs to look for "efficiencies".
At first I believed that our faculty could use our vision for academic programs, research and collegial governance as a lens through which to make these hard decisions about finance. But, no, wait!! One of our fearless leaders found another option!! Let's cut back on office supplies!!!
Yesterday, it was discouraging, if not downright insulting, to learn that one of our leaders has decided that knee-jerk reaction is the way to go rather than transparency and communication. After a budget meeting, faculty were confronted by a locked paper cupboard and demeaning signage about negotiating the key from support staff. That's right -- in our faculty, not only is there "no free lunch", there is no "free paper" for faculty member's office printers. Ho ho ho. The timing and optics on this are just as bad as the opposition leader filming his address to the nation using a cell phone.
"No free paper" - just in time for end of semester assessments and paperwork.
"No free paper" - means, instead of catching up on workload over the weekend, forget it because the photocopier is empty and no support staff are around
Now, I am no accountant, but a quick calculation of this "No free paper" policy, indicates that it will only take us about 100 years to make up this year's budget shortfall. That's right!! Multiply the cost of paper at $25 / case by 12 (1 case per month) by each of 90 faculty members, means we will save 3.6 million and completely reshape this faculty in the next century.
Whew!! Glad that big leadership issue is taken care of....
A large gap between revenue and expenses means that our faculty is going to have to consider ways to (i) increase revenue (which gives the Marxists a rash), (ii) increase workload, (which gives overworked and already time-poor faculty a rash), or (iii) reduce expenses, which can mean lost jobs given that over 85% of the budget is salaries. In other words, our faculty needs to look for "efficiencies".
At first I believed that our faculty could use our vision for academic programs, research and collegial governance as a lens through which to make these hard decisions about finance. But, no, wait!! One of our fearless leaders found another option!! Let's cut back on office supplies!!!
Yesterday, it was discouraging, if not downright insulting, to learn that one of our leaders has decided that knee-jerk reaction is the way to go rather than transparency and communication. After a budget meeting, faculty were confronted by a locked paper cupboard and demeaning signage about negotiating the key from support staff. That's right -- in our faculty, not only is there "no free lunch", there is no "free paper" for faculty member's office printers. Ho ho ho. The timing and optics on this are just as bad as the opposition leader filming his address to the nation using a cell phone.
"No free paper" - just in time for end of semester assessments and paperwork.
"No free paper" - means, instead of catching up on workload over the weekend, forget it because the photocopier is empty and no support staff are around
Now, I am no accountant, but a quick calculation of this "No free paper" policy, indicates that it will only take us about 100 years to make up this year's budget shortfall. That's right!! Multiply the cost of paper at $25 / case by 12 (1 case per month) by each of 90 faculty members, means we will save 3.6 million and completely reshape this faculty in the next century.
Whew!! Glad that big leadership issue is taken care of....
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Advice to Teachers from High School Students
Originally, the title of the book caught my attention: Cushman, K. (2003). Fires in the Bathroom: Advice for Teachers from High School Students. The New Press: New York
I quickly discovered Cushman's book was written with 40 student collaborators – the author asked high school students about school, teachers and learning, and listened carefully to what they had to say. What emerges from the student stories, is a vivid mosaic of perspectives, ideas and suggestions about improving education. Cushman organizes student voice thematically in ten chapters. Each chapter includes activities or strategies, and concludes with a useful summary.
o “wanted: one teacher. Must be able to listen, even when mad”
o “a lot of people are afraid of teenagers. They think we are these freak humans”
o “just saying you need to pass math isn’t enough. Show me how knowing pi is worth something”
VALUE – throughout the book, there are good charts and checklists that provide quick reference and structured reflection on a range of chapter-related, and student-derived topics - methinks these sections are useful for beginning, experienced and student teachers as well as those that ply their craft on campus:
o Who are you? Questionnaire for the first day of school
o Am I playing favorites?
o Identifying the assets of your worst behaving students
o “I don’t get it” – an exercise for teachers.
o How do I grade? How do I tell and show students what I expect?
o How to make homework matter to us.
Kathleen Cushman is a writer who has specialized in education and school reform for almost two decades. URL: http://www.whatkidscando.org/
o “As every educator knows, good teaching entails far more than basic intelligence and knowledge. It requires the courage to look honestly at what is and imagine what it could be. It requires the humility to admit one’s own mistakes and to keep trying. It requires empathy, to hear and feel what someone else is experiencing. And it takes genuine curiosity about people and ideas.” (p. 184).
o Throughout the book, students show enormous appreciation for the teachers that help them to learn – they offer criticism, advice, and still, they testify time and time again about a teacher’s power to change their minds and change their lives.
A few student quotes:
o MIDDLE STAGE: “I’m not adult enough to get a job and have my own apartment, but I’m adult enough to make decisions on my own, know right from wrong, have ideas about the world. That’s why it’s hard to be a teenager—it’s like a middle stage” (p. 18).
o SUPPORTING INQUIRY: “If you’re raised by teachers just telling you things and forcing them on you, it’s hard or frustrating when teachers expect you to be proactive and take responsibility for your own education” (p. 131).
o PUSH US TO DO OUR BEST: “My algebra teacher, when I got a C in his class, he was upset. He just pushed me to keep my head outa them boys and into the books. He made me go to tutoring after school to keep my grades up” (p. 26).
I am involved in a research project with several colleagues that aims to uncover the relationship between technology, engagement and success in high schools in Alberta. I am excited by the possibility that this research can add to the good work published by Cushman on improving learning opportunities in high school.
I quickly discovered Cushman's book was written with 40 student collaborators – the author asked high school students about school, teachers and learning, and listened carefully to what they had to say. What emerges from the student stories, is a vivid mosaic of perspectives, ideas and suggestions about improving education. Cushman organizes student voice thematically in ten chapters. Each chapter includes activities or strategies, and concludes with a useful summary.
o “wanted: one teacher. Must be able to listen, even when mad”
o “a lot of people are afraid of teenagers. They think we are these freak humans”
o “just saying you need to pass math isn’t enough. Show me how knowing pi is worth something”
VALUE – throughout the book, there are good charts and checklists that provide quick reference and structured reflection on a range of chapter-related, and student-derived topics - methinks these sections are useful for beginning, experienced and student teachers as well as those that ply their craft on campus:
o Who are you? Questionnaire for the first day of school
o Am I playing favorites?
o Identifying the assets of your worst behaving students
o “I don’t get it” – an exercise for teachers.
o How do I grade? How do I tell and show students what I expect?
o How to make homework matter to us.
Kathleen Cushman is a writer who has specialized in education and school reform for almost two decades. URL: http://www.whatkidscando.org/
o “As every educator knows, good teaching entails far more than basic intelligence and knowledge. It requires the courage to look honestly at what is and imagine what it could be. It requires the humility to admit one’s own mistakes and to keep trying. It requires empathy, to hear and feel what someone else is experiencing. And it takes genuine curiosity about people and ideas.” (p. 184).
o Throughout the book, students show enormous appreciation for the teachers that help them to learn – they offer criticism, advice, and still, they testify time and time again about a teacher’s power to change their minds and change their lives.
A few student quotes:
o MIDDLE STAGE: “I’m not adult enough to get a job and have my own apartment, but I’m adult enough to make decisions on my own, know right from wrong, have ideas about the world. That’s why it’s hard to be a teenager—it’s like a middle stage” (p. 18).
o SUPPORTING INQUIRY: “If you’re raised by teachers just telling you things and forcing them on you, it’s hard or frustrating when teachers expect you to be proactive and take responsibility for your own education” (p. 131).
o PUSH US TO DO OUR BEST: “My algebra teacher, when I got a C in his class, he was upset. He just pushed me to keep my head outa them boys and into the books. He made me go to tutoring after school to keep my grades up” (p. 26).
I am involved in a research project with several colleagues that aims to uncover the relationship between technology, engagement and success in high schools in Alberta. I am excited by the possibility that this research can add to the good work published by Cushman on improving learning opportunities in high school.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Leading Change in Educational Technology IS Rocket Science
Educational technologies both enable and require new approaches to learning and assessment that transcend our hierarchical, industrial-based educational models. Just because we can change education, does not mean that we will. And just because a change is required, it does not mean it will happen. Educational technology leadership is complex and contextual; it can be riddled with both consensus and conflict; it is hard work that requires courage.
In his book Leading in a Culture of Change, Fullan (2001) cautioned that “understanding the change process is less about innovation and more about innovativeness. It is less about strategy and more about strategizing. And it is rocket science, not least because we are inundated with complex, unclear, and often contradictory advice” (p. 31).
Change in education is constant and complex -- educational technology transforms the ways in which teachers and learners can work, learn, and communicate in schools / and on campus. Educational technology leadership is needed as schools and campuses both embrace and reject the changes that technology brings.
When teachers invite technology into their classrooms, they are inviting change in at least four areas at once:
i. content knowledge
ii. pedagogical knowledge
iii. pedagogical content knowledge, and
iv. techno-pedagogical knowledge
It is no small task to change what you teach, how you teach, how you teach what you teach, and how you teach with technology - and layered on top of these changes are the many ways in which teacher-learner relationships change with technology. It is impossible to make all of these changes alone -- the days of the teacher serving as the lone classroom expert are over.
Educational technology leadership calls for transparency in decision making, collegiality in a culture of expectation and support, and a scholarship of teaching characterized by learning professionals who plan, implement and assess instructional designs in community with their colleagues.
Schools and campuses need educational technology leaders who can cultivate a shared vision and lead others with a moral imperative sharply focused on the direction and nature of changes that are needed, and accompanied by the strategies that will move education from the industrial age into the 21st Century.
In his book Leading in a Culture of Change, Fullan (2001) cautioned that “understanding the change process is less about innovation and more about innovativeness. It is less about strategy and more about strategizing. And it is rocket science, not least because we are inundated with complex, unclear, and often contradictory advice” (p. 31).
Change in education is constant and complex -- educational technology transforms the ways in which teachers and learners can work, learn, and communicate in schools / and on campus. Educational technology leadership is needed as schools and campuses both embrace and reject the changes that technology brings.
When teachers invite technology into their classrooms, they are inviting change in at least four areas at once:
i. content knowledge
ii. pedagogical knowledge
iii. pedagogical content knowledge, and
iv. techno-pedagogical knowledge
It is no small task to change what you teach, how you teach, how you teach what you teach, and how you teach with technology - and layered on top of these changes are the many ways in which teacher-learner relationships change with technology. It is impossible to make all of these changes alone -- the days of the teacher serving as the lone classroom expert are over.
Educational technology leadership calls for transparency in decision making, collegiality in a culture of expectation and support, and a scholarship of teaching characterized by learning professionals who plan, implement and assess instructional designs in community with their colleagues.
Schools and campuses need educational technology leaders who can cultivate a shared vision and lead others with a moral imperative sharply focused on the direction and nature of changes that are needed, and accompanied by the strategies that will move education from the industrial age into the 21st Century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)