When I first started to teach fifth grade in a Seattle suburban school district I would go around the room and asked...." what each child wanted to be when they grow up?" Since the school was close to the Boeing aircraft facility many of my boys wanted to be pilots or engineers or "build planes" like their dads. A few of the guys wanted to go into the military in some way and only one ever wanted to be a doctor. Most of the boys had some goal as to what they thought they wanted to be as they became adults.
Not so my girls. When I ask the girls in my class what they wanted to be, a few said they wanted to be airline stewardesses, a good number wanted to be nurses and an equally number of girls said they were going to be mothers (like their mothers). When I asked the to-be stewardesses why they didn't want to be pilots they looked at me in confusion. "Girls aren't pilots, Mr. Blackwell." I got the same response from the nurses to-be when I confronted them as to why not a doctor? I found this lack of goals in the girls disturbing and troubling.
I then went down to the school library to seek a book that had a girl as the lead character and I found only one book in the entire library in which the girl is the hero. It is "A Wrinkle in Time" by Madeline L'Eagle, published in 1962. From that moment I started to look for books with girls in a leading role. "A Wrinkle" went on to win a number of publishing awards.
My next book that I read to my fifth grade class was about Elizabeth Blackwell, First Woman Doctor. It was the perfect book for my needs (and my girls needs) as Elizabeth had to fight and struggle to become a doctor. She was stubborn to a fault so I am sure she was part of my early family (subsequent research appears to show this to be correct). I finally was beginning to see some results in the girls thinking of what they might become in later life. This was in the early 1960s.
This was my first epiphany--that girls had different goals then boys. I could understand that they might not want to play football but that women (they were becoming women) could still use their brains. I loved all my kids in those fifth grades and I wanted ALL to be their very best in whatever they wanted to do. I didn't want their lives controlled by societal norms whatever that might be.
I still find it upsetting that the Hardy Boys stories were allowed in our elementary library but not the Nancy Drew stories. Apparently it had been deemed that the Nancy Drew stories were not good enough literature. We soon changed that policy. In searching for that early science fiction book that I read to my class I queried Amazon and Google and find that today there are many more books for girls then when I first started to teach. Thank heavens (for little girls--sorry, but that is a song in a movie--had to put it in. "Gigi," I think).
Why this missive about books for girls? What I found as I learned how to teach was that girls and boys learn differently. Girls like to work together with other girls (and like to talk--oh my do they like to talk which is part of the process). Boys like to work mostly on their own. Many boys want to compete.
But for the past year I have been looking for an old book of min on how women learn. I've written about it in these blogs from time to time. But I could not identify it or the author. It became an obsession. Either where was my book or where could I buy another one? I tried Google Scholar--no luck. I tried out of print books and again no luck. It was important to me when I was teaching so why couldn't I find it?
I did find Carol Gilligan's book on women, "In A Different Voice." No, that was not it although it was an instrumental book in my development.
It turns out that my memory is faulty--which is what I already knew. However, I was sure I had the title correct. Wrong. Just recently I stumbled upon the book that i was looking for. Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. Published in 1986 AND in 1997. Finally I found it! Yeessss! It was written by Mary Belenky, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger and Jill Tarule. No, I have never met these women--I wish I had.
My mistake was that I was looking for a book on how women learn. The one I wanted was on how women know. This is a big difference. Learning is one thing but knowing is a damn site more important. Boys want to "own" what they learn and girls want to "establish a communication with what they are trying to understand."
I can't remember where it was that I found what I was looking for. I think I was perusing through an index of a book when I spotted it. But the even better part of this finding is that I was able to buy the latest edition (with added information) for my Kindle. I now have John Dewey's Democracy and Education next to Women's Ways of Knowing. Important books for teachers. It gives us a philosophical bases for our methods of teaching.
Thank you to the four authors for teaching me much. I hope you've thanked a teacher in the past week. They need it.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Designing a Class...or a course of study.
How are courses in a university designed? Can you buy courses from a university store? Or do college courses just follow the book?
Some years ago I was asked to teach a course in beginning (basic) instructional media at a university's college of education. It had been taught previously by the head of the department however the dean was trying to get some time for this professor to be able to do some research hence I was asked to teach the course. Not only teach the course but redesign it and "bring it up to date."
The first thing to do was to ascertain the parameters--those things which could not be changed. For instance, this course was in the catalog, 3 quarter credits (which meant that it met for three hours a week for a quarter or twelve weeks of instruction. That meant for this scheduled course it would meet on Thursdays from 4 pm to 7 pm. The classroom was a controlled classroom, meaning that only the department of Instructional media had access to it. It was a long room with an aisle up the middle, a small stage in front and projection equipment already installed in the classroom. This was before microcomputers were established so I didn't have to teach computers. The class would have access to a "Self-Instructional Learning Laboratory," a room of equipment set up with special designed instructions to help the student learn how to operate different types of media.
An important task is to review who the student will be in this course. In this case, being that it was an afternoon/evening course, I could expect a number of experienced teachers wanting to learn more about technology as well as picking up 3 credits for fifth year or master's work. I could also expect to have a number of upper grade underclass students completing their educational requirements. The register's office said I might expect forty to fifty students. While the majority of the students would be in education I might also get a couple of undergraduate Forestry students and some Library Science students.
My next task was to list the equipment that I wanted to demonstrate and to rough out the amount of time I thought I needed for each medium. I also added an introduction and a summary to the course for time purposes. At this point I set up the objectives for each medium, not only wanting the student to be able to operate the equipment, but know why it was to be used and what characteristics it brought to the learning, i.e., film brought motion, overhead transparencies brought visual clarity and 35 mm slides brought visual acuity.
Now the hard work started. First I wrote out what I thought might be the final exam. I find testing to be the biggest chore for me--it takes time to write a decent question that will reveal a student's knowledge of that objective. However, if I start at this juncture, the rest of the course is easier to design. I received permission from the department to not use a textbook for this course. My reasoning (which I have reviewed over the years) was that I wanted to students to know the machines through their actions, not through readings. I'm still not sure what is the best way for the learners.
The next step is to plan the instruction for each objective. Introduction, presentation of the medium along with demonstration of different materials that can be used at different grade levels (K-12). For each medium taught I listed capabilities that I wanted each student to acquire from making different types of overheads to previewing film to use in their classrooms. I wanted them to discover some of their own learning with the equipment and with that discovery some increased positive feelings with the use of instructional media (affective domain).
Once I had the media objective's instructions outlined, tasks assigned to each objective, I compare it to my final examination. In some cases I changed the instructional material and in some cases I changed the final exam questions.
I then scheduled the self-instructional learning lab for specific evenings so that students from off campus would have time to participate in the learning laboratory. Let me digress here for a moment. Shortly after World War II, Penn State University college of education did some interesting research on how to teach technology. During WW II soldiers were taught by expository method with the warning that if they didn't learn "it" they would probably be killed. High internal motivation resulted. But after the war, how does one motivate the learning of technology without that threat? Interesting thought. So Penn State designed a course in media with different approaches in methodology....1) pure lecture (traditional at that time), 2) supervised hands on (one on one), 3) self-instructional laboratory with instructions written on cards or slides), 4) during student teaching and 5) no instructions at all (control group).
These methods were used for a year and during the following year most of the subjects had gotten teaching jobs and were evaluated by the principal as to their use of instructional materials in their classroom. There was no difference between the groups including the control group. Holy cow! The researchers could think of no reason why this was happening. However on the second year the control group was significantly lower in evaluation scores by the principals. But on the third year it was the teachers who had learned in the self-instructional laboratories that seemed to stand out. Seemed because they were the ones that were now being singled out as "excellent teachers" by the principals. Not just in using the media but in all aspects of teaching.
Why? How come? The eventual surmise was that these teachers (to be) were learning on their own how to use technology. That might have been the cognitive and the psycho-motor objectives but they also acquired some affective learning on how to learn by oneself. So as these teachers went on to teach their classroom, the continued to try different things out in the classroom. One of these teachers reported that soon after getting her own classroom, the school brought in new technology and she figured that if she learned the other machines she could learn this as well. Interesting thought here.
SO.....my students would have to go through the self-instruction learning lab and learn how to operate each piece of equipment and demonstrate that learning to a lab instructor. Hands on testing.
I now had the course designed and the final was once again reviewed. Because I elected not to use a textbook, I had to write up a course syllabus as well as a number of class handouts. Because I had a large number of professional teachers in the class I needed to have make up times for those that had to miss class (only a few did), evening office hours for those teaching all day, office hours for those on campus, and a schedule date for the final examination.
I can report that the class went well. My notes suggest that I needed more time for student comments--those that went back to their classrooms and tried some of the material I had presented. "Success breeds success" and you have to let the students brag a bit about what they had done. Many reported they didn't like the self-instructional lab at the beginning but they all agreed that after some rough starts it was fun "learning the new equipment." They seem to reinforce the findings of Penn State's learning lab. One negative that I still haven't quite got over--because of the class time (4 to 7), many of the students came to class eating a fast food dinner. For an instructor who would not get his dinner until later that night, those fast food dinners sure smelled good.
I didn't follow up on the students after they finished the course. On hind sight I think I might have done that to see what was valuable to them in their teaching.
Today if I were to design an Instructional Technology course, I would go through some of the same procedures but I probably would have the use of Smart Boards for expository use, computers for sure in laboratories, and I would mandate the use of "Blackboard" instead of handouts. Student responses would be done on Blackboard, a course management system to facilitate exchange between student and instructor.
Have you ever thanked a college instructor for the course? It would be a nice surprise.
Some years ago I was asked to teach a course in beginning (basic) instructional media at a university's college of education. It had been taught previously by the head of the department however the dean was trying to get some time for this professor to be able to do some research hence I was asked to teach the course. Not only teach the course but redesign it and "bring it up to date."
The first thing to do was to ascertain the parameters--those things which could not be changed. For instance, this course was in the catalog, 3 quarter credits (which meant that it met for three hours a week for a quarter or twelve weeks of instruction. That meant for this scheduled course it would meet on Thursdays from 4 pm to 7 pm. The classroom was a controlled classroom, meaning that only the department of Instructional media had access to it. It was a long room with an aisle up the middle, a small stage in front and projection equipment already installed in the classroom. This was before microcomputers were established so I didn't have to teach computers. The class would have access to a "Self-Instructional Learning Laboratory," a room of equipment set up with special designed instructions to help the student learn how to operate different types of media.
An important task is to review who the student will be in this course. In this case, being that it was an afternoon/evening course, I could expect a number of experienced teachers wanting to learn more about technology as well as picking up 3 credits for fifth year or master's work. I could also expect to have a number of upper grade underclass students completing their educational requirements. The register's office said I might expect forty to fifty students. While the majority of the students would be in education I might also get a couple of undergraduate Forestry students and some Library Science students.
My next task was to list the equipment that I wanted to demonstrate and to rough out the amount of time I thought I needed for each medium. I also added an introduction and a summary to the course for time purposes. At this point I set up the objectives for each medium, not only wanting the student to be able to operate the equipment, but know why it was to be used and what characteristics it brought to the learning, i.e., film brought motion, overhead transparencies brought visual clarity and 35 mm slides brought visual acuity.
Now the hard work started. First I wrote out what I thought might be the final exam. I find testing to be the biggest chore for me--it takes time to write a decent question that will reveal a student's knowledge of that objective. However, if I start at this juncture, the rest of the course is easier to design. I received permission from the department to not use a textbook for this course. My reasoning (which I have reviewed over the years) was that I wanted to students to know the machines through their actions, not through readings. I'm still not sure what is the best way for the learners.
The next step is to plan the instruction for each objective. Introduction, presentation of the medium along with demonstration of different materials that can be used at different grade levels (K-12). For each medium taught I listed capabilities that I wanted each student to acquire from making different types of overheads to previewing film to use in their classrooms. I wanted them to discover some of their own learning with the equipment and with that discovery some increased positive feelings with the use of instructional media (affective domain).
Once I had the media objective's instructions outlined, tasks assigned to each objective, I compare it to my final examination. In some cases I changed the instructional material and in some cases I changed the final exam questions.
I then scheduled the self-instructional learning lab for specific evenings so that students from off campus would have time to participate in the learning laboratory. Let me digress here for a moment. Shortly after World War II, Penn State University college of education did some interesting research on how to teach technology. During WW II soldiers were taught by expository method with the warning that if they didn't learn "it" they would probably be killed. High internal motivation resulted. But after the war, how does one motivate the learning of technology without that threat? Interesting thought. So Penn State designed a course in media with different approaches in methodology....1) pure lecture (traditional at that time), 2) supervised hands on (one on one), 3) self-instructional laboratory with instructions written on cards or slides), 4) during student teaching and 5) no instructions at all (control group).
These methods were used for a year and during the following year most of the subjects had gotten teaching jobs and were evaluated by the principal as to their use of instructional materials in their classroom. There was no difference between the groups including the control group. Holy cow! The researchers could think of no reason why this was happening. However on the second year the control group was significantly lower in evaluation scores by the principals. But on the third year it was the teachers who had learned in the self-instructional laboratories that seemed to stand out. Seemed because they were the ones that were now being singled out as "excellent teachers" by the principals. Not just in using the media but in all aspects of teaching.
Why? How come? The eventual surmise was that these teachers (to be) were learning on their own how to use technology. That might have been the cognitive and the psycho-motor objectives but they also acquired some affective learning on how to learn by oneself. So as these teachers went on to teach their classroom, the continued to try different things out in the classroom. One of these teachers reported that soon after getting her own classroom, the school brought in new technology and she figured that if she learned the other machines she could learn this as well. Interesting thought here.
SO.....my students would have to go through the self-instruction learning lab and learn how to operate each piece of equipment and demonstrate that learning to a lab instructor. Hands on testing.
I now had the course designed and the final was once again reviewed. Because I elected not to use a textbook, I had to write up a course syllabus as well as a number of class handouts. Because I had a large number of professional teachers in the class I needed to have make up times for those that had to miss class (only a few did), evening office hours for those teaching all day, office hours for those on campus, and a schedule date for the final examination.
I can report that the class went well. My notes suggest that I needed more time for student comments--those that went back to their classrooms and tried some of the material I had presented. "Success breeds success" and you have to let the students brag a bit about what they had done. Many reported they didn't like the self-instructional lab at the beginning but they all agreed that after some rough starts it was fun "learning the new equipment." They seem to reinforce the findings of Penn State's learning lab. One negative that I still haven't quite got over--because of the class time (4 to 7), many of the students came to class eating a fast food dinner. For an instructor who would not get his dinner until later that night, those fast food dinners sure smelled good.
I didn't follow up on the students after they finished the course. On hind sight I think I might have done that to see what was valuable to them in their teaching.
Today if I were to design an Instructional Technology course, I would go through some of the same procedures but I probably would have the use of Smart Boards for expository use, computers for sure in laboratories, and I would mandate the use of "Blackboard" instead of handouts. Student responses would be done on Blackboard, a course management system to facilitate exchange between student and instructor.
Have you ever thanked a college instructor for the course? It would be a nice surprise.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The Birth of the University...
Present day universities and colleges are an odd duck in sheep's clothing. Faculty actually work for ........ themselves. And you thought they worked for their university. Not so. So let's take it from the beginning.
An early group of teachers were the Sophists in ancient Greece. They taught young upperclass men for a fee, unheard of in those days, and would only teach those that could afford it. And they taught philosophy and reason although their statements were quite often not true. Hence, in today's world, the term sophist means to deceive by specious statements. In the philosophical world, the Sophists professed skepticism. But the key word here is not 'skepticism' but rather, 'professed' which means to state publicly. So a Professor is someone who states something publicly.
The next body (although they existed alongside the Sophists) of teachers were learned men who studied on their own. Most of these learned men had patrons who sponsored them, Kings, Popes, Titled persons and rich men, who in some cases, kept the learned men like pets. "My learned man is better than your learned man..." The learned ones could teach what they had learned by sometimes only if the knowledge was approved by the sponsor. A good example can be found a book entitled: "Galileo's Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love." http://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Daughter-Historical-Memoir-Science/dp/0140280553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307555524&sr=8-1. Based upon a series of letters between daughter and father, one can see that Galileo's learnings had to be brought before church at that time for approval. And yet, Galileo strongly held to what he had found--that the earth was not the center of the universe.
Interestingly enough the church sponsored the next category of teachers indirectly, monks from several different disciplines. These pious Monks would pray, study, write in cloisters for years interacting between the groups at times. It is said in some history books that the long sleeves of the Monks provided a good place to steal bread and food while walking through the market place while the hoods protected their identity.
There is an interesting story about these groups that I delight in telling. The Monks would meet from time to time to report on what they were studying and it is said that if the report was not done well, those in attendance would throw stones. I've had the same feeling at some of my own department meetings at my university. But that is not the story I want to relate. In the same report, it was said that the body of monks would elect the "least" among them to find a room for them to meet, to start the fire to warm the room and to send out notices of the meeting time and place. And this person was called a "Dean." You could get out from being a dean by making a "good" report. A delightful bit of information I think......
So...through the efforts of these monks we have the beginnings of colleges and universities. "A collection of learned men [and women when you add Galileo's daughter]." So who "owns" the knowledge that these scholars gleamed from the world around them? Does the King, Patron or Pope own that knowledge? Or the person who discovered it, teased it from the environment, developed it? Interesting question. This debate still rages today in Idaho where the president wants to change the configuration of the university and the faculty (monks?) will have none of it. See: Stanley Fish's article, "Faculty Governance In Idaho" in the June 6th, New York Times, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/faculty-governance-in-idaho/?emc=eta1 We live in interesting times.
Let us clarify some terms before we continue too far down this road. At a present day university there are a number of different levels of instructors or faculty. The lowest level (meaning they get the least money for their work) is the Graduate Assistant. Neither fish nor fowl, the graduate assistant is a student and a worker. He/She assists some professor in the research, teaching, or administrative details like running labs or doing library research. A graduate assistant working on their doctoral studies might even be ask to teach a class. Rare but it is done.
From graduate assistants we go to the Instructor. This is a wide category--ranging from someone who teaches a lower level class over and over to someone who is invited to join the faculty after they have had a successful career in the real world but may not have the degree.
Next we enter the professorial world. Beware, ye who dare to enter here! What a quagmire! Before I explain the levels be it known that the old monks had some standards for their rock throwing. A professor has to do three things well, teach, service, and research. In many universities, the latter takes the form of writing--either books or articles in learned journals (journals are Magazines controlled by other monks). But these three characteristics are not viewed equally by all universities. Teaching by and large is the least of the three. Service is the second of the three-- that is being an officer in a learned organization or in charge of a major national committee to study something is considered service. The top tier is research which is evaluated by what is written.
But politics also takes its toll. A faculty member who is in the "pure" sciences will receive ratings that are higher then a faculty member in education or the social sciences. Different politics for different universities. I visited an Ivy league college some years ago to research their student teaching methods. They had NO educational professors, in fact, NO education department. Anyone that taught education courses was in the Department of Psychology. Interestingly enough, they also had no one supervising student teaching. A student had to find their own position and get the teacher to agree to having a student teacher in his/her classroom. This an Ivy League college program. Quite frankly I would have at that time put any of our education students against any of theres except they were Ivy League and would only admit the most capable students in their program.
Now that we have the evaluation scheme outlined, the results of ones research, teaching and service give us the different levels of professorialship. The lowest level is the Assistant Professor. Normally the youngest of the department, these are the new professors starting out in their career of inquiry. After a period of time and good marks in those three areas of concern, an Assistant Professor can be elevated to Associate Professor. This position has more freedom to study and sometimes are given the harder courses to teach. Definitely more is expected in the area of service both on campus and nationwide. The highest level is the "Professor," sometimes called "Full Professor" or in private conversations amoung the younger, "the old Bulls." This phrase I believe is dying out as we get more full professors that are female. A good thing!
Now let get to a major point for this blog, that of college teachers and teaching. So who owns the knowledge that professors acquire and write about from their research--the professor him/herself? The Department? The University? It is a delicate matter. I've always held that the material I wrote was the property of the public, i.e., I would not copyright my material. Anyone can use it--the same holds for this blog. I think John Dewey and I and a host of other philosophers more learned then I would agree that ideas and facts belong to the world. But not all professors think that way. Some professors discover some new thing that can be marketed outside the perimeters of the university and make millions. Who owns that knowledge?
But here is a fact that troubles me--most professors are not taught to teach. Perhaps this is why teaching is the lowest category in the evaluation of a professor. The field of education is the exception. Most education professors have taught in the public schools for at least three or more years. Many taught classes while working on their doctoral degrees. "How to Teach" is their field of interest. I can say that at my college of education that were a number of excellent teachers, all of which I would have enjoyed to sit in and take their course.
Do faculty members get evaluated or "graded" on their teaching. By and large the answer is "no". Some universities have an evaluation procedure that has the students in that class rate the professor in a number of categories from "being available at office hours," to "explains things after class." It is not scientific and the evaluation form fits all classes even though it does not. How does one compare a philosophy course which deals with ideas to one of my Instructional Technology course which deals with mechanics and software.
As you can see, this subject of college teachers and teaching is a quagmire. And there is much more that needs to be addressed. Next time we need to look at how all this new material is acquired and transmitted to the student. Then the question becomes how to see if the student "learned" the material and how well. What! we're going to talk about grading? That is beyond the quagmire--that is a mess.
Did you ever thank your college instructor? I had a number who thanked me and who have become my friends. They too study how people learn.
An early group of teachers were the Sophists in ancient Greece. They taught young upperclass men for a fee, unheard of in those days, and would only teach those that could afford it. And they taught philosophy and reason although their statements were quite often not true. Hence, in today's world, the term sophist means to deceive by specious statements. In the philosophical world, the Sophists professed skepticism. But the key word here is not 'skepticism' but rather, 'professed' which means to state publicly. So a Professor is someone who states something publicly.
The next body (although they existed alongside the Sophists) of teachers were learned men who studied on their own. Most of these learned men had patrons who sponsored them, Kings, Popes, Titled persons and rich men, who in some cases, kept the learned men like pets. "My learned man is better than your learned man..." The learned ones could teach what they had learned by sometimes only if the knowledge was approved by the sponsor. A good example can be found a book entitled: "Galileo's Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love." http://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Daughter-Historical-Memoir-Science/dp/0140280553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307555524&sr=8-1. Based upon a series of letters between daughter and father, one can see that Galileo's learnings had to be brought before church at that time for approval. And yet, Galileo strongly held to what he had found--that the earth was not the center of the universe.
Interestingly enough the church sponsored the next category of teachers indirectly, monks from several different disciplines. These pious Monks would pray, study, write in cloisters for years interacting between the groups at times. It is said in some history books that the long sleeves of the Monks provided a good place to steal bread and food while walking through the market place while the hoods protected their identity.
There is an interesting story about these groups that I delight in telling. The Monks would meet from time to time to report on what they were studying and it is said that if the report was not done well, those in attendance would throw stones. I've had the same feeling at some of my own department meetings at my university. But that is not the story I want to relate. In the same report, it was said that the body of monks would elect the "least" among them to find a room for them to meet, to start the fire to warm the room and to send out notices of the meeting time and place. And this person was called a "Dean." You could get out from being a dean by making a "good" report. A delightful bit of information I think......
So...through the efforts of these monks we have the beginnings of colleges and universities. "A collection of learned men [and women when you add Galileo's daughter]." So who "owns" the knowledge that these scholars gleamed from the world around them? Does the King, Patron or Pope own that knowledge? Or the person who discovered it, teased it from the environment, developed it? Interesting question. This debate still rages today in Idaho where the president wants to change the configuration of the university and the faculty (monks?) will have none of it. See: Stanley Fish's article, "Faculty Governance In Idaho" in the June 6th, New York Times, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/faculty-governance-in-idaho/?emc=eta1 We live in interesting times.
Let us clarify some terms before we continue too far down this road. At a present day university there are a number of different levels of instructors or faculty. The lowest level (meaning they get the least money for their work) is the Graduate Assistant. Neither fish nor fowl, the graduate assistant is a student and a worker. He/She assists some professor in the research, teaching, or administrative details like running labs or doing library research. A graduate assistant working on their doctoral studies might even be ask to teach a class. Rare but it is done.
From graduate assistants we go to the Instructor. This is a wide category--ranging from someone who teaches a lower level class over and over to someone who is invited to join the faculty after they have had a successful career in the real world but may not have the degree.
Next we enter the professorial world. Beware, ye who dare to enter here! What a quagmire! Before I explain the levels be it known that the old monks had some standards for their rock throwing. A professor has to do three things well, teach, service, and research. In many universities, the latter takes the form of writing--either books or articles in learned journals (journals are Magazines controlled by other monks). But these three characteristics are not viewed equally by all universities. Teaching by and large is the least of the three. Service is the second of the three-- that is being an officer in a learned organization or in charge of a major national committee to study something is considered service. The top tier is research which is evaluated by what is written.
But politics also takes its toll. A faculty member who is in the "pure" sciences will receive ratings that are higher then a faculty member in education or the social sciences. Different politics for different universities. I visited an Ivy league college some years ago to research their student teaching methods. They had NO educational professors, in fact, NO education department. Anyone that taught education courses was in the Department of Psychology. Interestingly enough, they also had no one supervising student teaching. A student had to find their own position and get the teacher to agree to having a student teacher in his/her classroom. This an Ivy League college program. Quite frankly I would have at that time put any of our education students against any of theres except they were Ivy League and would only admit the most capable students in their program.
Now that we have the evaluation scheme outlined, the results of ones research, teaching and service give us the different levels of professorialship. The lowest level is the Assistant Professor. Normally the youngest of the department, these are the new professors starting out in their career of inquiry. After a period of time and good marks in those three areas of concern, an Assistant Professor can be elevated to Associate Professor. This position has more freedom to study and sometimes are given the harder courses to teach. Definitely more is expected in the area of service both on campus and nationwide. The highest level is the "Professor," sometimes called "Full Professor" or in private conversations amoung the younger, "the old Bulls." This phrase I believe is dying out as we get more full professors that are female. A good thing!
Now let get to a major point for this blog, that of college teachers and teaching. So who owns the knowledge that professors acquire and write about from their research--the professor him/herself? The Department? The University? It is a delicate matter. I've always held that the material I wrote was the property of the public, i.e., I would not copyright my material. Anyone can use it--the same holds for this blog. I think John Dewey and I and a host of other philosophers more learned then I would agree that ideas and facts belong to the world. But not all professors think that way. Some professors discover some new thing that can be marketed outside the perimeters of the university and make millions. Who owns that knowledge?
But here is a fact that troubles me--most professors are not taught to teach. Perhaps this is why teaching is the lowest category in the evaluation of a professor. The field of education is the exception. Most education professors have taught in the public schools for at least three or more years. Many taught classes while working on their doctoral degrees. "How to Teach" is their field of interest. I can say that at my college of education that were a number of excellent teachers, all of which I would have enjoyed to sit in and take their course.
Do faculty members get evaluated or "graded" on their teaching. By and large the answer is "no". Some universities have an evaluation procedure that has the students in that class rate the professor in a number of categories from "being available at office hours," to "explains things after class." It is not scientific and the evaluation form fits all classes even though it does not. How does one compare a philosophy course which deals with ideas to one of my Instructional Technology course which deals with mechanics and software.
As you can see, this subject of college teachers and teaching is a quagmire. And there is much more that needs to be addressed. Next time we need to look at how all this new material is acquired and transmitted to the student. Then the question becomes how to see if the student "learned" the material and how well. What! we're going to talk about grading? That is beyond the quagmire--that is a mess.
Did you ever thank your college instructor? I had a number who thanked me and who have become my friends. They too study how people learn.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Distance Learning
While I do not think of myself as an expert in distance learning or distance education I have had a lot of experiences with this concept of education. Let's generalize and clarify some terms first so that all of us are on the same page. There is a teacher and that teacher has a subject to teach. Then there is a medium, some form that the instructions and information are carried to the student or receiver. This could be television, a book, audio or a host of other types of media. Then there is the student or the receiver of the message.....someplace, sometime, somewhere.
We've always had distance learning if you consider the book as a medium of instruction. The author writes the book, the book then is transported somewhere and someone picks the book and reads it and learns something. What seems to be missing here for the more purest of the distance learning camp is somehow testing the learner so see what they retained from the book. However, for centuries we have had libraries (mostly privately owned) and learners who have had internal motivation to gain some information or learning(s).
If you can agree with my generalization that we need a teacher, a message and a learner who are not in the same room I think then we have some agreement on distance learning.
My first exposure to this form of education came when I was doing my "September Experience" in 1953, a procedure that I had to accomplish to be admitted to the School of Education at my undergraduate university. It was to be a two week observation of a school getting underway for the year's classes. I was fortunate to have had the privilege of doing this exercise at the Rye High School in Rye, New York. A prestigious school, it is consistently in the lists of outstanding high schools in the United States. It was then as well.
I was warmly welcomed and asked if I would help out for the first week or two by carrying a small box from classroom to classroom. It was a two way speaker box that would allow a bed-ridden student at home to attend classes. "Hey, no problem." I would pick up the box at the office in the morning, plugging it in at selected classrooms and then return it to the office in the afternoon. Generally when I got to the first classroom, I'd plug in the RCA jack and then ask, "Ellen, can you hear me?" And Ellen would say, "Good morning, Mr. Blackwell. Thank you for bringing me to class." We did this all day long. Much too soon the high school kids knew which room Ellen was supposed to be in and took over my job. But I remember Ellen saying, "Mr. Blackwell." No one had called me that before--I was becoming a teacher. Distance learning--at its best.
My second experience with distance learning was in the US Army when I signed up for a course on Abnormal Psychology from the University of Wisconsin. Someone had written a book detailing different types of Abnormal Personalities and at the end of each chapter were a series of questions and a designed paper to write detailing learnings from that chapter. I remember doing about half of the book before I had to put it aside because of our work load at the base. But I learned and I remember the professor writing on one of my papers that he was pleased with my work. He didn't realize that I had more then one example in my unit in each chapter.
My next exposure to distance learning was when I was teaching a course on Instructional Technology at my university and powers to be wanted me to do on a local television station. Interesting problem. Today we would call it reality television. I had a class of educational students and once a week we taped two one hour shows on how to use instructional technology in the classroom. A product of the late 1970s, it covered film, overheads, transparencies 35 mm slide projectors and a host of things that are not available to today's classroom teacher.
Once the tapes were made the local station then ran them at strange times throughout the week. At that time KCTS, a television station on the campus of the University of Washington was also doing educational shows that were well done. Their shows were beamed to school districts and teachers could turn on a television set and have the children watch the presentation. It was well done.
Did I learn anything from doing the sixteen classroom presentation for the local television class? Quite a bit. There are a few people up at four in the morning who do watch. We received two letters, both complementary but each had a complaint about something I had done. I can't remember what they were. I think I have mention before in this blog that this one class was the lowest ranking class in my evaluations that I had ever gotten. The students hated the class. Almost to a person they said they would never take a class like this again. But this wasn't distance learning for these educational students--it was direct instruction and every time I ask a student a question a large camera would zoom in on them to record the answer. They hated that. And hated me for asking them. But I was interested to see that the dress of the students improved from hippy style to pretty normal by the end of the class. They were aware they were on television.
I've already written in a previous blog about my experiences of teaching on a phone line. Multiple phone lines to be exact. The state of Washington in order to try to save time and money set up phone stations around the state, some at universities, some a community schools, one in the top floor of a department store. People could gather at these sites and talk to each other without holding a phone to their ear. Multiple sites could interact with relative ease.
Could we teach using audio only? That was the test so I taught a class for experienced teachers across the state--about fifty students. I think a lot of good came out of this experiment. Although we couldn't SEE each other, we did get to "learn" each other's voices. And I found that many of the students actually would call on regular phones to help each other after the class was done for the day. I was very impressed with the amount and the quality of work that was accomplished in that class over the telephone lines.
But let's clarify at this point some of the variables in distance learning. As I have mentioned, you need a teacher and a subject to be learned. Then you need a medium to communicate the objectives, the instructions, the nuances of that learning to the student. Next we need the student--or students. You could have one like the preverbal teacher on one end of the log and the student on the other end of the log or you can have a teacher in a medical school with students at hospitals all over this country.
BUT....there is an important part here for the student component. There has to be either internal motivation or external motivation or both. What prompts a person to pick up a book and learn something? There needs to be internal motivation for that to accrue. I once saw a wonderful example of external motivation at Boeings. The instructor stood up and said to a group of thirty students/workers, "You have two weeks to learn the following or you will be given pink slips."
One thing that puzzles me in distance learning. Do we need some form of a test to "prove" that the student has learned? Indeed, does a student need some sort of a test to put that learning into some form of a recall? It is a little like mixing a cake but you don't have the real thing until it comes out of the oven. I suspect the answer to this lies within the internal and external ramifications.
In today's magical world of technology, the web, and all the magnifications of this phenomenon, we have the ability to do distance learning much easier then what I experienced earlier on. But the quality of learning depends upon the learner. Let me repeat myself, the quality of learning depends upon the learner. As an example go to the Kahn Academy. Over two thousand courses are available. Some dealing with simple objectives, others are advanced courses. But I suspect all of them are good--I haven't completed many of them yet. But it is available and all those courses need is a motivated student. See: http://www.khanacademy.org/about
Given all this, I am a proponent of distance learning. But all the pieces have to fit--the instructor, the message and the student.
If you've had a distance learning course and learned from it (notice I didn't ask if you enjoyed it), write a comment for the rest of us to learn from. And for some of you who have taken a distance learning course, have you thanked your teacher? I wish I had thanked that Wisconsin professor of Abnormal Psychology. He helped me get through the Army.
We've always had distance learning if you consider the book as a medium of instruction. The author writes the book, the book then is transported somewhere and someone picks the book and reads it and learns something. What seems to be missing here for the more purest of the distance learning camp is somehow testing the learner so see what they retained from the book. However, for centuries we have had libraries (mostly privately owned) and learners who have had internal motivation to gain some information or learning(s).
If you can agree with my generalization that we need a teacher, a message and a learner who are not in the same room I think then we have some agreement on distance learning.
My first exposure to this form of education came when I was doing my "September Experience" in 1953, a procedure that I had to accomplish to be admitted to the School of Education at my undergraduate university. It was to be a two week observation of a school getting underway for the year's classes. I was fortunate to have had the privilege of doing this exercise at the Rye High School in Rye, New York. A prestigious school, it is consistently in the lists of outstanding high schools in the United States. It was then as well.
I was warmly welcomed and asked if I would help out for the first week or two by carrying a small box from classroom to classroom. It was a two way speaker box that would allow a bed-ridden student at home to attend classes. "Hey, no problem." I would pick up the box at the office in the morning, plugging it in at selected classrooms and then return it to the office in the afternoon. Generally when I got to the first classroom, I'd plug in the RCA jack and then ask, "Ellen, can you hear me?" And Ellen would say, "Good morning, Mr. Blackwell. Thank you for bringing me to class." We did this all day long. Much too soon the high school kids knew which room Ellen was supposed to be in and took over my job. But I remember Ellen saying, "Mr. Blackwell." No one had called me that before--I was becoming a teacher. Distance learning--at its best.
My second experience with distance learning was in the US Army when I signed up for a course on Abnormal Psychology from the University of Wisconsin. Someone had written a book detailing different types of Abnormal Personalities and at the end of each chapter were a series of questions and a designed paper to write detailing learnings from that chapter. I remember doing about half of the book before I had to put it aside because of our work load at the base. But I learned and I remember the professor writing on one of my papers that he was pleased with my work. He didn't realize that I had more then one example in my unit in each chapter.
My next exposure to distance learning was when I was teaching a course on Instructional Technology at my university and powers to be wanted me to do on a local television station. Interesting problem. Today we would call it reality television. I had a class of educational students and once a week we taped two one hour shows on how to use instructional technology in the classroom. A product of the late 1970s, it covered film, overheads, transparencies 35 mm slide projectors and a host of things that are not available to today's classroom teacher.
Once the tapes were made the local station then ran them at strange times throughout the week. At that time KCTS, a television station on the campus of the University of Washington was also doing educational shows that were well done. Their shows were beamed to school districts and teachers could turn on a television set and have the children watch the presentation. It was well done.
Did I learn anything from doing the sixteen classroom presentation for the local television class? Quite a bit. There are a few people up at four in the morning who do watch. We received two letters, both complementary but each had a complaint about something I had done. I can't remember what they were. I think I have mention before in this blog that this one class was the lowest ranking class in my evaluations that I had ever gotten. The students hated the class. Almost to a person they said they would never take a class like this again. But this wasn't distance learning for these educational students--it was direct instruction and every time I ask a student a question a large camera would zoom in on them to record the answer. They hated that. And hated me for asking them. But I was interested to see that the dress of the students improved from hippy style to pretty normal by the end of the class. They were aware they were on television.
I've already written in a previous blog about my experiences of teaching on a phone line. Multiple phone lines to be exact. The state of Washington in order to try to save time and money set up phone stations around the state, some at universities, some a community schools, one in the top floor of a department store. People could gather at these sites and talk to each other without holding a phone to their ear. Multiple sites could interact with relative ease.
Could we teach using audio only? That was the test so I taught a class for experienced teachers across the state--about fifty students. I think a lot of good came out of this experiment. Although we couldn't SEE each other, we did get to "learn" each other's voices. And I found that many of the students actually would call on regular phones to help each other after the class was done for the day. I was very impressed with the amount and the quality of work that was accomplished in that class over the telephone lines.
But let's clarify at this point some of the variables in distance learning. As I have mentioned, you need a teacher and a subject to be learned. Then you need a medium to communicate the objectives, the instructions, the nuances of that learning to the student. Next we need the student--or students. You could have one like the preverbal teacher on one end of the log and the student on the other end of the log or you can have a teacher in a medical school with students at hospitals all over this country.
BUT....there is an important part here for the student component. There has to be either internal motivation or external motivation or both. What prompts a person to pick up a book and learn something? There needs to be internal motivation for that to accrue. I once saw a wonderful example of external motivation at Boeings. The instructor stood up and said to a group of thirty students/workers, "You have two weeks to learn the following or you will be given pink slips."
One thing that puzzles me in distance learning. Do we need some form of a test to "prove" that the student has learned? Indeed, does a student need some sort of a test to put that learning into some form of a recall? It is a little like mixing a cake but you don't have the real thing until it comes out of the oven. I suspect the answer to this lies within the internal and external ramifications.
In today's magical world of technology, the web, and all the magnifications of this phenomenon, we have the ability to do distance learning much easier then what I experienced earlier on. But the quality of learning depends upon the learner. Let me repeat myself, the quality of learning depends upon the learner. As an example go to the Kahn Academy. Over two thousand courses are available. Some dealing with simple objectives, others are advanced courses. But I suspect all of them are good--I haven't completed many of them yet. But it is available and all those courses need is a motivated student. See: http://www.khanacademy.org/about
Given all this, I am a proponent of distance learning. But all the pieces have to fit--the instructor, the message and the student.
If you've had a distance learning course and learned from it (notice I didn't ask if you enjoyed it), write a comment for the rest of us to learn from. And for some of you who have taken a distance learning course, have you thanked your teacher? I wish I had thanked that Wisconsin professor of Abnormal Psychology. He helped me get through the Army.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The Power of a Teacher
Tomorrow (Wednesday, May 25, 2011) will be the last talk show by Oprah Winfrey and the news pundits have all made an effort to know who will be on the final show. Early returns indicate that no one person will be on--it will be Oprah herself reviewing those that have had an influence on her.
I suspect one of those flashbacks will be Mrs. Mary Duncan, Oprah's fourth grade teacher who got Oprah to open up and be the smart girl (woman) that she is. Oprah has repeatedly said that Mrs. Duncan was highly influential in getting her (Oprah) to be what she could be.
I hope I had a positive effect on my first fourth grade class. I still remember the kids even if they don't remember me. I had already taught three years as a fifth grade teacher and one more as an elementary music teacher for three schools and I had asked the school administration to let me go back to the elementary classroom. I wanted experience in the lower grades although as the music teacher I did have the opportunity to teach from Kindergarden to the sixth grade. But my school district had a policy at that time that male teachers were not to be assigned below the fourth grade. Don't ask me why--I haven't the slightest idea why the policy was in place. However, I was assigned a fourth grade class in the school I previously taught fifth grade in.
I still remember setting my goals. I was going to be the best teacher in the school and my kids would learn twice as much as the other fourth grades. Right! As did all the teachers, I had gone to the school before classes were started, got my room arranged for the time being in rows. I matched the chairs to the desks so that big chairs weren't with little desks. Didn't know teachers did that, did you? I got the text books out that I would pass out on the first day, pile high on a counter and I had written some stuff on the blackboard. I also had put together some material on the bulletin board--not much but a start. I'd want to put student's work on there as soon as I had some good examples. And of course I had gone to the office to get the files on the kids I would have that coming year although I didn't look at them until a month or two into the school year.
First day of school. The children's names that I would have were posted on the windows of my classroom and pretty soon a small pile of kids were peering in the windows and bunching up at the door eager for the school year to begin.
[an aside: I get tickled by the kids. By April of last year they were bored with school and couldn't wait for summer to begin. "No more school, no more books......" And then summer comes and within a few weeks the kids are saying, "when will school start again?" I love 'em.]
The school bell rings and I opened the door and stood there. "I want the girls along the wall line up and I want the boys to line up next to the girls." "And do it quietly!" And then I said, "I want you to go into the classroom, do not take off your coats or jackets but sit down at the first open chair that you come to and be quiet." The kids were apprehensive but excited--first day of class! Then I stood in the front of the room and looked at all of them. For some I was their first male teacher so they didn't know what to expect. I just stood there. The room got quiet, still, I just stood there and looked at them. Finally I spoke, "I hear breathing!" As I looked around the class I saw one little girl with tears coming down her cheeks. Oh dear, this was not what I wanted--I had to smile and tell them how well they had done so far. I remember going back to my little princess and saying "everything will be alright." My oh my how to screw up an opening day.
Well, coats were put away, books were distributed, lunch money was collected [I remember asking who were Jo Tyllia's kids and picking three of them to collect the lunch money--they could do it better than me anyway]. School was underway. Yes, we did the flag salute with the pledge of allegiance and I forget what else we did but but my opening salvo was shot down by some tears. I do remember we had a good year and yes, my kids tested out well. That was the year that one of the kids came to me and said, "we pretty smart, aren't we, Mr. Blackwell?" They were and I had a good time. I hope they did.
A few years later I left the school district to study full time at the university. I've always wonder what might has happened had we stayed in the district and had I become a principal as I had planned. But you don't look back except in satisfaction and the past will never be that again except in your memory. I'm sure all my kids would have a different perception of what when on that year.
Several years later when I was a wet behind the ears professor at what I now call "my university," two freshman girls knocked on my door, one short, the other tall. They were from that fourth grade class so many years back. We had a wonderful time talking about what went on during that year and I was aghast at some of the things they said I did. One of them said I teased her about her boyfriend. I didn't do that! The tall one said that I harassed her about her penmanship. No! Yes, you did. So I had her write something and she still had horrible penmanship. It was really bad. The funny thing about that is that she eventually got her Master's degree with that horrible, terrible, miserable penmanship. Oh well, you can win them all. They were wonderful kids. I miss them.
Go thank a teacher today. They need it.
I suspect one of those flashbacks will be Mrs. Mary Duncan, Oprah's fourth grade teacher who got Oprah to open up and be the smart girl (woman) that she is. Oprah has repeatedly said that Mrs. Duncan was highly influential in getting her (Oprah) to be what she could be.
I hope I had a positive effect on my first fourth grade class. I still remember the kids even if they don't remember me. I had already taught three years as a fifth grade teacher and one more as an elementary music teacher for three schools and I had asked the school administration to let me go back to the elementary classroom. I wanted experience in the lower grades although as the music teacher I did have the opportunity to teach from Kindergarden to the sixth grade. But my school district had a policy at that time that male teachers were not to be assigned below the fourth grade. Don't ask me why--I haven't the slightest idea why the policy was in place. However, I was assigned a fourth grade class in the school I previously taught fifth grade in.
I still remember setting my goals. I was going to be the best teacher in the school and my kids would learn twice as much as the other fourth grades. Right! As did all the teachers, I had gone to the school before classes were started, got my room arranged for the time being in rows. I matched the chairs to the desks so that big chairs weren't with little desks. Didn't know teachers did that, did you? I got the text books out that I would pass out on the first day, pile high on a counter and I had written some stuff on the blackboard. I also had put together some material on the bulletin board--not much but a start. I'd want to put student's work on there as soon as I had some good examples. And of course I had gone to the office to get the files on the kids I would have that coming year although I didn't look at them until a month or two into the school year.
First day of school. The children's names that I would have were posted on the windows of my classroom and pretty soon a small pile of kids were peering in the windows and bunching up at the door eager for the school year to begin.
[an aside: I get tickled by the kids. By April of last year they were bored with school and couldn't wait for summer to begin. "No more school, no more books......" And then summer comes and within a few weeks the kids are saying, "when will school start again?" I love 'em.]
The school bell rings and I opened the door and stood there. "I want the girls along the wall line up and I want the boys to line up next to the girls." "And do it quietly!" And then I said, "I want you to go into the classroom, do not take off your coats or jackets but sit down at the first open chair that you come to and be quiet." The kids were apprehensive but excited--first day of class! Then I stood in the front of the room and looked at all of them. For some I was their first male teacher so they didn't know what to expect. I just stood there. The room got quiet, still, I just stood there and looked at them. Finally I spoke, "I hear breathing!" As I looked around the class I saw one little girl with tears coming down her cheeks. Oh dear, this was not what I wanted--I had to smile and tell them how well they had done so far. I remember going back to my little princess and saying "everything will be alright." My oh my how to screw up an opening day.
Well, coats were put away, books were distributed, lunch money was collected [I remember asking who were Jo Tyllia's kids and picking three of them to collect the lunch money--they could do it better than me anyway]. School was underway. Yes, we did the flag salute with the pledge of allegiance and I forget what else we did but but my opening salvo was shot down by some tears. I do remember we had a good year and yes, my kids tested out well. That was the year that one of the kids came to me and said, "we pretty smart, aren't we, Mr. Blackwell?" They were and I had a good time. I hope they did.
A few years later I left the school district to study full time at the university. I've always wonder what might has happened had we stayed in the district and had I become a principal as I had planned. But you don't look back except in satisfaction and the past will never be that again except in your memory. I'm sure all my kids would have a different perception of what when on that year.
Several years later when I was a wet behind the ears professor at what I now call "my university," two freshman girls knocked on my door, one short, the other tall. They were from that fourth grade class so many years back. We had a wonderful time talking about what went on during that year and I was aghast at some of the things they said I did. One of them said I teased her about her boyfriend. I didn't do that! The tall one said that I harassed her about her penmanship. No! Yes, you did. So I had her write something and she still had horrible penmanship. It was really bad. The funny thing about that is that she eventually got her Master's degree with that horrible, terrible, miserable penmanship. Oh well, you can win them all. They were wonderful kids. I miss them.
Go thank a teacher today. They need it.
Friday, May 20, 2011
What Would I Do?
A reader wrote me recently and asked what would I do if I had my druthers in today's education system. I have given this assignment over the years to many of my graduate courses--the day dream assignment. I think most professors of education have done that in the past at one time or another. And I think it is a good assignment--John Dewey wrote a whole book on the subject. What fascinates me is that Professor Dewey's thoughts apply today just as well as when he wrote the book many years ago. I would dearly like to talk to John about "change" that he so much espoused in the curriculum that would be proper in today's educational world.
But let me first answer my young writer. We need to educate ALL the children of our society, not just the rich but those that are struggling as well. Perhaps we need to work harder on those children that have a difficult environment. At the moment I am reading on my Kindle (which I still like) a sailing/cruising/introspective book, entitled "The Motion of the Ocean," by Janna Cawrse Esarey. A very funny book and very well written. But there is an aside in the book by Janna that she started teaching for "Teach for America" in New Orleans and would go to work each morning full of expectations to save the world and go home that evening entirely lost. She admits you can't teach the child without attacking the environment in which the children live. Janna goes on to become a high school English teacher and if her style of writing is any indication of her teaching skills, I wish I had been in her class. So with Janna's cautions before my eyes, I still think we have to in some way teach ALL the children of society, not just the rich.
And I remember what an assistant superintendent of the Seattle Schools once told me as we toured one the elementary schools in her charge.....A disadvantage child is one who learns something at home that is not reinforced at school and learns at school something that is not reinforced at home. The school and the home have to be in sync in what they want the child to learn.
So let me generalize some thoughts here. I would like to see education in the United States upgrade their public school buildings. I have been in so many public schools that need serious remodeling, upgrading, or even removal. We need classrooms with adequate heat and light and sound control. I was in one classroom where the teacher had bought several rugs (at a flea market) where she used them for sound control. I WANT Smart boards, while boards, computers or iPad devices, storage areas, television for viewing and tons and tons of learning devices and materials. You get the picture--I want good designed classrooms suitable for learning for students of appropriate ages. I know I've written this before but Winston Churchill once said, "We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." I want to shape students for life-long learning. AND I WANT THOSE SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS TO BE ATTRACTIVE. The top rated school district in this state and the only one to be selected for the top high schools in America has also the best looking schools. Come on now, all you architects, help me out here!
Once we have the buildings we need TEACHERS, certified College of Education graduates who know their subject matter. Which means I want people who have an English degree to teach English, those with history degrees to teach history, and so on. I don't want to take Political Science majors (who haven't had education classes) and have them teach biology. My kids deserve better then that. And I want NEW teachers, OLD teachers, EXPERIENCED teachers, MALE and FEMALE teachers and RETIRED teachers. I don't want people being brought in off the street to teach my kids. I want trained professionals. This blog has always been in defense of the professional teacher. They are the salt of the earth as far as I am concerned. That is who I want in my classrooms. And then get out of their way and let them teach.
The third item that good schools need is an up-to-date curriculum. What do we want our children to learn? Getting new school buildings and getting trained teachers is easy--this is the tough one to obtain. What do we want the kids to learn? Part of the problem is that we (i.e., society) loves tradition so that what was good in my day should be good for my kids....right? And we (the people) love our special subjects, like patriotism, reading of the classics, honesty (honestly can we teach that?), frugality, history of American Wars. "Kids ought to be able to shape pen quill feathers." Believe it or not that was written by a parent when the Boston schools introduced metal (OMG) quills. We love tradition.
So what should our kids learn? How to Read. Check. How to Speak correctly. Check. How to write a sentence. Check. How to do their numbers. Chec......well hold on now. How much math should they be able to do? Algebra? Geometry? Quantum Physics? How about Health? Check. wait, wait now, no Sex Education. That should be taught at home. Right? Geography, yeah, we need that since so many countries have changed their names and borders in recent times. Science? Of course we need all the sciences except in certain parts of the country where it get in way of religion. In other parts of the country, we need biology, chemistry, astronomy, botany, Social Science....another hold on now. You mean psychology? You want kids to learn about themselves? Well, I have some reservations here. And you want Sociology too? Oh my. Isn't that how we behave in small or large groups? Okay, we need some social sciences. I almost forgot History, the study of American Wars.
Then we need to teach keyboarding (penmanship?), web searching (Google in most states but Bing in Washington State), Powerpoint development, spelling (even with spell checkers?) and television production (you got to be kidding).
Don't forget computer programming. Essential....so they say.
No, I haven't forgotten Physical Education, Music or the Arts. Each of these subjects could be a blog of their own. In fact, I've left out many subjects that adults want their children to learn. Indeed, some business round tables have contributed to the discussion about what to teach so they could have cheap labor that they wouldn't have to train.
There are so many subjects that could be useful in a curriculum that I would not want to be on a curriculum committee for a school district. Plato said it well, "What knowledge is of most worth?" Well, maybe it wasn't Plato. Maybe Churchill. I think in todays world one of the major problems facing society is what to teach our children. If I were president of this counry, I would set up a commission to explore what subjects would be helpful to our kids. That commission would be made up of teachers and parents, no administrators. I suspect it would take a number of years to come to some conclusions. And as soon as it was completed it probably be out of date. Thanks, John Dewey, for your comments on change. You were right all along.
Do I have more on what I think our schools should resemble? Yes, but I have to go thank some teachers at the moment. I'll get back to you on this.
But let me first answer my young writer. We need to educate ALL the children of our society, not just the rich but those that are struggling as well. Perhaps we need to work harder on those children that have a difficult environment. At the moment I am reading on my Kindle (which I still like) a sailing/cruising/introspective book, entitled "The Motion of the Ocean," by Janna Cawrse Esarey. A very funny book and very well written. But there is an aside in the book by Janna that she started teaching for "Teach for America" in New Orleans and would go to work each morning full of expectations to save the world and go home that evening entirely lost. She admits you can't teach the child without attacking the environment in which the children live. Janna goes on to become a high school English teacher and if her style of writing is any indication of her teaching skills, I wish I had been in her class. So with Janna's cautions before my eyes, I still think we have to in some way teach ALL the children of society, not just the rich.
And I remember what an assistant superintendent of the Seattle Schools once told me as we toured one the elementary schools in her charge.....A disadvantage child is one who learns something at home that is not reinforced at school and learns at school something that is not reinforced at home. The school and the home have to be in sync in what they want the child to learn.
So let me generalize some thoughts here. I would like to see education in the United States upgrade their public school buildings. I have been in so many public schools that need serious remodeling, upgrading, or even removal. We need classrooms with adequate heat and light and sound control. I was in one classroom where the teacher had bought several rugs (at a flea market) where she used them for sound control. I WANT Smart boards, while boards, computers or iPad devices, storage areas, television for viewing and tons and tons of learning devices and materials. You get the picture--I want good designed classrooms suitable for learning for students of appropriate ages. I know I've written this before but Winston Churchill once said, "We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." I want to shape students for life-long learning. AND I WANT THOSE SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS TO BE ATTRACTIVE. The top rated school district in this state and the only one to be selected for the top high schools in America has also the best looking schools. Come on now, all you architects, help me out here!
Once we have the buildings we need TEACHERS, certified College of Education graduates who know their subject matter. Which means I want people who have an English degree to teach English, those with history degrees to teach history, and so on. I don't want to take Political Science majors (who haven't had education classes) and have them teach biology. My kids deserve better then that. And I want NEW teachers, OLD teachers, EXPERIENCED teachers, MALE and FEMALE teachers and RETIRED teachers. I don't want people being brought in off the street to teach my kids. I want trained professionals. This blog has always been in defense of the professional teacher. They are the salt of the earth as far as I am concerned. That is who I want in my classrooms. And then get out of their way and let them teach.
The third item that good schools need is an up-to-date curriculum. What do we want our children to learn? Getting new school buildings and getting trained teachers is easy--this is the tough one to obtain. What do we want the kids to learn? Part of the problem is that we (i.e., society) loves tradition so that what was good in my day should be good for my kids....right? And we (the people) love our special subjects, like patriotism, reading of the classics, honesty (honestly can we teach that?), frugality, history of American Wars. "Kids ought to be able to shape pen quill feathers." Believe it or not that was written by a parent when the Boston schools introduced metal (OMG) quills. We love tradition.
So what should our kids learn? How to Read. Check. How to Speak correctly. Check. How to write a sentence. Check. How to do their numbers. Chec......well hold on now. How much math should they be able to do? Algebra? Geometry? Quantum Physics? How about Health? Check. wait, wait now, no Sex Education. That should be taught at home. Right? Geography, yeah, we need that since so many countries have changed their names and borders in recent times. Science? Of course we need all the sciences except in certain parts of the country where it get in way of religion. In other parts of the country, we need biology, chemistry, astronomy, botany, Social Science....another hold on now. You mean psychology? You want kids to learn about themselves? Well, I have some reservations here. And you want Sociology too? Oh my. Isn't that how we behave in small or large groups? Okay, we need some social sciences. I almost forgot History, the study of American Wars.
Then we need to teach keyboarding (penmanship?), web searching (Google in most states but Bing in Washington State), Powerpoint development, spelling (even with spell checkers?) and television production (you got to be kidding).
Don't forget computer programming. Essential....so they say.
No, I haven't forgotten Physical Education, Music or the Arts. Each of these subjects could be a blog of their own. In fact, I've left out many subjects that adults want their children to learn. Indeed, some business round tables have contributed to the discussion about what to teach so they could have cheap labor that they wouldn't have to train.
There are so many subjects that could be useful in a curriculum that I would not want to be on a curriculum committee for a school district. Plato said it well, "What knowledge is of most worth?" Well, maybe it wasn't Plato. Maybe Churchill. I think in todays world one of the major problems facing society is what to teach our children. If I were president of this counry, I would set up a commission to explore what subjects would be helpful to our kids. That commission would be made up of teachers and parents, no administrators. I suspect it would take a number of years to come to some conclusions. And as soon as it was completed it probably be out of date. Thanks, John Dewey, for your comments on change. You were right all along.
Do I have more on what I think our schools should resemble? Yes, but I have to go thank some teachers at the moment. I'll get back to you on this.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Who Will Teach Our Children?
I recently talked to two teachers, one who retired before her retirement time and the other teacher is going to retire this year--also at an earlier date. Both express concern about the negative feelings about teachers and how it affected their outlook in the classroom. They agreed that there was not the satisfaction they once got from working with their students. Both were primary teachers.
One teacher, Gail, who had taught for twenty-eight years and I knew to be an excellent teacher, was reflective on the fact that the negativity was coming from many sources. I asked about this and she said that two years ago a new young principal was assigned to the school and told the staff they were going to raise the testing scores for the next year. But Gail was upset because she and her colleagues thought they were doing a pretty good job at the time. It appears that the new principal hadn't really looked at the test scores. She also mentioned that he changed some of the policies and time schedules, the latter seems to have upset the faculty more then anything.
You see an elementary school, a good one, runs like a fine tuned watch. This class had the gym at this time because the other fifth grade has library at that time or the first graders put their classes together so that the music teacher can get to them every week rather then every other week. There is sensitivity to the schedules in school down to who goes to the buses first.
Then Gail mentioned that it seem to her that the parents were more on edge then in the past. Instead of "how is my child doing?" it was more "how are you teaching my child?" I asked Gail if she thought that parents were changing because of the TV news, web articles and newspaper reports on education and she did think it had an influence.
Both teachers mentioned the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) as being a focus for the schools and both thought it took away from the teaching. But Gail said that she still got in much of her reading instruction in spite of the extra demands on the curriculum for testing.
There is a point I wish to make, that both of these elementary teachers are married and both are comfortably well off. Retiring early would probably have little to do with their level of income. The majority of teachers in this country are women. And without going to the web to check statistics, I would suspect that a least a majority of them are married. So my assumption is that a number of women teachers are going to leave the teaching profession for one reason or the other. This worries me.
When I first started teaching fifth grade (I had already a year of teaching music in the elementary classrooms), I was young, I was popular with the kids, and the parents liked me. But I know now that I did not teach to my full potential. Many times during the first year I went to Jo Tylia or one of the other upper grade teachers and asked, "How do you do the following......" OR, "what do I do next?" I needed those more experienced teachers to guide me along my first year of classroom teaching. They saved my butt.
Now I hear that many local school districts are preparing layoff notices for faculty and because the state legislature has changed the rules of layoffs, the old rule that the last to be hired is the first to go will not be in effect. Now there is an understanding that no one seems to want to mention, that by laying off experienced (read at the higher end of the salary level) teachers you save a bundle of money and can hire MORE beginning teachers thereby keeping classroom levels somewhat lower. I think we'll lose a quality of teaching if that happens. Losing quality and experienced teachers will cost society in a long run.
There is a comparison that I want to make that I found interesting. The level of salaries of teachers and those that are in the military appear to be quite similar. But society makes sure that the military get the best equipment to do the job, the military personnel and families get free medical help, and when the time comes to do another term, military personnel get bonuses. The military families also get to use the P-X where food is much lower in price. Yes, me being a veteran I know about the hazards of being in the military. But if we keep making teaching a hazardous job, we may need to do some of the same things we do to ensure our military levels. Already some colleges of education are reporting a drop in enrollment. This is not good. And as the cost of tuition continues to rise the ratio of college costs to teaching salaries will continue to be a negative number. The future in teaching is not very bright.
[editorial update] A friend of mine who taught at the community college level in Portland, Oregon, just wrote me and asked had I seen a recent article, "The High Cost of Low Teachers' Salaries," in a recent New York Times. They said it better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html?_r=2&hp
Have you thanked a teacher today for teaching kids? They could use your pat on the back and support.
One teacher, Gail, who had taught for twenty-eight years and I knew to be an excellent teacher, was reflective on the fact that the negativity was coming from many sources. I asked about this and she said that two years ago a new young principal was assigned to the school and told the staff they were going to raise the testing scores for the next year. But Gail was upset because she and her colleagues thought they were doing a pretty good job at the time. It appears that the new principal hadn't really looked at the test scores. She also mentioned that he changed some of the policies and time schedules, the latter seems to have upset the faculty more then anything.
You see an elementary school, a good one, runs like a fine tuned watch. This class had the gym at this time because the other fifth grade has library at that time or the first graders put their classes together so that the music teacher can get to them every week rather then every other week. There is sensitivity to the schedules in school down to who goes to the buses first.
Then Gail mentioned that it seem to her that the parents were more on edge then in the past. Instead of "how is my child doing?" it was more "how are you teaching my child?" I asked Gail if she thought that parents were changing because of the TV news, web articles and newspaper reports on education and she did think it had an influence.
Both teachers mentioned the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) as being a focus for the schools and both thought it took away from the teaching. But Gail said that she still got in much of her reading instruction in spite of the extra demands on the curriculum for testing.
There is a point I wish to make, that both of these elementary teachers are married and both are comfortably well off. Retiring early would probably have little to do with their level of income. The majority of teachers in this country are women. And without going to the web to check statistics, I would suspect that a least a majority of them are married. So my assumption is that a number of women teachers are going to leave the teaching profession for one reason or the other. This worries me.
When I first started teaching fifth grade (I had already a year of teaching music in the elementary classrooms), I was young, I was popular with the kids, and the parents liked me. But I know now that I did not teach to my full potential. Many times during the first year I went to Jo Tylia or one of the other upper grade teachers and asked, "How do you do the following......" OR, "what do I do next?" I needed those more experienced teachers to guide me along my first year of classroom teaching. They saved my butt.
Now I hear that many local school districts are preparing layoff notices for faculty and because the state legislature has changed the rules of layoffs, the old rule that the last to be hired is the first to go will not be in effect. Now there is an understanding that no one seems to want to mention, that by laying off experienced (read at the higher end of the salary level) teachers you save a bundle of money and can hire MORE beginning teachers thereby keeping classroom levels somewhat lower. I think we'll lose a quality of teaching if that happens. Losing quality and experienced teachers will cost society in a long run.
There is a comparison that I want to make that I found interesting. The level of salaries of teachers and those that are in the military appear to be quite similar. But society makes sure that the military get the best equipment to do the job, the military personnel and families get free medical help, and when the time comes to do another term, military personnel get bonuses. The military families also get to use the P-X where food is much lower in price. Yes, me being a veteran I know about the hazards of being in the military. But if we keep making teaching a hazardous job, we may need to do some of the same things we do to ensure our military levels. Already some colleges of education are reporting a drop in enrollment. This is not good. And as the cost of tuition continues to rise the ratio of college costs to teaching salaries will continue to be a negative number. The future in teaching is not very bright.
[editorial update] A friend of mine who taught at the community college level in Portland, Oregon, just wrote me and asked had I seen a recent article, "The High Cost of Low Teachers' Salaries," in a recent New York Times. They said it better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html?_r=2&hp
Have you thanked a teacher today for teaching kids? They could use your pat on the back and support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)