Lack of Posting

I suppose the only thing causing issues for me in the class right now is the lack of posting lately. Posting is supposed to be done at noon on Sunday, but I find many haven't posted until after noon on Sunday and then I get confused between new and old postings. I find many post nothing until Saturday or Sunday. I don't have time to read and respond or comment on my own blogs about what they are saying. I think it hurts the class as a whole if people don't blog some by at least Thursday. If we don't blog then we can't respond to one another or make reply posts. Also, I hope everything is OK with the Doc, but it has been days since and email or post from him. He is probably sick, most people are having issues with that. I just hope the week finishes strong. Not just for me, but for the whole class.

Thoughts to Ponder

Does the global nature of the web have an effect on evaluation?

Obviously there has to be a language difference in evaluation. An evaluation created in Russian would do kids in eastern Tennessee no good at all and wouldn't be fair. I guess the question for me is that if the communication/language barrier can be resolved, then does the global web effect evaluation? I think it can. I don't think that is must always, but it certainly can. We have to remember that cultures are different and experiences can be different. Yes, kids in east Tennessee have many similar experiences and a similar culture. But compare that to East Kenya and suddenly kids aren't thinking the same. I think for evaluations to work globally within the web, they have to be very broad and as culturally neutral as possible. Now culturally neutral may not be totally obtainable but if done right it can almost be accomplished.

Are the goals and objectives changed when you take a course online compared to classroom based instruction?

No way. If a class if offered online and in the classroom, then the major goals and objectives should be the same. It only makes sense. What students should be learning should be the same online or in classrooms. The methods, techniques, and tools used to learn may be different, but the final goals should be the same. If they are not, then I'm not sure if it would even be the same course. This seemed like a no brainer to me, but I'm interested to see what others have to say.

Fear/Humiliation

What an interesting article about World of Warcraft and how someone can actually learn something from playing the game. I found myself agreeing with the writer because I too can understand that there is a time for orders and to follow them completely. There is a time when there will be no one there to catch you and you must do what needs to be done. I found a few phrases in the article interesting.

"A 25-person raid is the same size as a class, and like a class its leader can only take it to places places that it is willing to go." Well, I think that sums up real world leadership and management. You can't take people places they aren't willing to go. When I first read this I thought about motivation. I thought maybe this means we can't really motivate anyone. Then I realized that is not what it means to me. It means fear can stop you. Motivation can be given to you by others, but fear is a "mind killer" so to speak. If someone is afraid to go through a door, then just going through in front of them may not be enough. At some level they have to want it.

Also, "Teaching is about empowering students, and Warcraft has taught me that there is a difference between being powerful and feeling powerful." Students want to feel powerful and educated and important. Many times they don't care if they really are powerful, educated or important. How do I know this? Cheating. Not just classroom cheating, but at anything including video games. Many people want to "feel" successful and powerful. They don't care if they actually are. The illusion is good enough for most people. My students would rather be dumb with straight A's then smart with all D's.

iBrain research

Paper thin. That is how I would describe this article and it's reasoning. As I read it I was offended by the logic and suggestions made.

"We're seeing an evolutionary change. The people in the next generation who are really going to have the edge are the ones who master the technological skills and also face-to-face skills," Small told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Well, so he is saying that those who master both technology and social skills will do well. That seems to be a obvious statement. I don't need any research to make me agree with that. It is like saying bigger, faster, smarter guys will do better at football. That is just obvious.

He said a study of 24 adults as they used the Web found that experienced Internet users showed double the activity in areas of the brain that control decision-making and complex reasoning as Internet beginners.

OK, so 24 people. Not really a legitimate sample size but we will go with it. He says experienced Internet users have more activity when browsing then beginners. OK, again that just seems obvious. The more I use the Internet, then the more my brain will adapt to better use the Internet. Just like in multiplication tables. The more I use them, then the faster I get at using them. Duh.

"We are changing the environment. The average young person now spends nine hours a day exposing their brain to technology. Evolution is an advancement from moment to moment and what we are seeing is technology affecting our evolution."

I have issues with the word evolution being used. Not for religious reasons, but evolution is "gradual development". He seems to use it as though evolution is constantly happening, but I'm not sure that it is. I don't think we are constantly evolving, unless you simply want to use the word a little loosely. You could just as easily used the word learning in it's place for this article.

Overall I thought the article was a plug for the book. I don't think technology will have brains evolved in one generation. At least not in the biological sense of evolution.

Clarence Fisher

Well, I actually found a Cool Cat Teacher blog that referenced and quoted Fisher. The link is http://coolcatteacher.blogspot.com/2006/05/excellent-classroom-practices-from-mr.html

The quote from Mr. Fisher was about blogging and in particular how he advocates for his students to blog. He wants them to both blog and reply to blogs of people all around the world. Mr. Fisher appears to think that it is a good thing to communicate with different people. Different meaning different country, socio-economical background, and just about anything. He thinks it is a good educational experience to communicate with others and learn about them and let them learn about you.

I would have to agree with what he wants done. I would say that knowing and understanding others that are different creates a compassion and respect for others. I can look back at my own life and see that the more I learned about those different then me, then the more I could understand them and feel connected to them. It is a good thing. Is blogging the answer? Maybe not, but it isn't a bad place to start. Chat rooms and social networking sites can also easily accomplish the goal, but are in a sense more dangerous for children.

The neat thing about this is that you can learn about others. Build a feeling of understanding for them. Then still be able to disagree. At least I hope. That is the problem I see in today's society (at least in America). We tend to hate those we disagree with. We should be able to disagree and still be civil with one another and maybe even friends.

Cheating???

Cheating is all about the assignment and the expectations of the assignment. For instance. The ACT and SAT are about what a person can do without the assistance of others or tools such as the Internet. So cheating is well defined.

Now what about writing a paper on Microsoft office. Would it be cheating if Bill Gates was your cousin and you talked to him about the paper and had him proofread it? I don't think letting someone proof read your paper is cheating. You would want someone with knowledge of the topic to proofread your paper. Should we be punished or called a cheater because we know people or are good at finding information on the Internet? Of course not. But again the idea of cheating is based on the assignment expectations. If a teacher says "write a paper about gravity on mars, but don't interview anyone, just use scientific research", then you have an idea about what cheating is.

On to the point of the blog which is the topic of online cheating. I suppose as an online instructor you should assume students will have access to other people, the Internet, books, interviews, videos, and chats. Those could all be ways to cheat obviously. But wait. Those things all exist for people in a regular classroom based class also. So any assignment that is to be completed outside of a regular classroom setting would be subject to the same possibility of cheating as online courses. So papers and projects that require work to be done outside of the direct supervision of the teacher are no different with traditional classrooms or online delivery courses. But what about exams or performance in class.

This I think is where the cheating online can occur. A traditional classroom may have a quiz, test, or quick write that students have no time to consult other people or sources. I think most online courses lack this. For instance, every time I log on to blog, chat, or do any assignments I could have my brother sit next to me. Or my wife. Or my son. Whatever. There is no way for a teacher to know that what I am doing is just me. Technically with great effort someone could replicate the same sort of cheating. An earpiece, tiny camera, and microphone could possibly allow you to "bring someone" with you to class. Online delivery courses just seem to make it much easier and almost impossible to stop. Perhaps with microphones and web cams it could be limited somewhat.

In the end, if a teacher understands what they want and gives assignments with clear goals in mind then cheating isn't a problem. But I also admit that my cousin Ted could have taken all of my online classes for me without me every doing anything and no one would know. I would get the degree I want without doing anything.

Portfolio? What?

I suppose here in Kentucky when we hear portfolio most of us cringe. Either we have done one in school(me) or at least taught where the students had to do one(also me). I remember it starting when I was in middle school I think. Suddenly we were to keep track of writings and write more often. At the time it seemed simple enough for me. But looking back, I wonder about the benefits of the portfolio. I mean is turning in a portfolio of writings really a good measure of performance. Some of my final writings were 4 years old, revised a dozen times by multiple students and teachers, and had very little of me in them. It was like a 60 year old lady that had plastic surgery monthly since she was 25. She is still her technically, but really she is nothing like what she should have been. I think if they want a portfolio, then they first need to decide why. Why are we making them do this and what do we hope to get from it. Then we need to look at the entire process and have cut off points. Maybe portfolios start over every 2 years or something. It just always bugged me that someone would use a 9th grade writing for a 12th grade portfolio.

Biggest drawback of the portfolio: Time. We spend weeks on this thing. Not just in English class, but in most classes. All classes were required to submit 2 portfolio pieces each. This was ridiculous and terribly time consuming. But what about the benefits of the portfolio? Well, until someone gives me a good reason to have them at all, then I cant think of a benefit. Students don't take them with them to use after high school(not that I know of). So they just go away like any number of things we do in school. If the idea is for the students to learn, then all they learn is that you have to revise papers 20 times to get them to be good.

Honestly I can't say how much doing portfolios helped me. I was just an average writer(still am) and never enjoyed the process that much. Perhaps in all that editing and revising I did learn how to write better. On a side note, I don't remember every writing anything longer than 3 pages in high school. But once in college 3 pages seemed like addressing an envelope it was so short. High school certainly never prepared me for 15-20 page writing assignments.

How do you know if a student is learning?

I suppose this question seemed simple to me at first. I know if a student is learning if they can apply the knowledge to solve a problem. For instance they have learned how to add if they can tell me what 4+6 equals. Or they can do 8 digit addition after only being shown how to do addition up to 4 digits. It is about applying the knowledge that lets you know if you have truly learned something.

But then I started thinking about on the fly. How do you know if the student is learning right now? How do you know if they are learning this class period? Or this day? That can be more difficult because our means of instant assessment can only determine if they have in the short term held onto the information. It doesn't let you know if they have truly learned and stored the knowledge. I suppose there is no way to truly assess if a student has learned something right then and there. The true test of if something is learned has to come after the short term to see what is now a part of the student.

8th grade testing.

Sometimes I wonder if we give too many tests. Sometimes maybe we don't give enough. Is it the calling it a test or is it the consequences of the test that make them seem like a bad thing. For instance I could take a test tomorrow on world history and think nothing of it. I might think it is fun to see how well I could do. But if that test would decide my salary for the next 10 years I would be too nervous to breathe.

I don't think a test for 8th graders would be a bad thing as long as there is no unnecessary pressure put on them to do well. If it were say a test to find what they might like to do when they get out of high school, then that is fine. Also a test to see where their strengths are in certain areas would be good. But it has to be explained to them so they know it is all about helping them and can't hurt them in any way. Will some blow it off? Yes. But that is why you have to sell it to the students. Get them to realize it is all about helping them.

I am not against testing students. I am not overly for it either. I think we should reexamine the tests we give and make sure we are accomplishing what we want with these tests with minimal negative effects.

Toaster

The toaster post got me thinking about individualized education and differentiation in education. a quote from the post was:

"All the noise about individualized education is just adding some kind of sensors to the toaster to tell what kind of bread we’re dealing with and how the heat transfer works in the structure of the bread. It’s all a way of taking variable inputs and yielding uniform outputs."

Where I work we talk about differentiating education. We talk about meeting the individual needs of students. We talk about teaching to their level and bringing them to where they need to be. Ah ha. That is the point. We always have a place we want them to be. We always have what outcome we want in education. Funny thing is it is always the same. We want everyone to know 2+2=4 and the 9-11 attack was in 2001 not 2000. We expect everyone to learn the same thing so that their "outputs" are the same. We talk about them as individuals and how they are different, but we don't want different. We want them to conform to our view of what they should know. We rarely give students the chance to excel in an area. Sure some kids take Art 2 or Physics in high school, but that isn't what I mean. Kids are different and it should be okay for them to learn different things, in different ways, at different speeds, in different settings. Math class should be outside sometimes.

I challenge any teacher that has never taken their class outside to do it this year. I've done it (in public school not the prison). It works. I challenge art teachers to talk about ascetics and how some the same picture may look better to a person depending on the degrees used in the angles and how that relates to math. I challenge all teachers to collaborate together and stop working against one another. Math teachers use data analysis to let students analyze their own ratio of letter usage in their writing. It is interesting for students to see that they never hardly use the letters X, Q, and Z. Do students that use them more tend to do better in English class? Maybe it could be a collaborative project.

I'm sorry for ranting, but education is such a rigid process in America and teachers need to teach. We need to be outside the box sometimes and not just think out side of it.

Education as Science

Well, I agree with most of what the Doc says about education as science and the pitfalls it has. But if it can't always be a science, then is it an art. I don't think so and I don't think the Doc would either. It made me think of my college degree and degrees in general. Typically we get BA's or BS's. Education degrees are typically BA's, but mine is a BS. Why? Because I took so many math classes that I also qualified for a mathematics degree. Therefore my degree is in secondary math education, but is a Science degree and not an Art degree. What does all this mean. I think it means that education is both a science and an art. Obviously poetry in education is an art and gravity is a science. Perhaps it is all about the content. Maybe education of certain topics make education a science and other topics make it an art. If so, then teachers (at least effective ones) are part scientist and part artist. Regardless of subject, I think it involves some amount of art and science in education. Even in Math, some topics tend to be leaning toward education as an art instead of as a science. These are very abstract ideas but they still exist. I only say this so that I can say that I think education is both an art and a science for all teachers. We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking the square peg of education fits into the triangular holes of art or science. Only when the triangular holes are lined up to form a square can it truly fit in.

What do we Know?

What do we KNOW about teaching and learning theories? How do we know?

Well, similar to another post in the class on this issue I feel we don't Know very much at all about anything. We knew the earth was flat once. We knew earth was the center of the universe once. So to talk about what we know is difficult. Perhaps we can discuss was appears to be consistently true right now for us. Even if we loosen up the definition of "know" we don't get anywhere. There are so many theories about learning and teaching we cant really discuss what we know. Heck, we have a hard enough time just defining what teaching and learning are. And what we would know about them would alter depending upon just how we define them.

But enough of that. That is my real response, but here it is for the average Joe. We know we can teach. We know we can learn. We know these things involve tools and communication. We know Learning always involves a teacher, even if the teacher is a book, computer, or the learner themselves. That is about it. Everything else seems up in the air for me.

Connectivism

Well, I added the Connectivism blog a few days ago and have finally had a chance to read up on some of the posts and ideas behind the concept. I admit I don't think I have a full grasp of the concept except to say it uses the idea of networks to describe knowledge. It seemed to basically suggest that learning isn't always individual centered. Learning doesn't always occur inside a person, but can happen outside of a person such as in an organization or in technology such as a database.

I don't buy it. I am not convinced that learning occurs outside of people. If a computer assimilates some "knowledge" and now can use the information then I think it A) didn't learn anything it was just programmed OR B) it as an individual learned the information and then is still individual centered. Second, I'm not sure that organizations can "learn" anything. I suppose the people within can learn, but if none of them know something then how can the organization know it. I would enjoy some comments or responses. I am open to hear more about the idea, but so far none of what I've read makes any sense to me. And to suggest a new learning theory simply because technology has advanced seems ridiculous. Should learning theories go beyond the level of technology we have?

Learning Styles

When people would ask me questions about my learning style I would give many vague answers.

"I like to take notes, but I don't study them."
"I pay attention in class to what the teacher says, but more so to what they do and write."
"I don't like to just listen without seeing something."
"I enjoy hands-on practice because it sharpens my understanding and skills."

So I guess I am a visual learner. But does that really sum up all that I can learn? No. The audio helps me learn also. So do hands on activities. I learn well reading, but also watching. I need the audio to explain the details of demonstrations and the reading supplements that with even more detail. I don't buy into the fact that people have only one learning style and can't learn with other styles. Sure, people can learn "better" with some delivery methods then others, but I can't believe it is all or nothing. I think I could learn from an audio tape, but I would learn even more if I had a book to accompany it and a class or group to discuss it with.

It isn't about what learning style a student has. It should be about using multiple delivery styles and techniques to enhance and support the different ways in which we can learn. It is like driving a car. I can read about it. I can hear about it. I can watch it. I can get in and try. But to be the best driver I can be I need to do all of those things.

Constructivism.

Is constructivism a theory or a religion? Why?

Well, I looked at several definitions of religion from multiple online and paperback sources and none seemed to allow constructivism to be labeled as a religion. All definitions of religion referred to some "god" or to spirituality. So that doesn't seem right. Constructivism could easily be considered a theory. It is a theory about learning and has been studied and written about for years. Piaget is attributed much of the credit of this theory. Since a theory is something we can study and then use to predict outcomes, then constructivism is definitely a theory. It says that we learn from our experiences and that learning is a social activity. Whether or not I totally agree that all learning is social, it is easily seen that some learning appears to be social.

THeory? Yes, No.

An article from OLDaily about Sims and letting people limp along really caught my eye tonight. The link to the article is http://clarkaldrich.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-sim-do-you-let-players-limp-along.html. I had been looking for 3 days now to find an article on theory on OLDaily. When I found this article it really got me thinking about our approach to education. The article may not be directly related to educational theory, but it was provocative to my idea of education.

It mentioned how in sims, that early choices can greatly affect the entire game and how well you will do. Now this is realistic, but the point in education is for learning to occur, not just let them know what is realistic. The proposed alternative was to have "gates" that needed to be reached and then players got a sort of start over where the past didn't have that great of an affect on them. This idea is similar to the idea of playing games with levels. You can start over each level and the only effects from the last level is that you get to go to the next level.

What does all of this have to do with learning theories and educational theories? Well, I'm not sure exactly but it had me thinking about how much we will let students "limp through" sections of a class or entire classes. Sometimes we feel that it is necessary to let them struggle for a while in order to strengthen them. In contrast, some teachers feel that supports should be in place to assist students not long after problems begin to arise. Ideally teachers should find some balance between helping students too fast and letting them just suffer through the work. I find myself sometimes wanting to help as soon as I see a problem, but I am doing much better at just letting the students try and work things out themselves. If we don't let them try and work through their issues then they will become dependent, but if we wait too long they may become discouraged and quit. Again, this isn't a theory, but what popped into my mind.

Know it all and the Teacher's Pet

What's the function of a "know-it-all" in the class? Does that person have a purpose in the over all scheme of things?

What I found odd when reading a few other posts about the "know-it-all" is that it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Yes in general the label is negative, but there were good things that can come from it. They tend to answer questions and try to trump the teachers knowledge. These are great chances for the teacher to explain things to the class. Even just the discussion between the KIA and the teacher can be very informative. I think the teachers needs to be careful about proving the KIA wrong. This could discourage the other students from trying at all. But you can't let them dominate the entire discussion. It is possible to make them a peer tutor or give them some other duties that keep them from annoying everyone. But even though the KIA may answer all the questions, at least the questions are being answered. This gives the teacher an opportunity to draw other students in on the discussion.

Where does the "teacher's pet" come into play?

Again, this term more then the first had both negative and positive connotations. Yes, they are helpful, endearing, interested, and everything we want in our students. BUT they are also annoying sometimes, needy, and gain a sense of being owed something. So I think pets can be good as long as there remains defined boundaries and they aren't given too much power. Also it is necessary to always be fair. If the pet breaks a rule you have to treat them like any other student. I think this is where teachers have issues. First, they don't create boundaries which creates ownership by the student. Then teachers react differently to issues with the student. So pets end up being useful in the classroom as long as a teacher keeps in mind what they must do to maintain fairness.

Multiple student roles in the classroom dynamic.

Of course students have multiple roles in the classroom. Obviously they are learners, but that is a generalization. They explore and apply knowledge. But they also have other roles like motivator and tutor. Peer tutoring is very important where I work. Students can also be cleaners, secretaries, teachers, and many other things. We rarely find ourselves in any situation where we are only functioning in one role. So it doesn't make sense to try and fit students into just one role. These multiple roles allow for students to feel successful everyday even if the topic of the lesson is something they don't do well with.

Front Row/ Back Row

Interesting Topic and after reading several other blogs on the topic I chose to mostly just respond to Davids comments.

I agree that typically in the regular class back row students want to be less involved and unnoticed, while front row students want involvement and interactive learning. I am not sure that this has anything to do with motivation or success, but perhaps more about how they like to learn and how shy they are. For instance a very intelligent person may sit in the back because the subject is easy for him and he just wants to skate on by. While a lower functioning student may sit in the front just to talk with the teacher in hopes they will give them a better grade. I know it happens like that sometimes it is just hard to know how often.

Are all online seats front row? Good question. I suppose in the since that you have and open view and communication pathway to the teacher, then yes. But in the since of being unnoticed if you want to be then you are also a back row student.

I think students get the advantages of both a front and back row student if they want them. The problem is that some people view front row/ back row as simply how much a student wants to interact. If so, then online education has this dynamic. Because online you can be as interactive as you want to be with the teacher and class, only you don't have to pick a seat.

All seats online are equal so there are not "better seats" as David said. Do teachers teach to the front row? Of course. If some students are engaged and interacting with you then you will tend to run with it. Although David said online courses can overcome this with tools, it is still about student motivation and even those tools can't overcome that. Teachers online don't necessarily speak to only the first row, but in blogging, chatting, IMing only some students may interact which gives the same effect as Front row/back row.

I think David had and excellent point about getting students involved. Asking them questions can just be setting them up for failure. But "asking open-ended questions that have many possible answers" can be very effective to get the confidence of the student up and get them interacting more.

Overall I think front row/back row doesn't exist online, but the things you can from them can still be gained by how you interact with online courses.

Student Role in the Classroom

I found this article about student roles in the classroom. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/engaged.htm

The direct quote about the student role from the article was: "One important student role is that of explorer. Interaction with the physical world and with other people allows students to discover concepts and apply skills. Students are then encouraged to reflect upon their discoveries, which is essential for the student as a cognitive apprentice. Apprenticeship takes place when students observe and apply the thinking processes used by practitioners. Students also become teachers themselves by integrating what they've learned. Hence, they become producers of knowledge, capable of making significant contributions to the world's knowledge."

Some words that really jumped out at me while reading about student roles were "explorer, reflect, observe, apply, and integrating." This was a very short section from the article, but a very important one.

I think we as teachers overlook exploration/discovery. We think that it is done more at only certain grade levels, but that isn't true. I learned how to swim by getting in some water and going at a young age. Then while a teenager I learned how to both build and disassemble computers. Exploration is a great educational tool. Just try it. Set a bunch of books or magazines down on a table and let some students come in and sit down by them to wait for something. If they are even close to age appropriate they will most likely begin looking through them. They may see a picture that catches their eye and begin reading. The funny thing is that this doesn't just happen at age 9, but at 17, or 70. We want to learn and explore.

Reflection is something my students struggle with in my classroom. Most of my students are between 3-9 grade levels behind in reading/writing. This really hinders their ability to communicate what they have done or why they have done it. They can do some math problems, but can't explain why in writing or sometimes even orally. I push this all the time. I don't care about the answer, I just want to know how you get there. If I know how you got there, I can adjust the thought process to get the right answers. I have to do mostly oral reflections because many of my students can't spell or punctuate at the 4th grade level even though they are 17 or 18.

Back to the general role of the student. I think the article assumes a certain level of responsibility and motivation on the part of the student. Many of the things it mentions as being a part of the role of the student includes things we as teachers can't control, but rather they themselves bring. We can only assist them in developing those skills.

Disappointing

Well, I was reading OLDaily the other day and came across and article that disappointed me. It has disappointed me so much that now a few days later I am blogging about it. The blog was "Diagramming Sarah" and was referenced from an article from Slate.com. What bothers me is that it is political. Sure, you might say that they are just reporting on the general topic of how we view politicians, but I bet that could be done using dems, republicans, and any other party. I just felt after reading it that this blog was slanted. Slate.com is definitely a liberal political site. This blog referenced this site, so now I have to assume they are liberal or perhaps just anti-Conservative. What bothers me is that every article I read from that blog now I will have to look at through a political eye. I have to wonder if their political views are driving the thoughts and outcomes of the discussion. I just hate for something like education to be political. I don't look at it that way. I think both parties have failed American children time and time again. I don't think making fun of a VP candidate helps anyone or opens our eyes to where politics are. The point should have been made using references from both political parties. Instead it was just a liberal talking point mixed in with valuable educational information.

Yes, in case you are wondering I am socially/morally Conservative and economically indifferent.

Teachers and Students meet in the Middle

The article "teachers and students meet in the middle" left me with two very different thoughts. One about roles in education and the other about technology in education.

At first I thought the article was about simply how teachers and students and swap roles temporarily. I think this is true and effective in the classroom. I think when students see teachers engaged in learning it validates that learning and being a learner is not just what you do as a student K-12. Students should know that teachers read for fun, take classes, and learn skills. Students should know I can lay carpet, read sci-fi and religious texts, and have taken adoption classes. It lets them know that we don't stop being learners at graduation or even at college graduation. In general students will be more open to discuss things with the teacher if the teacher is open to learning and listening to them. Some teachers (and other professionals) tend to take the stance that they are the expert. And in some circles they may be the expert, but the feeling of being an expert in psychology trickles down to all aspects of their social life such as politics or cooking. They come off as obnoxious and annoying. This doesn't work well for student learning. I was the kind of student that could overcome those teachers and still succeed but I always felt bad for the other students that were crushed by those teachers.

On to point number two about technology. The article sneaks in the idea of laptop schools. Schools where every student has a laptop. I think it will be a long time,very long, before all schools are like this. But the truth is that slowly schools will shift toward this. Those that can afford it and think it will work. As always it isn't about if the technology will work, but if it is used in the right way.

changes

I am not a perfect teacher. Most of the time I feel I am a very poor teacher. I try. I'll try new things. I'll tweak old things. I'll watch others. I've tried to soak up all the teaching knowledge I can get my hands on. Well, I've had a 3 week break recently. We do schooling all year with 4 breaks each 3 weeks long. It is nice but this time I think I've failed. I planned to do some things differently, but after just a few days I see myself already slipping back into a few old habits I didn't want to continue. I'm taking the easy path but I know it will only make things worse. The problem is how hard it can be to change things after you've begun. Teachers should be consistent. Especially in a setting where kids don't have consistency in their personal home lives. I'm afraid to try and implement the changes now because I know some will backlash against me and their behavior/motivation will go down the drain. But I think it is one of those things that has to be done. If I don't do it then everyone will suffer. If I do it, then the suffering will be bad for a while.

That is the thing about teaching in prison. I've known teachers to give out candy as a reward. Not necessarily a bad idea, but here is the problem. In prison they don't think like we do. They don't think like even the normal bad kids in school think. Once you give someone a candy bar, they all want it. They don't want to earn it, they just want it. Then you have problems. So teachers stop giving out candy and things only worsen. We struggle constantly with wanting to reward kids but trying not to make it a problem while doing it.

I love my job and feel I can make a great impact on those kids, but nothing in my life has every assured me more of one basic fact: You can't save them all. You can not. If you think you can, then you haven't seen them all because some are destined to fail. I'm amazed at how much support someone can get only to throw it back in your faces. I know some of you will have stories about reaching those hard to read kids. I know. It happens. Just not always. It is sad. No, it is sad to see an 18 year old that can't read at all. But to see that 18 year old not care and not take help is........I don't think I have the words. Goodnight. It is too much to talk about and I'm tired.

Facilitator?

I have found it really interesting to read other responses to what the role of a teacher is. Many of us are teachers and yet we view what we do in some really different was. I commented on a couple of posts, but decided to make this one little post before I go work around the house.

The word I found as kind of a hot button word was "facilitator". It seems to either be a word we want to label ourselves as a teacher or that we feel is far to inadequate to sum up all we do as teachers. This was really interesting to me. I thought facilitator was a good label to try and say what officially do as a teacher. It seems to me to include motivator, encourager, helper, guide, mentor, and many other words I could have used to label myself as a teacher. I think in the end it isn't that some people think the word is great or poor as a label for teachers. It seems to be that peoples idea of what all the work means to them is very different. For instance I think facilitator includes the idea of encouraging and motivating, but others may not. This is more of a semantic difference perhaps then actually a philosophical difference. I just thought it was interesting and wanted to see if anyone else got that or not while reading.

Online teacher vs classroom teacher reply

This is my reply to anther student in the class that posted their thoughts on the online vs classroom teacher. Here is what they said:

"My answer is YES! The role of a teacher differs from being in a classroom to being online. I think that online learners are self motivated and realize that the requirements are more demanding. The classroom allows a teacher more of a sense of connection with the students. In an online classroom there is not connecting but there is a lot of communicating. Teachers in a regular classroom can interact with students while providing immediate attention to the their needs. There will be no waiting for a response to a discussion question or email."

I posted a response to the blog but felt I needed to go ahead and repost it here with minor changes.

I suppose as a very broad generalization I could agree with the response, but I can’t totally agree with a few statements.

“I think that online learners are self motivated and realize that the requirements are more demanding”
No, I don’t think this is true. I don’t think online learners are necessarily more self motivated or expect it to be more demanding. I might go so far as to say the exact opposite. A highly motivated person would find time to take a classroom course or an online course. A truly highly motivated person might be taking online and classroom courses to optimize their time. From my personal experience I just can't say that online students are more motivated then classroom students. Also, I think people in general think of online courses as easier than a classroom course. Again, from my experience and talking with others in my classes, most online courses are really easy compared to classroom courses. Of course this really has nothing to do with online or classroom as it is dictated by the teachers style and delivery along with how they grade. I suppose either of us could be wrong since we are just speculating on what other people think about online and classroom courses.

“The classroom allows a teacher more of a sense of connection with the students. ”
Again, I think is is mostly true, but I have communicated back and forth much more with my online teachers then I ever did with my classroom teachers. In the classroom setting more often then not I would simply listen to what they said and soak it up. There has been much more interaction with the teacher as a online student for me. I agree that the ability to connect with students is much greater in the classroom setting, I just don't think that it actually happens any more then it does with online classes.

I don’t want you to think I am criticizing you, I mostly agree with what you are saying, but it might be too broad a generalization.

Community and Miracles?

So I read the blog "On Community" and it got me thinking. First as a math teacher I was glad to see so many Venn diagrams and them being explained correctly. But mostly I was really thinking about community and what it means. I used to think that community in courses would really have to have some face to face time. But I realize that isn't what community is about at all. So I looked up the definition of community and found some interesting things.

Community has many definitions. Typically the first definition defines it as people in the same locality. But as I read the different definitions i found community to be just a group of people. Maybe sharing beliefs or working together. So I suppose community can truly be created even if the people never see one another. One example given was the "gay community". I could easily classify them as a community with similar beliefs or agenda, but they definitely haven't all met. Teachers likewise could be a community. I had to give up the notion that online courses isolate people and keep community from forming.

On to miracles. Yes, miracles. Well, I was trying to compare online communities to something and ended up thinking about God. I thought about miracles. Yes, I believe in miracles including several in my own life. But anyway, I thought about miracles and communities. You can hear about a miracle, read about a miracle, see it's evidence, watch a TV report on it, and even talk to those that experienced them. BUT, that is very different then experiencing a miracle personally. I think the online educational community is like that. You can learn and absorb just as much as a community that is classroom based. Still, something is different for those that get to be in the class. There IS a difference in how you can relate to the teacher and students. I still don't think I will ever be convinced that an online relationship is the same as a relationship that is face to face.

Role of teachers

Well, I've not had a chance to post much this week but I was looking for articles about teacher roles and found this one on the OLDAILY blog. http://drapestakes.blogspot.com/2008/10/hacking-curriculum.html

It seems to reference much of the same ideas as the Hacking Diploma blog posted by the Doc. I know the blog link is about how curriculum might change due to online delivery. Yes, there is a good possibility that a standardized curriculum for courses could be created to use for states, countries, or even the world. What is interesting is how Steven on the OLDaily blog comments about this link. He says about teachers that no longer create the class curriculum :"So what would they do? Coach students. Conduct assessments. Create community." Imagine what would teachers do. No more lesson plans or thinking what will work best now. It is all done for you. You just follow the plan and make it happen. I thought it sounded terrifying at first. Why even have teachers? Just create an online delivery system that has a FAQ and maybe an online Q&A session once a week. No need to do much teaching!

Then I backed off and thought about it. Well, what does a teacher that has taught algebra for 8 years do? They do what they did the year before. Same worksheets, same lessons, same tests, same projects. This doesn't seem that different. It is just about do you make your own lesson and reuse it, or does someone else make one that you reuse? I realize not all teacher just keep rehashing their old lessons, but most teachers only change small pieces of the lessons. perhaps they add a new tool or adjust some minor part of the lesson. This began to worry me. I hope others can give me some hope on the topic.

BREATHE

I'm really worn down right now. Things have just been real busy in my life and I feel like I am neglecting my classwork. I do still post and read but not as much as I think I can. I'm going to try and do a few posts and catch up on all my reading tonight. I hate feeling like I am getting behind so I'm going to make a real effort. I guess I'm not hyperventilating over the work so much as just can't find the time to do it. I have to get more disciplined about it. I'm not the kind of person who checks their email 6 times a day. I check it like every other day. I have too much of a one on one personal life with my family and friends that email and computers can hardly fit in. I use my computer for information, communication, and business, but only about an hour a day total. Beyond that I am out there with people. I just feel like I need to be more "connected" sometimes.