Dynamic Learning Communities

Dynamic Learning Communities: An Alternative to Designed Instructional Systems
By Brent Wilson, University of Colorado at Denver and Martin Ryder, Storage Technology Corporation

My district initiated Professional Learning Communities (PLC) this year and many items presented in this articled about Dynamic Learning Communities (DLC) resonate with me and my experience thus far.
Within my PLC there is distributed control. No one member is “in charge.” The role of meeting facilitator rotates among all the members. The learning activities that we engage in are flexible and negotiable. For the first several meetings we developed a list of topics that each level of Algebra II cover, then, after we received more training at an Institute Day, we reassessed our plan of action. We decided to use the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards as a starting point for our learning objectives because they are broader. Within our PLC there is a high level of dialogue, interaction, and collaboration. Each teacher brings their opinions and experiences to the table for discussion. We have a common focus as we work together on a shared goal.
Several features of DLC’s differ from PLC’s. We are committed to generating and sharing knowledge, but it is not necessarily “new” as is the case with DLC’s. Each meeting we discuss the Algebra II curriculum and generate learning objectives that we share with other Algebra II teachers not in our PLC. Within our PLC we have autonomy; we direct our own activities and make decisions on how to proceed. However, the PLC as a whole is not autonomous. We are required to adhere to the goals dictated by the District. This is the key difference between DLC’s and PLC’s. We do not have intrinsic motivation to achieve the goal; the problem presented to us is not one that we are necessarily interested in solving.

Media and Attention, Cognition, and School Achievement Author(s): Marie Evans Schmidt and Elizabeth A. Vandewater Source: The Future of Children, Vol. 18, No. 1, Children and Electronic Media (Spring, 2008), pp. 63-85 Published by: Princeton University

This article was very thorough and I found the analysis of all the research interesting and informative. In the news recently were reports that even watching Baby Einstein videos is harmful to children. Harmful is a vague and scary word that the media uses to catch the attention of viewers. I appreciated how the authors considered research which focused on a variety of mediums, not just television, and how the research acknowledged many variables, not just time spent watched.
I was surprised by the research that reported a positive association (or no association at all) between TV viewing and achievement for children who are disadvantaged or have limited proficiency in English. The interpretation of these results as meaning that viewing TV provides cognitively enriching experiences for children who would otherwise have none or little seems valid to me. The likelihood that parents who do not provide cognitively enriching experiences for their children would encourage them to watch educational programs is not great. It seems to me that opportunity for the disadvantaged children to catch up to their peers might be lost.
Another interesting aspect of the article to me was the research on problem solving. It would be nice to think that students can watch problem solving occur on shows like Sesame Street and then be able to solve problems themselves. The authors state that the research provides mixed evidence. Children seem able to learn facts from television and replicate solutions when presented with similar problems as they observe, but 5 and 6-year-olds are unable to transfer the solution when presented with a new problem.
Finally, society likes to blame the prevalence of ADHD on electronic media, but the authors assert that there is very little research to support or refute the notion. There is research to support that children with ADHD do watch more television than their peers, but many reasonable explanations are provided for the increased viewing. Among them is that watching television is a low-conflict, low-stress activity for children and their parents to do together.

Teacher's Use of Technology Article

Tracing Teachers' Use of Technology in a Laptop Computer School: The Interplay of Teacher Beliefs, Social Dynamics, and Institutional Culture Author(s): Mark Windschitl and Kurt Sahl Source: American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 165-205 Published by: American Educational Research Association


I found this article to be a very thorough investigation of the impact of technology on teachers and their mode of instruction. At times it seems that the majority of research is conducted on the impact of technology on students and their learning, and with good reason. This research however focused on whether technology motivated teachers to be more of a constructivist, or whether technology simply made it possible for teachers to be more of a constructivist.
The discussion of the climate of schools who take on a school-wide technology initiative was especially interesting to me. I found many of the remarks to be true to what I have experienced. I have observed that “teachers can and do change their instructional practices when using technology” during my six years as technology coach. The greatest change I have witnessed is by veteran foreign language and social studies teachers. These teachers became energized by the ability to access information and provide visuals for their students. Simple lectures evolved into multimedia presentations and the confidence gained by these teachers was tremendous. In most cases, all I needed to do was assist the teacher with creating one PowerPoint presentation and from then on their instruction style was infused with more features which represented different learning styles.
The reference to the impact of school climate on a teacher’s successful utilization of technology was also interest to me. Five years ago my school bought tablet PC’s (and wireless LCD projectors) for a select group of 25 teachers. These early adopters become experts and trained others both formally and informally. Each year 25-50 more teachers have received tablets. Teachers have to fill out an application for a tablet and justify how they intend to use the tablet in their instruction. This creates a climate where the teachers have already “bought into” the idea of using technology. The technology is not forced upon them; they have to seek it out. The high interest level fosters excitement and collaboration among teachers and the program has been a success.

Learning Anytime, Anywhere: Advanced Distributed Learning and the Changing Face of Education
by J. D. Fletcher, Sigmund Tobias, and Robert A. Wisher

This article presents an exciting, and a little scary, vision of the future of education. At first glance, it seems as if the authors are describing a time when teachers could be replaced by “instructional objects” so that students can learn anytime, anywhere. In reality, the authors provide a balanced presentation of the benefits and deficits of Advanced Distributed Learning.
One item that I found especially interesting was the notion that ADL instructional objects are capable of tailoring instruction to individual needs by assessing prior domain knowledge. As a teacher of low-achieving students, I believe that is a feature that would benefit them greatly. One of my biggest challenges is how to handle the wide span of skills and lack of prior knowledge that my students come to me with. The ability of ADL instructional objects to adapt training for each student is an exciting possibility because it is nearly impossible for me to accomplish effectively and efficiently in my current role.
I appreciated how the authors recognized that utilizing ADL instructional objects would result in a dramatic shift in American education and were willing to try to describe what that shift might look like. Teachers as guides and facilitators rather than sources of information and instruction is something I am comfortable with, but I think the greatest obstacle and most valuable outcome is students taking more responsibility for their own learning. I think using ADL instructional objects requires students to be more motivated intrinsically since motivation may or may not be provided extrinsically by the classroom teacher.

Politics of Curriculum: Origins, Controversies, and Significance of Critical Perspectives

I found the authors of this article to be very thorough in their discussion of how curriculum relates to politics. I also believe they were very even-handed in their criticism of the movement. The assertion I responded to most was related to curriculum as a means of reproduction and “selective tradition.” I teach AP Calculus and because my students are at the highest level in the school, I am familiar with the concept of “selective tradition” which refers “to the ways in which curriculum functions to privilege certain sets and orders of knowledge over others.” I feel that in my community certain students are set up to succeed and others are set up to fail. The least experienced teachers are assigned to the lowest level course with the most challenging students. The more experienced teachers are assigned higher level courses with higher achieving students. If the intention was for the challenged students to succeed, they would be taught by experienced teachers who have more skills to cope with the difficulties of teaching students who are less motivated to learn. The system as it is now is one focused on reproduction. Three out of four students is meeting standards and every year we hope to reproduce these results.
Another point that I found interesting was the discussion of hidden and overt curricula. Our school has courses at five different levels, Level 1 is Special Ed and Level 5 is Honors. We are in the process of reducing to four levels, in part because the parents of the students who belong at Level 2 are resisting the placement because they are opposed to the stigma they believe is attached to that level of courses. The hidden curriculum is that students learn to associate self-worth with course level. I strive very hard never to demean students for their mathematical ability, but rather acknowledge the areas where their strengths lie.

Rose, D., Hasselbring, T. S. et al. (2005). Assistive technology and Universal Design for Learning: two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn et al (Eds). Handbook of special education technology research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design: 549-569.

I found this article to be very thoughtful and thorough. I have a much better understanding of both Assistive Technology (AT) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). I think that by necessity educators have focused on assistive technologies, but that increased pursuit of materials created by UDL would better support our students.
Assistive technologies serve individuals by minimizing their deficits, so it is reasonable for parents and case managers to advocate for accommodations which include AT. Who is left to advocate for the group? The authors assert that “fostering human learning will require access solutions that are optimal interactions between what is universal and what is individual.” (p. 517)
An interesting experience I had in my role as technology staff developer was attending a workshop on Kurzweil 3000, a reading, writing, and learning software. Kurzweil Education Systems originally developed text to speech software for the visually impaired, but the company expanded the product to assist any struggling reader. I think this is an excellent example of the “optimal interaction” promoted by the authors. The most basic function of the software is to read aloud any text that the user selects. The pace and tone of the speech can be adjusted. However, when marketed to struggling readers, the software displays many deeper layers of functionality. Students can annotate, create outlines, or word lists. These are skills that every student should learn and utilize. The ease with which students can accomplish these tasks is owed to the digital format of the text and the advanced software. What began as assistive technology for those who physically were unable to read evolved into a tool which adheres to UDL principles. As a result, all students are better served.

Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning Author(s): Elizabeth A. Davis and Joseph S. Krajcik Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Apr., 2005), pp. 3-14
This article was a refreshing change of pace, in that the focus was on teacher learning rather than student learning. I support the three heuristics proposed by the authors that materials created should add new information to the teachers’ repertoires, help teachers make connections between new and existing ideas, and apply knowledge to new situations. I also respect the authors’ point that no matter the content of curricular materials, teachers have many responsibilities and finding time to read the material is a challenge.
I connected my own experiences most to Heuristic 3 -- Supporting Teachers in Anticipating, Understanding, and Dealing with Student’ Ideas About Science. I have been teaching AP Calculus for 10 years with measured success. Last year 40 out of 46 students scored a perfect 5 on the AP Calculus Exam. Upon reflection, I realized that over time I have not just deepened my understanding of Calculus concepts, but more importantly, my comprehension of what it is that my students do not understand has deepened. This realization has improved my instruction because I approach each topic with possible student misconceptions in mind. After years of asking questions and listening to the questions that my students ask, I can anticipate the errors in their thinking that are likely to occur. If I had had access to educative curriculum materials that highlighted these areas for concern and typical misconceptions when I first began teaching Calculus, it would have hastened my own education along with my students. I see great value in materials which inform teachers not only of content, but the rationale for modes of delivery as well.