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.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)