"The most segregated hour of the week is on Sunday morning."
Have you heard this? I have. I suppose the meaning is that people tend to go to church with people of their same backgrounds, be it a national background, a racial background, or what have you. Given that I go to a Chinese church with few non-Chinese, it's obviously not any empty sentiment.
Nevertheless, I don't think it's true. That is, it may be true in the racial or ethnic sense, but that's not the only kind of segregation. In fact, segregation happens anytime we force others to be separated from people who are different from themselves. When we think of the biases that exist, we think of sexism, racism, classism, and a few others. Too often, however, we ignore age.
In my opinion the most segregated time of the week is Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 3:00 (or thereabouts). We call it elementary school, middle school, and high school. We call it 1st grade, 2nd grade, etc. Here we force children, for many hours every day, to be with other children of approximately the same age, give or take a few months. We enforce this segregation as if kids have nothing to learn from those older than themselves or younger than themselves, as if they have no skills to develop by interacting with students who are older or younger than themselves. And this despite the fact that children have primarily interacted in mixed-age groups throughout history, pretty much up until this Prussian experiment we call the public school system.
We force upon our children an unnatural division as if all students of a given age are supposed to hit the same milestones at exactly the same time, as if they can't be inspired by those older than themselves, as if the can't learn empathy and compassion and capacity to nurture others by being with those younger than themselves. What's the most segregated place in America? The public schools. It always has been. Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka legally destroyed institutionally approved segregation of schools by race. I fear it's merely wishful thinking to image a similar ruling based on age.
There are many kinds of bias and discrimination. There are many ways that we, as humans, segregate ourselves. In almost every case, these discriminations and segregations bring about primarily negative results. It's time we rethink what we think we know about public education. It's time to reevaluate how we segregate children from one another. In a world where young people are increasingly only amongst peers, 24 hours a day (thank you, social media), it's time to rethink and recognize the value of students mixing with those of a variety of ages.
If a teacher "flips" a course, obviously that teacher believes it is a useful thing to do. Rarely would a teacher go through the work to completely revamp a course without thinking it is to their students' benefit. But, what do students think?
Personally, I received an overwhelmingly positive response. Anecdotally, I had three students mention how much they liked being able to watch lectures at home, skipping ones they already knew, and reviewing areas of difficulty. Another students mentioned that he used the online lectures to review before tests, and the usage logs bear this out.
In addition, there were some great comments in the evaluations*. Some of those comments (the more instructive and exciting are listed below:
The Moodle videos that Matthew prepares for his students as a review are very helpful. Even if we miss a class we can understand them.
This teacher is really good. He do a lot of activities to practice all the topics and to involve all the students during the class.
I have had class of listening and speaking with Ms. Showman before in the last term, and I did not like so much, but I always notice your effort and interest in class. Now in Grammar and Writing I love his classes. Also it is important to say that his videos in moodle are SO helpful and great. I am learning grammar as never before. And he is so kind and patient with our questions. Your organization is amazing.
Of course, not every student connects well with a given method. Below is a criticism** of the method and, I suppose, me:
The teacher explain most of his ideas using Moodle website by uploading videos. I think it is better to explain the lecture materials inside the class, an that help us understand and ask some questions that could help us. I think the teacher try to escape from the questions that students could ask during the lecture. There is no interesting because there is no questions, ideas, and interactions during the lecture, and that because most of lecture materials that we study are online.
My reaction to this: I need to make the purpose of a flipped class even more explicit. Given that my class was questions-focused, given that I began every lesson by eliciting their questions, given that I assigned homework with the instruction that students were to write down any and all questions, I find it hard to believe that the student thinks I try to avoid questions and interactions.
That said, I know I can also make adjustments to make it clear that questions are not only welcome, but necessary to our class. I will need to be more explicit when explaining that the whole point of online lectures is to maximize time for questions and inquiries.
Onward we go!
* Evaluations are done anonymously and without course instructors present. ** Two administration aspects not related to flipped instruction were omitted.
This past term I made a decision to "flip" my classroom.
I wasn't thinking about "flipping" when I did it. It was something I simply fell into.
A day or two before the term started, I was daydreaming about how my grammar lessons could be delivered more effectively. Between the cognitive psych research I read and my own experience of giving in-class introductions to grammar concepts, introductions that didn't seem all that useful anyway, I thought there must be a better way.
Suddenly it dawned on me that I had both Moodle and Blackboard at my disposal. I had Google Drive/Docs, which I was already using for in-class activities. I knew how to shoot videos from my laptop and Moto X, which I'd already been using to create materials for Listening/Speaking class. Everything I needed was quite literally at my fingertips.
What if I made short videos of the grammar lessons and hosted them on Drive? What if I posted all of these in Moodle or Blackboard? What if I wrote online quizzes to both (a) ensure students were interacting with the materials and (b) assess which points students were having difficulty with before ever entering the classroom? What if I focused in-class attention on those points? What if in-class grammar lesson time was focused completely on students' questions, practice, and quizzing? What if I never lectured at all?
It's not my personality to do something little-by-little. I'm not one to say "If I have time, then...".
No, if I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it.
This was a busy term. If I wasn't prepping materials or marking homework or grading assessments, I was writing and shooting videos and writing hundreds of quiz questions. In the end, however, I had a course that excited me, excited (most) students, and left me satisfied. Over this winter break, I will be reshooting some vids and I'll be revising some materials, but as a whole it was a great experience.
Coming Soon: Reactions, both my students' and my own.
The statistics, quoted from Common Sense Media, are not encouraging:
53% of 9-year-olds vs. 17% of 17-year-olds are daily reader
The proportion who "never" or "hardly ever" read has tripled since 1984. A third of 13-year-olds and 45% of 17-year-olds say they've read for pleasure one to two times a year, if that.
Two of the articles linked above also delve into reading proficiency. Did you know that only about 1/3 of fourth grade students read proficiently? Or that another 1/3 read at a below basic level?
As a citizen of the US, this concerns me. As an educator, a language educator no less, this concerns me. As a father of young boys, the oldest of which (2 years 8 months) loves being read to, this concerns me. As an individual who tries to set aside at least a little time for reading every day, this concerns me.
Most of the articles are fairly quick to single out rising rates of media usage as the primary culprit. Rates of television viewing have remained basically stable, but computer and handheld device screen time has risen precipitously. Most articles also mention, however mostly in passing, that screen time could be spent in reading activities.
I would also point to digital (visual) media as a primary culprit. Between watching a video and reading a story, watching videos has a lower cognitive load than reading, and people tend toward lower cognitive loads when they can. Watching videos is more immediately gratifying than the slower process or reading. Together, this is a near death sentence for pleasure reading.
People are quick to bring up the examples of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, forgetting that these phenomena were not primarily a victory of reading. These were primarily social movements, drawing people in because all their friends were reading them, not due to an intrinsic interest in reading. It's that intrinsic interest that defines pleasure reading.
While many young people are reading via social media and the like, I would be loathe to call this pleasure reading. That type of reading only builds language skills for that arena: social media. The language used among peers does not readily transfer to the skills needed to comprehend or appreciate texts of fiction, non-fiction, biography, science, technology, etc.
It is popular today to hear people talk about "digital literacy" and to make trendy assertions that today's students are simply different and have different "learning styles" than students of the past. Reading, however, still does and will form the foundation of an educated society. Reading needs to to be a primary concern of parents, educators, and society as a whole.
The Common Core is obviously a divisive subject in the US today. It's definitely been overly politicized and probably over criticized. In a world as grey as ours, to think social issue is completely black or white is incredibly naïve.
The Common Core State Standards are imperfect, to be sure. I for one do not want increased standardized testing, which seems likely under CCSS. I am also a proponent of literature, something deemphasized in the CCSS. But are they as bad as opponents charge? Is it really a case of social experimentation?
Perhaps the better question might be this: Since the demise of classical education, what isn't social experimentation?
How many of you recall learning Latin (or possibly Greek) in high school or university? I'm too young to recall that era (though I did study a year of Greek during university), but it was not long ago that such was the standard.
Like the United States itself, modern educational theory informed by Dewey is a social experiment. Montessori schools and charter schools are social experiments. Homeschooling in it's present-day form is a social experiment. Pretty much anything not considered classical education are social experiments. As some point out, classical education is possibly still superior to any modern alternative.
Why is virtually no one clamoring for classical education? Why is no one up in arms demanding a return to obligatory high school Latin classes? It seems no one wants the original common core: Latin, Greek, and mathematics.
I'm not asking anyone to support the Common Core. I'm not asking anyone to oppose the Common Core. It may be good to remember, however, that education since the 1960s (at the very latest) has been one reform after another, one experiment after another. Unless we plan to go back to classical education, let's have everyone take a breath and get some perspective: People decried the loss of Latin, yet students have continued to be educated.
The Common Core is imperfect, as is any education theory and all education methods, but it is no more than the downfall education or society than was the loss of Latin class. (Though, I'd be in favor of bringing that back, too.)
I've been completing the lessons from Think101x: The of Everyday Thinking from edX. I've also been reading through the suggested textbooks: How we know what isn't so by Thomas Gilovich and Thinking, fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman. I've just finished the coursework and readings for week 3. There is so much to process; it's really quite astounding in every regard.
However, three recommended additional video posts (TED talks) have got me thinking about the concept of happiness and how schools do or do not or could help students' happiness. Perhaps it sticks in my minds because my 7-year-old nephew remarked Sunday that he hated school.
Below are the Think101x recommended extra video posts:
TED Talk by Dan Gilbert on The surprising science of happiness: "66% of the students choose to be in the course in which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied... because they do no know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows."
TED Talk by Daniel Kahneman on The riddle of experience: "We really should not think of happiness as a substitute for well-being; it is a completely different notion."
TED Talk by Dan Ariely who asks, "Are we in control of our own decisions?": "The option that was useless in the middle was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it, but it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out what they wanted."
I'm not sure whether it's the educator in me or sheer curiosity, but theses are some of the questions that began to come to mind as I watched these videos and as they connected with the ideas already in my mind from the readings and Think101x course content:
How can students understand that getting what one wants is not a determinant of happiness?
Does giving students more options and more choices actually decrease their happiness?
Would students make better food choices and be happier with them if their options were reduced?
Should we not allow people to change their minds? Should we make more decisions irreversible?
Could lessons be rewritten or redesigned or reorganized in such a way that students remember the lesson in a more positive light and are, thus, happier with their lessons?
Do we tell students to do what makes them happy or teach them to do the things that will statistically lead to greater happiness, regardless of what they believe about the future?
What implications does Ariely's discussion of organ donation have on the way we design exam questions, seek volunteers, etc.?
Are students and teachers (regardless of what they say they think) more comfortable when decisions are made for them?
How often do policy makers and curriculum designers choose more extreme positions simply due to having too many choices?
Feel free to chime with any of your thoughts. And check out Think101x!
I continue to think through two questions I first posed last week: How well do Chinese students adjust to university life in the US? What do they feel about their experiences?
Students also cited barriers between themselves and American students when they were asked to work in groups for class. They frequently reported that the first few times participating in the group was a stressful experience for them, as their American classmates often criticized their English, so some students thought that American classmates did not believe they added value to group projects, which ultimately made it difficult for them to participate actively. One student explained that it wasn’t only his classmates who treated him differently but also his professors. He said, “I see the professors joking with the American students all the time. But they never joke with me before or after class. They ask me where I am from, and when I say China they say okay, and that’s the end of the conversation.”
There are some disappointing aspects going on here.
Observation: If true...
If it is true that Chinese are being selectively ignored or marginalized by professors, that's a fairly damning critique.
If American students are unfairly criticizing Chinese students' English and are simply unwilling to work with them, that too is a sad state of affairs.
Questions: What else could be going on here?
Could there be other ways to look at this?
Though I have known many Chinese with excellent English, I have also know many Chinese who just want to "go abroad" and don't want to "waste time" improving their English, so long as they can pass the IELTS or TOEFL and be accepted by a university. Could some students' (and perhaps their families') impatience result in having English abilities that contribute to these criticisms?
Did the American students really think the Chinese students didn't add value or was is merely the Chinese students' perception?
Given the nature of collectivist society, and the fact that it's more important to look after each member of the group than it is to make sure each person contributes well or equally, could the Chinese students have been ill-prepared for the demands of individualist society group work?
“I see the professors joking with the American students all the time." Really? All the time? I also wonder who initiates these joking conversations? Do the American students initiate or do the professors? Also, given that humor often doesn't translate well across languages and cultures, is it possible that neither the professors nor the students know how to joke with each other? Rather than disliking the Chinese students, could professors be avoiding such interaction out of the embarrassment or the discomfort of not knowing how to interact with them?
Final Comments
Some of the aspects noted here remind me of why I advise most Chinese students to enroll on preparatory programs before studying in the US or UK. I don't mean language preparation only, but rather programs than include courses in mathematics, economics, sciences, etc. I believe that except for a few students who have excellent English and fairly advanced social skills, the benefits of such programs far outweigh the benefits of getting abroad quickly.
Programs such as USPP and IFY (both Kaplan China programs for which I've worked) and others engage students in fairly rigorous academic work while also helping students learn the study habits and interactional requirements of US and/or UK educational culture. And it's all done in English. I'm a strong advocate of such programs. It's also why I suggest that US universities foster more relationships with these types of programs, rather than focusing on agents alone.
How well do language professionals know and understand grammar? How well could we perform what we expect of our students? I've often chafed under the grammatical accuracy criteria given to assess oral English ability. How many of you have seen criteria that, if strictly enforced, even native, educated English speakers would be penalized?
Now what if even the professionals don't know the grammar they're supposed to teach?
In the article Cutting to the Common Core: Decoding Complex Text, Rebecca Blum-Martínez attempts to demonstrate differing language complexity by breaking down the grammar in two texts. Unfortunately, I believe she has not done this decoding well. Below I will show the examples texts, quote Blum-Martínez's explanation (in red) and then provide my take.
In this first example, we can see two compound sentences joined by the conjunction “and.” All three sentences are in the simple past tense, and the only more “complex” tense is the “would read” in the conditional past. (Blum-Martínez)
Here's what I see: The first sentence is not a compound sentence; it is a simple sentence with a compound predicate, no different in essence from "John ate and drank". The second sentence is likewise a simple sentence with a compound predicate, but the "complex" would read should probably also be simply read so as to maintain parallelism. Of course, if a compound sentence is desired, the first and second sentences could be joined by replacing the period with a comma; it is generally poor practice to begin a sentence with but unless it is being used for emphasis.
As in the previous example, there are three sentences. However, the third sentence consists of two clauses, with each clause containing several phrases that provide us with additional information (lexical density). In the first sentences [sic], the adjective phrase “less than a year” provides us with information about the length of Lincoln’s education, and thus adds to the sense of time in this “past tense” paragraph. ...And we find two different uses of “so.” In the first usage, “so” functions as an additional adverb that adds the scarcity of paper to that of books. In the second usage, “so” functions as a linking adverbial of result or inference that signals that the second unit, “he could use it again,” is the result of the former, “cleaned the board.” Thus, “so” changes its meaning because its function has changed. (Blum-Martínez)
Here's what I see: In the first sentence, I'm not sure that the whole phrase less than a year is an adjective clause as I believe a year to be an object (head noun) in this case. However, I'm not positive about that. The last sentence does, indeed, consist of two clauses, but perhaps not as in the way Blum-Martínez thinks. If she means that and separates two clauses, she would be wrong. In fact, the second so (which is really so that) is a subordinate conjunction that connects the first clause " He worked... and cleaned...knife" with the second clause "he could use it again." If I am not mistaken, in order for so to be a linking abverb(ial), is would have to take the meaning of therefore.
This should highlight a very significant problem: language professionals who themselves do not know "correct" forms. How can we teach what we ourselves do not know?
In any case, Blum-Martínez and I cannot both be correct, though we might both be wrong. Do you see problems that I've missed or mistakes that I've made?
In 2002 while working as a substitute teacher for Des Moines Public Schools I came across a motivational poster with a quote from the Chinese founder or Taoism/Daoism. I know that the school employees were likely ignorant of the religious connection, but I decided to perform an experiment. I sent an email to the DMPS head office asking why, given the “Celebrate Diversity” slogan seemingly posted at every school, Taoist quotations were permitted but Christian, Jewish or Islamic quotations were not. The response was both predicable and sad: Please let us know where the poster is located so that we can take it down.
Is this really what US educators believe is the fundamental character of diversity and inclusivity?
If so, we are a deluded bunch.
First things first: Popular opinions of acceptability and unacceptability are not indicators of how open-minded or inclusive people are. There was a time when it would have been unpopular to suggest that women work outside the home. Today it would be unpopular to suggest women should stay at home. In both situations, popular sentiment is not nor should be the arbiter of correctness.
True diversity is not simply equality and respect for people of different races or genders. True diversity is not simply saying people can love whomever they choose. True diversity is not simply empowerment to previously or presently marginalized groups. True diversity is not simply about appearances and behaviors.
No, for diversity to be truly diverse and for inclusivity to be truly inclusive requires the ability to respect and appreciate those whose views diverge greatly from your’s own. It means not resorting to petty name-calling and twitter battles when hearing opinions with which you disagree or even believe to be evil. It means not seeking to label others (e.g. ignorant, racist, sexist, homophobic, religious fanatic, etc.), especially when you don’t know the people, nor have tried to truly understand why those people think the way they think.
Being inclusive means acknowledging that most people want to be good, and their views accord with their attempt to be good. It does not mean believing the people, their ideas, or their behaviors are good, but rather that most people want to be good as they understand it. Diversity and inclusiveness does not mean abandoning your own right to an opinion, but it does require the humility of recognizing that (a) your own views may be wrong even if they are popular and (b) your own understanding of what is good may very likely be flawed, if not in one way, then in another.
1 general truth about inclusiveness (said 2 ways)
Exclusion cannot create greater inclusivity.
Greater diversity, tolerance, and respect for differences cannot happen by subtraction.
Going back to the opening example, banning religion from public view and public discourse does not create greater inclusiveness. You cannot exclude viewpoints and somehow become more inclusive. Subtracting exposure to topics cannot lead to greater diversity, but lesser.
Similarly, removing viewpoints from the realm of "acceptable", that is, vilifying views such that people holding those views can no longer be heard or respected is not inclusiveness. Let's say a student thinks that homosexual marriage is wrong, or that women should should be accompanied by male relatives when leaving home, or that prenatal babies with handicaps should be aborted. These are all unpopular opinions in today's social climate in the US. But when we vilify these viewpoints and claim them to be unacceptable from the get-go, we exclude viewpoints from respectful discourse and ultimately support less diversity, not more. In the end, we don't create more thoughtful, reflective, ethically engaged students, but rather students as judgmental as those we vilify. You cannot remove ideas and get greater diversity; it is as impossible as it is illogical.
5 signs of so-called "diversity"
As long as people get "offended"by hearing something that makes them uncomfortable, true diversity is NOT happening.
As long as people are using 160 character tweets and faceless attacks on people with different views, true diversity is NOT happening.
As long as people of both popular and unpopular views are unable to come together for respectful, meaning, constructive dialogue, true diversity is NOT happening.
As long as people of different viewpoints and opinions are content to stereotype and mock those whose viewpoints and opinions differ significantly or even insignificantly from their own, true diversity is NOT happening.
As long as currently popular notions of inclusiveness and exclusiveness are used to demean or marginalize those with unpopular views, true diversity is NOT happening.
5 signs of actual diversity
If people can realize that disagreement does not equal hatred and that saying, "You're wrong," does not mean, "I don't like you," true diversity is happening.
If people of both popular and unpopular views feel they can express their views without fear of attack, true diversity is happening.
If people of both popular and unpopular views are learning to express their views without attacking others as individuals, true diversity is happening.
If people are learning to disagree while still having mutual respect, true diversity is happening.
If people whose viewpoints and opinions differ in fundamental and divisive ways are meeting together, discussing views, and attempting to understand one another, true diversity is happening.
Well teachers, what can be done to foster true spirits of diversity in our classrooms?
What should we stop doing if celebrating diversity is really our goal?
Last week I had a conversation with a program director at a major midwestern public university. One topic discussed was the state of educational specialization in the US. If you read the requirements of almost any job positing at a college and university and you'll see a list that can often seem excessive. Understandable, yet excessive. This in not a phenomena only found in academia.
“Requires a degree in social work.” “Must have at least three years experience teaching at a US college or university.” These are two of many items past colleagues, friends, and I have noted during employment search. All of these have been positions they or I have looked at and thought, “Matthew can totally do this!” or “This is exactly the work that Matthew does/loves to do/would thrive in!” I'm sure I'm not alone in these experiences. The question is this: Functionally, are these postings merely maintaining high standards or unnecessarily narrowing the field of potential candidates?
As the aforementioned program director explained, his university has taken an interesting approach: reducing the number of requirements to those that are actually necessary. They do not see it as a lowering of standards but rather as a way of broadening their search. They don't want to disqualify excellent candidates with diverse intangibles who are simply unable to be pigeonholed into narrow, overly-specialized sets of “requirements”, many of which are not actually prerequisite and could be learned on the job.
This issue of over-specialization can directly impact the mission of schools, organizations, and companies. Do organizations overlook new solutions to problems by insisting staff possess narrowly defined educational or professional backgrounds? Do companies fail to innovate by creating homogenous groups rather than dynamic teams? Could the creativity of employees be stifled by a dearth of skills, knowledge, and interests?
And what about students? Do schools do a disservice to students by overly narrowing the pool of candidates from which teachers, lecturers, and instructors are selected? Do we do a disservice to students if we push them into majors too early? I never speak poorly of doctoral students or the work they do to earn that distinction, but should doctoral study be the model? Should a Ph.D. be the standard to which academics or teachers aspire and by which society judges ability or success?
A decade ago I knew a young woman who graduated with a music degree and a business minor. After graduation she worked as a manager in a Wells Fargo branch. The job required a college or university degree, but she admitted that her particular degree was of virtually no use to the job she was actually doing. I remember thinking that this was a form of institutional discrimination. I remember wondering how many excellent managers were ignored because they lacked the degree.
Is this the way it should be? Is this the way it must be? Could we reimagine job requirements in a way that maintains or even improves quality yet empowers a greater number competent applicants?
Since I've been back in the US, there has been one television/hulu advertisement in particular that has caused me to feel progressively more uncomfortable. I've struggled to put into words exactly how or why it makes me uncomfortable, but this post is my attempt to do so. See the advertisement below:
From the outset, let me clarify that I am in no way an enemy of using technology, especially to educate. Obviously I blog. I have used youtube, but my education-focused vlog is on tudou (土豆网), a Chinese service that is inexplicable slow in the US. I have my own website, wherein I describe a myriad of other computer-based technologies I use or have used in my teaching career. I'm currently playing with Language Cloud, trying to determine its overall usefulness for language teaching in general and in different contexts.
I also use technology to learn. I took a online course from Iowa State University back in 2002, in the early years of online learning. It was self-paced, which meant I finished the January-May course during the second week of March. (That's just how I tend to work.) Later as a grad student in a field-based TESOL program, much peer collaboration was done online. An iPod was a crucial piece of technology while studying Chinese, both for purchased and self-produced mp3s, and I still use my computer and cell phone to tune in to Chinese radio. Even now I'm and trying to decide whether to enroll in one or more Coursura courses (Coaching Teachers, Student Thinking at the Core, Blended Learning) or edX courses (Intro to Computer Science, Effective Thinking Through Math, The Science of Everyday Thinking, China).
Despite my clear belief in the potential usefulness of computer technology to educate, I would describe myself as technologically cautious. Perhaps to use a phrasing with more positive connotation, I could describe my approach to technology integration as research-based. Simply put, technology is not a educational savior, and even if used well, it could harm more than help student learning and achievement, especially in the primary and secondary school years, as it is during these years that students acquire so many fundamental skills.
To get back to the original purpose of this post, I think there are three main reasons why this Surface tablet advertisement makes me uncomfortable.
#1 Fatalism
"Change is coming" remarks the teacher (an actor, I assume). He continues, saying, "All my students have the brand new Surface." He makes this seem so inevitable, as if there really is no choice. Because all the students have the tablet (What kind of school is this?), he feels he must utilize them. Wisdom is not something that young people are known for; wisdom requires age and experience. Just because student have them and like them, does that mean they make for good education? It seems unwise to make pedagogical decisions based on what students due primarily for fun, status, etc.
Daphne Koller has remarked, "Now, this is something that to the people of my generation is still a bit foreign, but if you talk to the kids of today, they actually prefer to text each other than to talk to each other on the phone or even get together for coffee"(1). It may be preferred, but is it a healthy preference? Is it an educationally, academically sound preference? These are huge assumptions that should not be made.
Change is coming, without a doubt, and both schools and teachers must adapt. But to adapt, must they inevitably adopt what may not be in the students' educational best interests? For better or worse, some parents working in high tech companies such as Apple and Google disagree with this inevitability, sending their children to school without computers (2). Again, I'm not saying the technology should not be used, but fatalism is the enemy of best practice.
#2 Overemphasis on entertainment
Granted, the teacher says nothing about students playing games or using Skype in school, but by juxtaposing the social networking and gaming aspects alongside the school aspects, the advertisement tries to tap into the prevailing societal idea that people should be continuously entertained, even at school. It feeds the currently popular notion that people shouldn't have to do things that aren't fun, so if school is not entertaining, school is bad. That whole idea is absolutely absurd.
I'm not anti-fun, though I admit that my achiever orientation does sometimes lead to anti-entertainment ideas. I try to make my lessons interesting, engaging and, yes, fun. Nevertheless education and learning take work, and work is not usually fun in and of itself, though the final sense of satisfaction may be. Almost anything truly valuable takes effort or persistence or both, neither of which are inherently fun. This advertisement makes me uncomfortable because it continues to blur the lines of reality by giving the impression that good education and deep learning can and should come easily and that students should be entertained.
#3 Bandwagon thinking
The teacher in the advertisement prefaces his comments with "Honestly, I'm a little old fashioned," immediately putting to rest the idea teachers with less technological aptitude could have equal or greater wisdom than those well versed in the latest tech fads. The worldview of the advertisement is revealed immediately: Youth and excitement rule; age and wisdom mean nothing.
Perhaps the most significant reason I am uncomfortable with this advertisement is that it continues to perpetuate the notion that computer and internet technology will and does improve education, a notion that has yet to be realized. There is a rampant belief that any tech is good tech. Since the dawn of television, technology advocates have assigned messiah-like promises to the potential of technology to transform education and facilitate learning. Education is continuing to be transformed; this is true. But is learning being facilitated? For all the spending that schools have done and are doing to upgrade computers and integrate technology, the sad fact is that achievement has not risen, and in some cases has fallen (3). Yet schools, parents, and obviously the tech companies continue to jump on the bandwagon, without evidence to support what everyone assumes (4): technology makes for better learning and better preparation.
That is not to say that the promises are empty. Online learning, mobile devices, and the like do have great potential to transform learning for the better, but at the moment it is merely that: potential. While there has been success with blended learning (also called hybrid learning)(5), these are mostly in areas such as math that have definite answers that lend themselves to adaptive learning. Perhaps as teachers become more skilled at using this technology, as Koller suggests, the true benefits of computer-assisted learning will truly be revealed. In areas such as reading skills development, however, the evidence is overwhelming on the anti-technology side (6). For now it behooves teachers, parents, students and all other stakeholders to reject the bandwagon and adopt a research-based, thoughtful, open-minded but cautious attitude toward the use of technology in the classroom.
As part of my transition into the U.S. job market, some grad school classmates (and fellow ESL colleagues) suggested I complete the Clifton StrengthsFinder assessment. Frankly, whenever I hear of assessments like this (e.g. Myers-Briggs), I’m always somewhat incredulous. I cannot help but think such assessments could not possibly be able to summarize the complexity that is a human personality. However, despite my ever-present skepticism, I’m consistently shocked by how accurate the results of these types of assessments seem to be. This time was no exception.
For those of you who are as unfamiliar with the assessment as I was, here is a brief description: “The Clifton StrengthsFinder measures the presence of 34 talent themes. Talents are people's naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied. The more dominant a theme is in a person, the greater the theme's impact on that person's behavior and performance” (strengthtest).
After obtaining an access code, I went ahead with the assessment. When finished, I was presented with a personalized summary of my five most dominant strengths along with discussion of what the results mean. According to the the assessment, my top five talents are these:
Leaner
Achiever
Connectedness
Intellection
Input
I had not read through the 34 themes prior to taking the assessment, so these labels were a bit bewildering. In fact, when I first looked at the results, I thought numbers 1, 4 and 5 were essentially different sides of the same coin. The provided summaries were quite thorough, however, and as I’ve read through the materials and dialogued with those who understand the assessment well, I’ve started getting a better handle on what these mean and how they show up in my life. Just yesterday I replied to a post on Facebook and only afterwards noted that it was an excellent demonstration of connectedness.
I’ve tried to remember that these are “naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior.” These are essentially the ways that a person’s brain is unique and how that uniqueness allows different people to see the world differently, interact with the world differently and weave different colors into the tapestries of people’s lives. These are strengths to be tapped into, developed and expressed. I’m not yet sure how to use this awareness in my future teaching or other professional pursuits, but I’m on the journey.
I am also wondering what could happen if everyone could take this assessment. As a teacher, I want to help students discover their strengths, but I know I am limited in my own ability to personally uncover each student’s strengths, not to mention helping each student individually develop those strengths. I wonder what could happen if all students could take this assessment and receive greater insight into the strengths they already possess and could subsequently apply to their educational and career pursuits.
Imagine students not simply guessing about what they’re good at, but knowing. Imagine students thriving not because they try to do what everyone else does but because they tap into their own natural potentialities. Imagine students gaining confidence not due to the blind blind, ignorant praise of self-esteem language but rather due to seeing their strengths emerge and bloom. It could be beautiful.
Of course this all assumes the assessment’s accuracy.
