Inhaltsangabe
The Mobile Learning Mindset series offers practical knowledge and strategies for successful implementation of K-12 BYOD programs and 1:1 initiatives. This six-book series provides district leaders, principals, teachers, IT staff, educational coaches and parents with the information they need to make any mobile learning program a success. The District Leader’s Guideto Implementation and the Principal’s Guide to Implementation share lessons learned and provide many examples andactivities that will help school leaders who are about to implement a mobile device initiative or already have.
Die Inhaltsangabe kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.
Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor
Carl Hooker is director of innovation and digital learning at Eanes Independent School District in Austin, Texas. He is the founder of “iPadpalooza,” a three-day learning festival in celebration of the shift iPads have brought about in education and beyond. Hooker was named Tech & Learning Magazine’s 2014 Leader of the Year and he is a member of the Apple Distinguished Educator class of 2013
Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.
Chapter 1: Changing the Center
The role of the teacher has evolved in many ways through the years. In 370 B.C., Greek philoso- pher Socrates popularized a version of teachingthat has stood the test of time. His lecture formats were designed so that one person was the sole source of all knowledge and information. This single person would distribute “learning” by passing on knowledge, thoughts, and philosophies to those who were within earshot. The skill of listening, and interpreting what was said, was crucial to becoming a successful student during this time. Learning happened in isolation, with a few select students having access to the knowledge-
bearer and working independently to comprehend what they had learned. That model was effective at the time, but innovation through the centuries has made infor- mation and knowledge much more freely available.
The role of the teacher has evolved in many ways through the years. In 370 B.C., Greek philoso- pher Socrates popularized a version of teachingthat has stood the test of time. His lecture formats were designed so that one person was the sole source of all knowledge and information. This single person would distribute “learning” by passing on knowledge, thoughts, and philosophies to those who were within earshot. The skill of listening, and interpreting what was said, was crucial to becoming a successful student during this time. Learning happened in isolation, with a few select students having access to the knowledge-
bearer and working independently to comprehend what they had learned. That model was effective at the time, but innovation through the centuries has made infor- mation and knowledge much more freely available.
The first significant innovation to affect education and knowledge dissemina- tion came in the 1400s when Gutenberg invented the printing press. All of a sudden, information from a single source could be replicated on a large scale and distributed to the masses. The relationship of teacher and pupil shifted from passing down information to more of a master-apprentice relationship. With information in book form becoming widely available, the teacher needed to make sure the student not only understood the information, but also knew how to apply it in some form. Reading became the most essential skill for
any student hoping to succeed in the future world. Teaching style was still largely stylized in the Socratic-lecture method, because students needed help decoding exactly what they were reading in books and how to take the infor- mation from a knowledge level to higher understanding and application. (See the lower level of Bloom’s taxonomy.)
We are now in the midst of a second significant innovation in education with the introduction of mobile devices and the internet in classrooms. Information has now become nearly ubiquitous, accessible by all with a mobile phone and
a 3G connection. However, if you look in the classroom, most of the same lecture- and book-focused formats remain. This shift in knowledge has not translated to a different teaching approach. Although listening and reading remain important skills in the classroom, in order to achieve higher-order thinking skills, our students must move past the application phase of their learning. Essential skills for this next generation of learners now includes the ability to think critically about real-world problems and come up with creative solutions. Students must be able to work both independently and collabora- tively to effectively communicate their understanding. Continuing to teach
in a lecture-style format, day in and day out, doesn’t allow for this higher level of interaction and creativity. As you’ll see in the following chapters of this book (and yes, there is some irony that this is in book format), there are many different ways of shifting this style of learning from teacher-centric to student-driven.
any student hoping to succeed in the future world. Teaching style was still largely stylized in the Socratic-lecture method, because students needed help decoding exactly what they were reading in books and how to take the infor- mation from a knowledge level to higher understanding and application. (See the lower level of Bloom’s taxonomy.)
We are now in the midst of a second significant innovation in education with the introduction of mobile devices and the internet in classrooms. Information has now become nearly ubiquitous, accessible by all with a mobile phone and
a 3G connection. However, if you look in the classroom, most of the same lecture- and book-focused formats remain. This shift in knowledge has not translated to a different teaching approach. Although listening and reading remain important skills in the classroom, in order to achieve higher-order thinking skills, our students must move past the application phase of their learning. Essential skills for this next generation of learners now includes the ability to think critically about real-world problems and come up with creative solutions. Students must be able to work both independently and collabora- tively to effectively communicate their understanding. Continuing to teach
in a lecture-style format, day in and day out, doesn’t allow for this higher level of interaction and creativity. As you’ll see in the following chapters of this book (and yes, there is some irony that this is in book format), there are many different ways of shifting this style of learning from teacher-centric to student-driven.
Making the Shift
To anyone who was trained in the Madeline Hunter (http://mrhook.it/hunter) model of instruction, shifting to something more project-based may seem like letting go of the reins of the horse. The Hunter model of lesson design empha- sizes knowledge repetition (sometimes called “drill and kill”) for students. In an era where standardized test scores can make or break a school, this model might seem to be the most appropriate for educating our students. But there is one major flaw with this method of teaching: it’s highly prescriptive. The only questions asked are those in the plans, and the goal of every lesson is to get to the end. When students get through the standards and expectations, they are then given directions or modeled what to do next. When I taught using this method, I would often find 22 examples of student work that looked strangely similar to my model example.
God forbid a student should ask a question that wasn’t exactly aligned with the objectives of the lesson, or maybe seek some deeper understanding. There was a finite amount of time to make it through this type of instruction, and rarely did that allow for differentiation, with the exception of “independent practice” time. For me, shifting off of this method took a long hard look in the mirror. Were students truly learning with this method of instruction? Or were they just able to regurgitate what I had taught them on the test?
Late in my teaching career I began to see the errors in this method of instruc- tion. In 2003, which would be my last year in the classroom as a full-time teacher, I decided to abandon this method for the most part. I was teaching first grade at the time, and rather than going through a standard scope and sequence, I decided to work with others on my team and play to our strengths as well as to the interests of the students. We designed our lessons to be much more centered around student outcomes rather than knowledge regurgita- tion. We expanded our activities from a single stand-alone math activity to ones that would encompass multiple layers of subject matter. It was essentially inquiry-based learning before that was a thing.
By the time we entered the final nine weeks of that school year, my students had reached all the goals and checkpoints required of first graders in the state of Texas. The problem? I still had nine weeks of school left. Although I would have loved to give them a head start on second grade, I knew that wouldn’t be fair to all the other teachers at my grade level, and it would makes life tougher for the next-level teachers. (That’s an entirely different issue, which I won’t tackle here.)
To anyone who was trained in the Madeline Hunter (http://mrhook.it/hunter) model of instruction, shifting to something more project-based may seem like letting go of the reins of the horse. The Hunter model of lesson design empha- sizes knowledge repetition (sometimes called “drill and kill”) for students. In an era where standardized test scores can make or break a school, this model might seem to be the most appropriate for educating our students. But there is one major flaw with this method of teaching: it’s highly prescriptive. The only questions asked are those in the plans, and the goal of every lesson is to get to the end. When students get through the standards and expectations, they are then given directions or modeled what to do next. When I taught using this method, I would often find 22 examples of student work that looked strangely similar to my model example.
God forbid a student should ask a question that wasn’t exactly aligned with the objectives of the lesson, or maybe seek some deeper understanding. There was a finite amount of time to make it through this type of instruction, and rarely did that allow for differentiation, with the exception of “independent practice” time. For me, shifting off of this method took a long hard look in the mirror. Were students truly learning with this method of instruction? Or were they just able to regurgitate what I had taught them on the test?
Late in my teaching career I began to see the errors in this method of instruc- tion. In 2003, which would be my last year in the classroom as a full-time teacher, I decided to abandon this method for the most part. I was teaching first grade at the time, and rather than going through a standard scope and sequence, I decided to work with others on my team and play to our strengths as well as to the interests of the students. We designed our lessons to be much more centered around student outcomes rather than knowledge regurgita- tion. We expanded our activities from a single stand-alone math activity to ones that would encompass multiple layers of subject matter. It was essentially inquiry-based learning before that was a thing.
By the time we entered the final nine weeks of that school year, my students had reached all the goals and checkpoints required of first graders in the state of Texas. The problem? I still had nine weeks of school left. Although I would have loved to give them a head start on second grade, I knew that wouldn’t be fair to all the other teachers at my grade level, and it would makes life tougher for the next-level teachers. (That’s an entirely different issue, which I won’t tackle here.)
We had just received two major pieces of technology in our school that I had been dabbling with. One was a digital projector (there were only two in the building back then, and they were about the size of a small aircraft carrier). This meant the days of coming home with smeared overhead marker on my hand were over, but it also meant that I could present information and ideas in a much more dynamic way. The other major new piece of technology were called COWs (Computers on Wheels). These COWs had 12 Apple iBooks in them, which I could use to supplement the four Compaq desktop computers I already had in my class.
Having access to this technology meant I could do some different things with my students and perhaps teach them some computer literacy along the way (which would actually lead to my next career as a computer lab teacher). I decided to get out of the way and let the students choose what they would like to learn about in greater depth for the final weeks of the year. I set some parameters: regardless of topic, the learning must contain some portion of writing, math, science and social studies. I also made the students present their work in a capstone demonstration at the end to their parents, peers, and myself. And, I insisted that they use technology for some part of their project (believe me, this part wasn’t hard to sell).
Students picked topics from sharks to tornadoes to, for one particular student who was obsessed with the actress, Rachel Weisz. Along with their technology component, students needed to create some sort of demonstration or model to show what they had learned. When all the final projects were finished, I asked the students to evaluate and reflect on all they had learned. I was amazed at the higher level of thinking that was taking place in my classroom. The scary thing was, I actually felt like I wasn’t doing that much “teaching.” Aside from my many hours of preparatory research and setup, the students were doing most of the work. I made sure to find one “treasure” to award each student that aligned with their work, such as a shark’s tooth, a book about tornadoes, and, yes, even an autographed picture of Rachel Weisz.
I had effectively made the shift from teacher-centered to student-driven learning, and I hadn’t even realized it. Years later, many of these students (now in their teens) found me on Facebook and posted several messages exclaiming how much they enjoyed my class and the capstone passion projects they had ended the year with. My colleagues, noticing the risk-taking and innovation I was attempting in my classroom, also rewarded by making me the Teacher of the Year on campus.
Are Colleges Preparing Us to Teach in the 21st Century?
I recently guest-lectured a group of student teachers from a local university. I say lecture in the loosest of terms, because in actuality I tried to mimic the role of the educator in the modern classroom. I made sure the students were doing some sort of collaborative work in the form of an Interactive Learning Challenge (see Book 3 for more on those), and they not only presented their outcomes, they had to reflect on the process.
To my amazement, not all the students in the room were very comfortable with this approach. They had become accustomed to playing the “game” of school even through college, which meant sitting back and regurgitating content to some extent. The occasional class would include some level of dynamic discussion or interaction, but actually working on digital projects as a group in class was rare.
What’s more amazing than their lack of interest in doing something fun and interactive was the fact that many of them had no clue about how to meaning- fully use technology, much less mobile devices, in the classroom environment. I asked the group what kind of technology tools they used on a regular basis for learning and received a lot of blank stares. “Microsoft Office?” one student feebly suggested. They had missed the point. So when I asked them what type of technology tools they used in their lives on a regular basis, they began to share more freely. Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, Google (the search engine more than the apps), Twitter, and a few others were mentioned. I asked them if they ever used these tools in an educational setting, and many of them shook their heads. Some even laughed.
Are Colleges Preparing Us to Teach in the 21st Century?
I recently guest-lectured a group of student teachers from a local university. I say lecture in the loosest of terms, because in actuality I tried to mimic the role of the educator in the modern classroom. I made sure the students were doing some sort of collaborative work in the form of an Interactive Learning Challenge (see Book 3 for more on those), and they not only presented their outcomes, they had to reflect on the process.
To my amazement, not all the students in the room were very comfortable with this approach. They had become accustomed to playing the “game” of school even through college, which meant sitting back and regurgitating content to some extent. The occasional class would include some level of dynamic discussion or interaction, but actually working on digital projects as a group in class was rare.
What’s more amazing than their lack of interest in doing something fun and interactive was the fact that many of them had no clue about how to meaning- fully use technology, much less mobile devices, in the classroom environment. I asked the group what kind of technology tools they used on a regular basis for learning and received a lot of blank stares. “Microsoft Office?” one student feebly suggested. They had missed the point. So when I asked them what type of technology tools they used in their lives on a regular basis, they began to share more freely. Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, Google (the search engine more than the apps), Twitter, and a few others were mentioned. I asked them if they ever used these tools in an educational setting, and many of them shook their heads. Some even laughed.
I then decided to let them in on a little secret.
“When you enter our schools, we assume you not only know how to use this technology as a ‘digital native,’ but also that you’ll be the most effective in integrating it.”
Again … blank stares.
A few months later I encountered another group of student teachers. This group was going through our district orientation. My part in the orientation was to go over the do’s and don’ts of social media and technology use in our district. As they walked into the room, I took a quick glance at the list of names on the sign-in sheet. While the superintendent shared some messages about school culture and the like, I did some searching of their names on Google. Within seconds I had my first “hit.”
When my part came, I had all of the student-teachers take out their phones to play my version of Responsible Use Guidelines via Kahoot! (Here’s the actual kahoot I used: http://mrhook.it/rug.)
In the middle of the game, I got to a question about what to post and not to post on social media. Although all the students had gotten it right, I told them that when they walked in I had done some quick research on each of them. Immediately I noticed some nervous shifting in the room.
“Maggie, I noticed you posted some interesting pictures on Instagram. Let’s take a look at one.” I then opened up a tab that revealed the student at an art museum taking pictures of works of art. I could sense the relief wash over her face and with good reason. Two pictures before that picture was a photo of her in a pool with a beer and a bikini. I chose not to show that picture, but she and all the other student-teachers in the room became instantly aware that their lives were about to change when they entered education (or any other field for that matter). I asked them if anyone at the university level had spoken to them about this.
Again … blank stares.
I share these examples with you, the teacher reading this book, to show you that being younger or having grown up with access to technology does not guarantee the ability to integrating it meaningfully. Although it’s true that this latest generation of students have been raised in the digital era, they still need experience and critical thinking to implement it correctly. As for the seasoned teacher, sometimes the experience can get in the way and create a fixed mindset when it comes to change or enhancement of lessons via digital tools.
Fear of Change
In some cases fear of the unknown also gets in the way. Over my nearly two decades of work in education, I regularly encountered teachers who “just didn’t get technology” or “weren’t very tech-savvy.” It’s now more than 16 years into the 21st century, yet we still let ourselves fall back on excuses that technology in some ways is beyond us. Never mind that nearly every one of those non-tech-savvy teachers can quickly pull up Pinterest on their phone or create a high-quality graphic organizer on their computer.
The excuse of not being tech-savvy implies that they don’t have to even try to change. It also provides them with a safety blanket that discourages them to take risks with technology in their classroom. If they don’t’ understand it, why would they let their students try it? That same fear is exponentially increased when they feel like they have to “give up control” of the classroom.
Rather than actually thinking through the advantages of having the students engaged deeply in a project, the mind of a technophobe begins to create a multitude of false scenarios. “They could get off-task” or “What if I don’t know what they are doing or how to answer their questions?” These are common fear-based questions that prevent any real progress. Although they are also valid concerns, asking the question and not attempting a change, even if it is for the betterment of student learning, in some ways creates a bigger failure. Playing it safe isn’t always the correct choice. When it comes to engaging your students in learning by leveraging digital tools provided in a mobile device initiative, it’s worth the risk.
You might find that it’s not all that bad.
„Über diesen Titel“ kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.