Karyn Romeis had an interesting post on a "diversity" screening questionnaire she had to take before she would qualify to bid on a job. The problem was that she is a one-person show without any plans of hiring in the future. As a result, she didn't fit the "minority" profile or "diversity" policy need to bid on the job.
This reminded me of my favorite activity I use in all of my classes--the diversity interview. The assignment in in several parts as follows:
. Step I:
Imagine that you want to find a pen pal on the internet. Write a description of yourself in 30 words or less in the space below:
Step II
Locate someone outside of the class to interview that does not match the characteristics you used to describe yourself in step I.
Before interviewing them, reflect on the following questions:
What is your culture? Which groups do you identify with? How does that affect your communication? How does this affect who you speak to and how?
What assumptions do you make about the other person’s culture?
What assumptions do you make about the other person based on their culture?
Step III
Find out the following information in your interview:
What are the perceived similarities between the two cultures?
What are the perceived differences?
How can you tell the difference between a personal belief and a group’s belief?
What is the best way to find out about the culture?
What is the most unfamiliar part of your culture to the person being interviewed? (What do they have trouble understanding about your culture?)
What is the best part of your culture according to the person being interviewed? Why?
Can they give an example of conflict between your culture and their culture? How do they handle that situation?
Step IV
After you have interviewed this person, I want you to reflect on the following questions:
How did your assumptions affect your interview?
Were you able to learn anything new about that person?
What (if anything) surprised you about their answers?
Defining Diversity
In the US (and it appears this might be the case in other countries based on Karyn's post), we define "diversity" as race and gender. I refuse to fill out the little tick boxes about my race and gender that I am asked to fill out when I apply for a job.
What I have found that most of my students identify as their "culture" (which differs from many European and Latin American countries) is based on religion, sexual orientation, generation (age group), socio-economic group (middle class, professional, upper middle class, working class) or ethnic group (i.e. Italian American, Irish American, Latino/a). I found it odd that "white" students were more apt to state their race. In addition to these factors, in our state, location was important. In New York state, there is a definite distinction between the downstate, Long Island, upstate, and Central/western New York cultures. This is played out at the state universities as a large percentage of the upstate colleges are attended by "downstaters".
Also, the campus has a large population of Jews, Muslims, as well as Catholics, East Orthodox, and various christian religions. Sometimes these religious differences do erupt in classes; more so than racial differences. Another source of conflict are differences in urban, suburban, and rural cultures. This is often manifested in divisions between "resident" and "commuter" students. Finally, at the graduate level, there is a divide between international students and "local" students, especially in competition for assistantships.
Many of my students have not looked past the labels used to identify diversity. Often when they report on their interviews, they are surprised to know things about others that they thought they had known already. The most valuable lesson the students identify is not to make assumptions about someone because they are a)known in a social circumstance, b) have similar backgrounds so it is assumed they have similar values or have different backgrounds so it is assumed they will have different values, and 3) it is important to talk to people and ask about their values and beliefs. Not only is this an interesting assignment for me to grade, but many have indicated it is their favorite assignment to conduct.
While a visiting professor at another college, I pushed for the definition of diversity to be expanded. Even though the school was able to recruit faculty of color or those that fell into the traditional categories of race and gender, most had the same philosophy within the departments and were trained at the same 2-3 schools. This led to a myopic or dogmatic approach within each of the departments, making it difficult for others with opposing views to succeed. The expansion of the definition made it possible to recruit those that may have had provocative research or research and teaching that would address the issues for underrepresented populations. The student population began to change as the new professors, regardless of race or gender, gave a broader view that supported many groups.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Training, Knowledge, and assessment
As I do research on knowledge creation, organizational learning, and culture, I also am in the midst of my children taking their year end standardized tests. Putting the two together, I began to realize that very little has been written on perception of knowledge and assessment measures within a business learning context.
Current Forms of Assessment
Most training programs use some form of standardized test to measure individual and organizational learning. Cook and Brown (1999) point out that the basis for our belief in what knowledge is for the last 3 centuries has been the Cartesian view in which "knowledge, particularly anything that might pass as rigorous knowledge, is something that is held in the head of an individual and is acquired, modeled, and expressed most accurately in the most objective and explicit terms possible.(p. 384)"
The implications of this, as Cook and Brown point out, is that most in our culture believe that a person possesses knowledge and that knowledge only exists in the individual. However, as organizations try to harness individual knowledge, isn't there some level of collective knowledge that may exist outside of the individual?
Types of knowledge
In addition to the traditional view of knowledge (the scientific method), many researchers have divided knowledge into tacit and explicit (Cook and Brown, 1999), individual and collective (Ashton, 2004, Yakhlef, 2002), information and know-how (Conceicao et al., 1998; Conceicao et al., 2003; Yakhlef, 2002).
Kolb (1984) also distinguished between two types of knowledge: apprehension and comprehension. Apprehensive knowledge is the intuitive process that happens as we experience the world. Apprehensive knowledge makes us aware of what we are experiencing and perceive our world, although it may not have meaning. Comprehensive knowledge is the abstract ideas and understanding we create based on our experience.
The problem, then, is if knowledge is outside of the individual and/or can exist in a "non-coded" manner (as in tacit or apprehensive knowledge) how can we measure the level of knowledge that an individual or group might have? How do we assess "learning" or the acquisition of new knowledge when the knowledge is tacit, know-how, or a level of "knowing" or deeper understanding of the knowledge an individual might possess?
Learning in Action
Cook and Brown, Kolb, and Dewey all addressed the issue of being able to put knowledge into action. This is what Cook and Brown call "knowing". A person does not "possess" all of the knowledge needed for action, although they might be able to access some of the knowledge they have in order to put what they know into action.
For example, my kids are currently preparing to take their state tests. My son does well on these tests as he "knows" how to take them. He can read a question and "know" what they are asking for. My daughter will have the knowledge of the subject, but often gets hung up on what "they" are asking for. She can read each multiple choice response and depending on her focus within the wording of the question, she can explain why each response is appropriate. While she possesses the knowledge to answer the questions, she doesn't know the answer. These standardized multiple choice assessments are not testing her knowledge but rather whether she knows how to take the test.
Likewise, my son can apply the mathmatical processes needed to get the correct answer in trigonometry, but he doesn't understand the mathmatical concepts behind the process. This means he has a difficult time when he needs to use problem solving skills and determine which tool to use in a Math problem. For the most part, he has learned to use certain tools when there are correlating words. But when those words are missing or when he needs to use determine which tools to use during a science lab, for example, he is lost. Multiple choice or even essay questions don't measure the level of understanding, tacit knowledge, and/or "knowing" something.
This is an especially important distinction to make in the work environment.
Assessing Learning
So how do we assess this aspect of learning that is difficult to measure? This is an area that Medicine and Aeronautics have been working on over the last decade. Simulations, portfolio of work, practicums, and a certain number of hours of "practice" all are means of assessing individuals and group levels of "knowing."
Likewise, the bar exam and the CPA certification exam use a more complex method of assessing both knowledge and knowing. Now it is important that "standardized" tests become more complex to capture the true state of learning. Training organizations need to spend time on developing different ways to measure learning to report to management. Management needs to realize that numbers are not going to capture the real level of learning, knowledge and knowing within the organization in the 21st Century. To acheive this, new management theories need to be developed that include the organization, individuals, groups, and distributed work groups.
References
Ashton, D. (2004). The impact of organisational structure and practices on learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 43-53.
Conceicao, P., Heitor, M., Gibson, D., & Shariq, S. (1998). The emergining importance of knowledge for development: Implications for technology policy and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 181-202.
Conceicao, P., Heitor, M., & Veloso, F. (2003). Infrastructures, incentives, and institutions: Fostering distributed knowledge bases for the learning society. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70, 583-617.
Cook, S. and Brown, J. (1999)Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4) 381-400.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a the source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.
Current Forms of Assessment
Most training programs use some form of standardized test to measure individual and organizational learning. Cook and Brown (1999) point out that the basis for our belief in what knowledge is for the last 3 centuries has been the Cartesian view in which "knowledge, particularly anything that might pass as rigorous knowledge, is something that is held in the head of an individual and is acquired, modeled, and expressed most accurately in the most objective and explicit terms possible.(p. 384)"
The implications of this, as Cook and Brown point out, is that most in our culture believe that a person possesses knowledge and that knowledge only exists in the individual. However, as organizations try to harness individual knowledge, isn't there some level of collective knowledge that may exist outside of the individual?
Types of knowledge
In addition to the traditional view of knowledge (the scientific method), many researchers have divided knowledge into tacit and explicit (Cook and Brown, 1999), individual and collective (Ashton, 2004, Yakhlef, 2002), information and know-how (Conceicao et al., 1998; Conceicao et al., 2003; Yakhlef, 2002).
Kolb (1984) also distinguished between two types of knowledge: apprehension and comprehension. Apprehensive knowledge is the intuitive process that happens as we experience the world. Apprehensive knowledge makes us aware of what we are experiencing and perceive our world, although it may not have meaning. Comprehensive knowledge is the abstract ideas and understanding we create based on our experience.
The problem, then, is if knowledge is outside of the individual and/or can exist in a "non-coded" manner (as in tacit or apprehensive knowledge) how can we measure the level of knowledge that an individual or group might have? How do we assess "learning" or the acquisition of new knowledge when the knowledge is tacit, know-how, or a level of "knowing" or deeper understanding of the knowledge an individual might possess?
Learning in Action
Cook and Brown, Kolb, and Dewey all addressed the issue of being able to put knowledge into action. This is what Cook and Brown call "knowing". A person does not "possess" all of the knowledge needed for action, although they might be able to access some of the knowledge they have in order to put what they know into action.
For example, my kids are currently preparing to take their state tests. My son does well on these tests as he "knows" how to take them. He can read a question and "know" what they are asking for. My daughter will have the knowledge of the subject, but often gets hung up on what "they" are asking for. She can read each multiple choice response and depending on her focus within the wording of the question, she can explain why each response is appropriate. While she possesses the knowledge to answer the questions, she doesn't know the answer. These standardized multiple choice assessments are not testing her knowledge but rather whether she knows how to take the test.
Likewise, my son can apply the mathmatical processes needed to get the correct answer in trigonometry, but he doesn't understand the mathmatical concepts behind the process. This means he has a difficult time when he needs to use problem solving skills and determine which tool to use in a Math problem. For the most part, he has learned to use certain tools when there are correlating words. But when those words are missing or when he needs to use determine which tools to use during a science lab, for example, he is lost. Multiple choice or even essay questions don't measure the level of understanding, tacit knowledge, and/or "knowing" something.
This is an especially important distinction to make in the work environment.
Assessing Learning
So how do we assess this aspect of learning that is difficult to measure? This is an area that Medicine and Aeronautics have been working on over the last decade. Simulations, portfolio of work, practicums, and a certain number of hours of "practice" all are means of assessing individuals and group levels of "knowing."
Likewise, the bar exam and the CPA certification exam use a more complex method of assessing both knowledge and knowing. Now it is important that "standardized" tests become more complex to capture the true state of learning. Training organizations need to spend time on developing different ways to measure learning to report to management. Management needs to realize that numbers are not going to capture the real level of learning, knowledge and knowing within the organization in the 21st Century. To acheive this, new management theories need to be developed that include the organization, individuals, groups, and distributed work groups.
References
Ashton, D. (2004). The impact of organisational structure and practices on learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 43-53.
Conceicao, P., Heitor, M., Gibson, D., & Shariq, S. (1998). The emergining importance of knowledge for development: Implications for technology policy and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 181-202.
Conceicao, P., Heitor, M., & Veloso, F. (2003). Infrastructures, incentives, and institutions: Fostering distributed knowledge bases for the learning society. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70, 583-617.
Cook, S. and Brown, J. (1999)Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4) 381-400.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a the source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Why I don't twitter
I have read and heard more and more about twitter these days. I don't twitter for the following reasons:
1. I can't write short sentences and not expand on them.
2. I can't imagine that anyone would be so interested in my every thought and movement. And if they were, that's a bit creepy (as my kids would say).
3. I think twitter is great for celebrities, the media, or school officials where there is a need to get information out to a large volume of people. Perhaps I'll think about twittering for my classes in the future to remind students of assignments, etc... However, I think that students should take the responsibility for their own learning and course work. I have other tools that address this need in my class (Ning) where there is more dialogue rather than one way communication.
4. Twitter seems too directive (do this or look at that). I'm more of a dialogue type of person.
5. Most of my students don't use twitter as they have their preferred tools for interaction.
6. I think it would boom me out to only have 5 or 6 followers on twitter!
Truthfully, I don't see the need to follow anyone nor do I see the need for anyone to follow me other than by blog or even IM. I have trouble keeping up the "what I am doing" on LinkedIn. Why start using another tool?
1. I can't write short sentences and not expand on them.
2. I can't imagine that anyone would be so interested in my every thought and movement. And if they were, that's a bit creepy (as my kids would say).
3. I think twitter is great for celebrities, the media, or school officials where there is a need to get information out to a large volume of people. Perhaps I'll think about twittering for my classes in the future to remind students of assignments, etc... However, I think that students should take the responsibility for their own learning and course work. I have other tools that address this need in my class (Ning) where there is more dialogue rather than one way communication.
4. Twitter seems too directive (do this or look at that). I'm more of a dialogue type of person.
5. Most of my students don't use twitter as they have their preferred tools for interaction.
6. I think it would boom me out to only have 5 or 6 followers on twitter!
Truthfully, I don't see the need to follow anyone nor do I see the need for anyone to follow me other than by blog or even IM. I have trouble keeping up the "what I am doing" on LinkedIn. Why start using another tool?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Elearning of the future: Mobile technology
I've been wanting to write this post for a while, but just did not have the time. As I commented on Michele Martin's blog
The media's new frenzy seems to be twitter. But many are overlooking the impact that mobile technology is having on our communication and access to information. One reason twitter is taking over is because the short messages are perfect for mobile phone access.
Ken Allen recently had a post about the impact of mobile technology on writing. Texting, in its various forms, is creeping into my student's papers. Will this mean that in the future writing conventions will include "i" and "u"? Perhaps. But the current state of truncated language in text messages do have a unique feature that will limit the extent of "texting language." Take a look at Ken's post. My initial observation is the "accented" language use. For example, my kids would never use "hiv." In fact, they would probably "translate" his title of "hiv u evr wundird wot it wiz lyk b4" as haf u evr 1Nderd wat it waz lIk B4." This leads to be believe texting will be more "regional" with some standard conventions internationally.
What does this mean for Elearning?
It would seem to me that the younger generation will use mobile technology as a means for not only communication but also learning and information sharing/gathering. However, it is likely this won't be in text form. Complex ideas will be difficult to convey in short textual spurts.
However, as my daughter pointed out, the new technology has powerful multi-media apps that will allow students to listen to lectures, watch video clips, and even post comments in a multi-media format (i.e. using a camera feature on the phone). It would appear that the current text based preference for communication among the younger generation will swing back to oral and visual communication for learning.
It is important that we begin to consider the ways we can integrate these new technologies into elearning, before it is too late. Michael Hanley has recognized this trend and posted a series of useful posts on using mobile technology for training. It is a good start. But we need to begin to recognize the importance of "place" of learning and how the portability of elearning technology will change access to education.
Each generation creates their own tools aside from their parents. 20 somethings have been using facebook and now others are catching up. Teens (of which I have two) are using mobile technology. My daughter was just lamenting that "Trackphone doesn't have any apps" (yes, she used apps which I am sure most 20 somethings don't use). "Can I get an itouch? They have cool apps." Did I mention that she is 13?
The media's new frenzy seems to be twitter. But many are overlooking the impact that mobile technology is having on our communication and access to information. One reason twitter is taking over is because the short messages are perfect for mobile phone access.
Ken Allen recently had a post about the impact of mobile technology on writing. Texting, in its various forms, is creeping into my student's papers. Will this mean that in the future writing conventions will include "i" and "u"? Perhaps. But the current state of truncated language in text messages do have a unique feature that will limit the extent of "texting language." Take a look at Ken's post. My initial observation is the "accented" language use. For example, my kids would never use "hiv." In fact, they would probably "translate" his title of "hiv u evr wundird wot it wiz lyk b4" as haf u evr 1Nderd wat it waz lIk B4." This leads to be believe texting will be more "regional" with some standard conventions internationally.
What does this mean for Elearning?
It would seem to me that the younger generation will use mobile technology as a means for not only communication but also learning and information sharing/gathering. However, it is likely this won't be in text form. Complex ideas will be difficult to convey in short textual spurts.
However, as my daughter pointed out, the new technology has powerful multi-media apps that will allow students to listen to lectures, watch video clips, and even post comments in a multi-media format (i.e. using a camera feature on the phone). It would appear that the current text based preference for communication among the younger generation will swing back to oral and visual communication for learning.
It is important that we begin to consider the ways we can integrate these new technologies into elearning, before it is too late. Michael Hanley has recognized this trend and posted a series of useful posts on using mobile technology for training. It is a good start. But we need to begin to recognize the importance of "place" of learning and how the portability of elearning technology will change access to education.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Sense making in language (first and second)
Ken Allen has pointed out in the past that I tend to leave rather long messages. I left the following on his blog and realized that it could stand alone as a post.
Many of us second language teachers feel that, yes, there is some difference in learning a first and second language. However, the traditional way of teaching second language was not effective because, like learning a first language, vocabulary needs context for it to be understood.
In other words, the meaning of a word with both first and second language learners is dependent on the context in which that word is learned. In first language learners and learners as a second language (those that are learning the language within the second language environment) the meaning of the word and the boundaries of that meaning are learned through experience. A child might call anything round "a ball". However, soon they discover that there are nuances in the language. "A ball" is not an orange or a circle.
Second language learners (learning in context) also have the first language to draw from. So they know that "Fruit" can describe an orange as can the name "orange" as long as they have been exposed to oranges in their own country. However, if that concept is not in their working vocabulary in their first language, then like a child just learning the language, they will learn the meaning of the words in context. I understand what a "resume" is in French from the context of use when I studied in Switzerland. I sometimes misuse it in English as we don't have an equivalent for how it is used in English. I understand the parameters of the word which would be difficult for me to articulate to someone who has not learned it in context. I learned this word much as an infant would learn this word.
The last group of language learners, learners of a language as a foreign language, only have their own understanding of a concept in their own language to work off of. Here, I would agree that they would need to have a working vocabulary based on their understanding of meaning of that word in their own context. In other words, they learn the words that they can translate directly, with the same meaning word for word.
However, learning language this way means a person is limited to only the ideas that have the same cultural meaning in both languages. This limits the language interaction between a native and non-native speaker to culturally shared values. This is why the traditional language teaching methods don't work in preparing language learners to COMMUNICATE in a foreign language.
When I taught English as a second language, we began with language learning strategies (how to learn a language) and non-verbal communication skills. We then taught commonly used phrases and had students generate their own list of vocabulary based on listening. Pronunciation was very important and these are the skills we worked on more than vocabulary building. In fact, my students were vary comfortable communicating with very few words and grammar, but good communication and pronunciation skills.
One group we were sending to the states for training was combined with groups from 6 other countries that had been trained using a more traditional method. While our group "tested" lower, they ended up translating for their fellow students and learning much more English while in the states (many returning quite fluent after 6 months training in the US). Did they have a wide variety of vocabulary and perfect grammar? No. Did they have the ability to make meaning from a situation even if they did not understand specific vocabulary? Yes.
Many of us second language teachers feel that, yes, there is some difference in learning a first and second language. However, the traditional way of teaching second language was not effective because, like learning a first language, vocabulary needs context for it to be understood.
In other words, the meaning of a word with both first and second language learners is dependent on the context in which that word is learned. In first language learners and learners as a second language (those that are learning the language within the second language environment) the meaning of the word and the boundaries of that meaning are learned through experience. A child might call anything round "a ball". However, soon they discover that there are nuances in the language. "A ball" is not an orange or a circle.
Second language learners (learning in context) also have the first language to draw from. So they know that "Fruit" can describe an orange as can the name "orange" as long as they have been exposed to oranges in their own country. However, if that concept is not in their working vocabulary in their first language, then like a child just learning the language, they will learn the meaning of the words in context. I understand what a "resume" is in French from the context of use when I studied in Switzerland. I sometimes misuse it in English as we don't have an equivalent for how it is used in English. I understand the parameters of the word which would be difficult for me to articulate to someone who has not learned it in context. I learned this word much as an infant would learn this word.
The last group of language learners, learners of a language as a foreign language, only have their own understanding of a concept in their own language to work off of. Here, I would agree that they would need to have a working vocabulary based on their understanding of meaning of that word in their own context. In other words, they learn the words that they can translate directly, with the same meaning word for word.
However, learning language this way means a person is limited to only the ideas that have the same cultural meaning in both languages. This limits the language interaction between a native and non-native speaker to culturally shared values. This is why the traditional language teaching methods don't work in preparing language learners to COMMUNICATE in a foreign language.
When I taught English as a second language, we began with language learning strategies (how to learn a language) and non-verbal communication skills. We then taught commonly used phrases and had students generate their own list of vocabulary based on listening. Pronunciation was very important and these are the skills we worked on more than vocabulary building. In fact, my students were vary comfortable communicating with very few words and grammar, but good communication and pronunciation skills.
One group we were sending to the states for training was combined with groups from 6 other countries that had been trained using a more traditional method. While our group "tested" lower, they ended up translating for their fellow students and learning much more English while in the states (many returning quite fluent after 6 months training in the US). Did they have a wide variety of vocabulary and perfect grammar? No. Did they have the ability to make meaning from a situation even if they did not understand specific vocabulary? Yes.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Teaching in the 21st Century: The discussion continues
I am swamped with getting my grades in for the end of the semester and working on my dissertation (while I have some time). However, I could not let Ken Allen's comment on my previous post go unanswered. As I composed a response, I realized it had turned into a post!
Technology for teaching vs. teaching technology
I agree with you that this is a "learning" issue, not just an elearning issue. I am sure you have had the same experience with the debate of how much science a science teacher needs to know to teach science.
I think teachers are underappreciated as the assumption is that if you know a content area, you can "teach". In New York State, secondary school teachers need to have two master's degrees, one in their content area and the other in education.
What gets dicey is what should the education degree include and in New York state the degree includes courses on writing (across the curriculum), but not necessarily technology. In other words, should high school teachers be teaching technology per se or should they be integrating the use of technology within their classes so students get the practice of using technology in multiple contexts (as happens currently with writing?) In addition, many of the new graduates are armed with new pedagogies which might integrate technology into the curriculum, but the system of assessment and the pedagogical structures within the school make it impossible for these teachers to implement these new strategies into their teaching.
An alternative school, which my daughter may be attending in the Fall, integrates these new pedagogies. The fact that they had 15 times more applications for each teaching position than most schools demonstrates how teachers would LIKE to use a more updated pedagogy in their teaching, but are not allowed to due to the curriculum and organizational culture within many schools.
Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century
So back to your original question as to how to prepare teachers for the 21st century, I would propose the following:
Technology for teaching vs. teaching technology
I agree with you that this is a "learning" issue, not just an elearning issue. I am sure you have had the same experience with the debate of how much science a science teacher needs to know to teach science.
I think teachers are underappreciated as the assumption is that if you know a content area, you can "teach". In New York State, secondary school teachers need to have two master's degrees, one in their content area and the other in education.
What gets dicey is what should the education degree include and in New York state the degree includes courses on writing (across the curriculum), but not necessarily technology. In other words, should high school teachers be teaching technology per se or should they be integrating the use of technology within their classes so students get the practice of using technology in multiple contexts (as happens currently with writing?) In addition, many of the new graduates are armed with new pedagogies which might integrate technology into the curriculum, but the system of assessment and the pedagogical structures within the school make it impossible for these teachers to implement these new strategies into their teaching.
An alternative school, which my daughter may be attending in the Fall, integrates these new pedagogies. The fact that they had 15 times more applications for each teaching position than most schools demonstrates how teachers would LIKE to use a more updated pedagogy in their teaching, but are not allowed to due to the curriculum and organizational culture within many schools.
Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century
So back to your original question as to how to prepare teachers for the 21st century, I would propose the following:
- Teachers should learn technology and how it can be used (conceptual and pedagogical) as part of their education degree. This should include the same format that writing across the curriculum course include such as technology for science, technology for communication, technology for the humanities, etc...
- Teachers should understand the implications of the use of technology on learning
- Teachers should learn how to work with technology specialists in designing activities that will help to reinforce the theoretical principles learned in "technology class" (i.e. allowing for practice in multiple contexts so students understand the affordances of technology within a certain context)
- There should be a push to implement "technology classes" as part of the curriculum, just as there are "writing classes." These classes focus on the conceptual and skill building needed for the 21st century. Then other classes reinforce these concepts and skills in throughout the curriculum.
- There should be an effort to have "technology curriculum specialists" the same way there are "writing curriculum specialists" that teachers can use as a resource. In addition, teachers should be required to integrate technology use into their class (as is currently being done with writing) with a certain % of activities using APPROPRIATE technology for that discipline. For example, the use of a graphing calculator or SPSS software for a math course would be appropriate. Concept mapping or blogging would not be appropriate as it does not teach computing which is needed in the field of Math. On the other hand, the use of excel would not be appropriate for a Language Arts course, but a Ning would as a means of improving communication skills is central to most English Language Arts curriculums.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A new way to conceptualize teaching for the 21st Century?
Ken Allen and I have had an interesting conversation going on his blog. He has a great post about what we need to do in the 21st century to teach technology skills, which was pretty much what we should have been doing in the last century. Namely, students need to understand the "concept" of technologies, they need training (what I would call mentoring as he uses the cognitive apprenticeship model as a basis for the post), and practice. He contends (and I agree) that most instruction today focuses on the training, leaving out the concepts and the practice.
My last comment was:
In fact, I think this is true of all teaching. We focus on the "training" so that students will pass the assessments, but gloss over the concepts so students don't understand why they are doing what they are doing, and don't give them enough practice in multiple contexts to allow them to gain a deep understanding and familiarity with what they have learned. In the last case, especially, students need to formulate the boundaries of new concepts.
My last comment was:
My point was that by just teaching the "skills" of a technology we aren't teaching the students to learn the "affordances" of a technology.
In my experience, students come to new things initially with creativity. Facebook and myspace became what they were because users could use it in any way that met their needs. This is happening with twitter. When we "teach" a technology, however, we tend to destroy thMis creativity because we say "use this technology this way." Often my kids will say to me, "You can't do that with X technology. We were taught you have to do it THIS way."
We need to have a new approach where students are taught the concepts of how any technology can be applied (i.e. for computing, for communication, for editing, for visualization, etc...) then allow them to practice those concepts using a wide variety of technologies. To do this, the instructor needs to change his or her mind set from "teaching the technology" or teaching "technology skills" to a deeper level of analysis.
In fact, I think this is true of all teaching. We focus on the "training" so that students will pass the assessments, but gloss over the concepts so students don't understand why they are doing what they are doing, and don't give them enough practice in multiple contexts to allow them to gain a deep understanding and familiarity with what they have learned. In the last case, especially, students need to formulate the boundaries of new concepts.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Marketing 101
Christine Martell had an interesting post about market segmenting. As both an educator and a marketing instructor, I felt a post putting marketing concepts into education terminology was warranted.
I find that many of the concepts in education and marketing are similiar. Many educators don't like to hear this and many marketers would like to think their field is more "professional". However, straddling the two worlds, I often borrow concepts from both in my teaching and analysis.
Lesson 1: Know your Audience
Target market is the audience that you want to capture for your business. As educators, we walk into a classroom or learning environment and want to know where are students are at. Image walking into a classroom and basing all of our lessons on the stereotypes in the class (e.g. girls, african americans, low socio economic students, non-native English speakers). While we can make some generalities based on culture and experience, we would really need to know the individuals and then put together a class plan based on the strengths and weaknesses of the students, grouping them together based on what they do and know, not on personal characteristics. Those who are visual learners need to have visual cues (as opposed to saying that all girls need visual cues).
This is what Kathie Nelson means by Phycho-graphics. We do this the first part of any course, trainig, or class that we teach. It makes sense to use this when trying to "sell" your service.
Lesson 2: Choose your strategy
In education, most instructors have the choice of standardizing their teaching (assessing with tests, stating standard goals and objectives and hoping to teach the greatest amount to the largest number of students). This is called mass marketing in marketing. As in education, there is an advantage to this as you are able to reach the greatest number of customers with the smallest investment. However, this is not a "deep" approach (the complaint with standardized curriculum is the lack of "deep learning").
In marketing this approach is called "skimming" as you familiarize your audience with the concepts, with the understanding that some will "get it" and others won't.
The other common strategy used in training is individualized curriculum. This is especially effective for complex concepts and a "deep learning" approach. The same is true for "niche" marketing. Products or services that require the customer have a deep understanding in order to make a purchase decision are best marketed using an "individualized" approach. However, this requires a lot of investment in time and effort (as would an individualized learning plan).
So for most marketers, the most effective strategy is a mixed approach. Catagorizing the market into segments that have similiar or overlapping needs so that you can make slight modifications for the specific needs of the segments is similiar to the instructor that incorporates flexibility into the curriculum or instructional design so that the differences can be addressed while still allowing for a basis of core content.
In Christine's case, she can have a portfolio of visuals, from which individuals can pick and choose depending on their needs. This recognizes the differences between clients, but allows her to have some standardized material.
Lesson 3: Don't confuse communication with product
Marketing has 4 parts to it (often call the 4 P's): Product, Price, Promotion, and Place. Education has similiar concepts only using different terms: curriculum, resources (time, instructor, expertise), communication (teaching style, student engagement, student/instructor/content interaction) and place (learning environment, means of delivery-electronic, self paced learning, instructor in a classroom).
New marketers often look at marketing as just the promotion (advertising, sales). But the other parts of the marketing mix are just as important. This would be like assuming a person that can communicate the content is sufficient without resources, the correct mode of delivery, or a poor curriculum.
It is important to have a product that is appropriate for the customer (you wouldn't have a curriculum that did not meet the learning needs of the student because it was too advanced or too basic for the student needs). Price helps to create value, especially in a non-tangible good. Which is better a "cheap" dentist or a dentist that fits in your price range? The image of "cheap" dentist is someone that might not do the work correctly or pain free. In education, learning that requires more time input and effort is perceived as more valuable (as opposed to the "busy work" type of learning a student may need to do to "get the credits"). How a product gets to the customer is usually a negotiation, especially for a service. Services are difficult to "distribute" as they may require the customer to come to a central place or service provides to go to the customer. There is also a question of quality control so that the service provided is the service the customer expected. This might not be possible if the service customer is far away fromt the service provider.
Lesson 4: Marketing is a negotiation process between the customer and the provider
"The customer is always right" is not always true with a service. Rather, the saying should be, "let the customer perceive that they are right." It is important that the customer be satisfied, however, not at the expense of the company. In some cases, a company needs to cut a customer loose if it means the company's reputation or values will be compromised. On the other hand, we are in a different world in which customers are much better informed and have access to more information in the past. Companies can't assume that they "know better" than the customer. It is important that marketing is a dialogue between the customer and provider so that the product meets the needs of the customer, closing the perceived gap between a customer need and the product provided.
I find that many of the concepts in education and marketing are similiar. Many educators don't like to hear this and many marketers would like to think their field is more "professional". However, straddling the two worlds, I often borrow concepts from both in my teaching and analysis.
Lesson 1: Know your Audience
Target market is the audience that you want to capture for your business. As educators, we walk into a classroom or learning environment and want to know where are students are at. Image walking into a classroom and basing all of our lessons on the stereotypes in the class (e.g. girls, african americans, low socio economic students, non-native English speakers). While we can make some generalities based on culture and experience, we would really need to know the individuals and then put together a class plan based on the strengths and weaknesses of the students, grouping them together based on what they do and know, not on personal characteristics. Those who are visual learners need to have visual cues (as opposed to saying that all girls need visual cues).
This is what Kathie Nelson means by Phycho-graphics. We do this the first part of any course, trainig, or class that we teach. It makes sense to use this when trying to "sell" your service.
Lesson 2: Choose your strategy
In education, most instructors have the choice of standardizing their teaching (assessing with tests, stating standard goals and objectives and hoping to teach the greatest amount to the largest number of students). This is called mass marketing in marketing. As in education, there is an advantage to this as you are able to reach the greatest number of customers with the smallest investment. However, this is not a "deep" approach (the complaint with standardized curriculum is the lack of "deep learning").
In marketing this approach is called "skimming" as you familiarize your audience with the concepts, with the understanding that some will "get it" and others won't.
The other common strategy used in training is individualized curriculum. This is especially effective for complex concepts and a "deep learning" approach. The same is true for "niche" marketing. Products or services that require the customer have a deep understanding in order to make a purchase decision are best marketed using an "individualized" approach. However, this requires a lot of investment in time and effort (as would an individualized learning plan).
So for most marketers, the most effective strategy is a mixed approach. Catagorizing the market into segments that have similiar or overlapping needs so that you can make slight modifications for the specific needs of the segments is similiar to the instructor that incorporates flexibility into the curriculum or instructional design so that the differences can be addressed while still allowing for a basis of core content.
In Christine's case, she can have a portfolio of visuals, from which individuals can pick and choose depending on their needs. This recognizes the differences between clients, but allows her to have some standardized material.
Lesson 3: Don't confuse communication with product
Marketing has 4 parts to it (often call the 4 P's): Product, Price, Promotion, and Place. Education has similiar concepts only using different terms: curriculum, resources (time, instructor, expertise), communication (teaching style, student engagement, student/instructor/content interaction) and place (learning environment, means of delivery-electronic, self paced learning, instructor in a classroom).
New marketers often look at marketing as just the promotion (advertising, sales). But the other parts of the marketing mix are just as important. This would be like assuming a person that can communicate the content is sufficient without resources, the correct mode of delivery, or a poor curriculum.
It is important to have a product that is appropriate for the customer (you wouldn't have a curriculum that did not meet the learning needs of the student because it was too advanced or too basic for the student needs). Price helps to create value, especially in a non-tangible good. Which is better a "cheap" dentist or a dentist that fits in your price range? The image of "cheap" dentist is someone that might not do the work correctly or pain free. In education, learning that requires more time input and effort is perceived as more valuable (as opposed to the "busy work" type of learning a student may need to do to "get the credits"). How a product gets to the customer is usually a negotiation, especially for a service. Services are difficult to "distribute" as they may require the customer to come to a central place or service provides to go to the customer. There is also a question of quality control so that the service provided is the service the customer expected. This might not be possible if the service customer is far away fromt the service provider.
Lesson 4: Marketing is a negotiation process between the customer and the provider
"The customer is always right" is not always true with a service. Rather, the saying should be, "let the customer perceive that they are right." It is important that the customer be satisfied, however, not at the expense of the company. In some cases, a company needs to cut a customer loose if it means the company's reputation or values will be compromised. On the other hand, we are in a different world in which customers are much better informed and have access to more information in the past. Companies can't assume that they "know better" than the customer. It is important that marketing is a dialogue between the customer and provider so that the product meets the needs of the customer, closing the perceived gap between a customer need and the product provided.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The ideal University
Since my kids are on break from school right now, we borrowed a number of DVD's from the library. One was a movie called "Accepted" which was about a bunch of kids that start their own university when they are all "rejected" from other colleges. This got me to thinking of a lot things surrounding university study in the US.
University is an experience
First of all, this movie supports the idea that in the US "college" or university is a rite of passage into the work world. During the movie, the parents come to check out the college and are pleased when the "Dean" tells them that college is just a preparation for the work world. However, the actual school is one in which there is damage to the dorms, constant partying, and students are allowed to create their own times and curriculums.
This is the paradox I live with on a regular basis. On the one hand, students want to experiment with living without "rules" but on the other hand college is perceived as the gateway to the disciplined, rule based world of work. In fact, college is the first place where students need to learn how to live with others who have each been brought up with different values, lifestyles, and beliefs. There is something called the "Sophmore principle" in which students between their freshman and sophmore year have values that are the furtherest from their parents than at any other time of their life.
What this movie brings out is students that have been conformist their entire life are given the opportunities to live a different life style at the university, whereas students that are "different" are excluded from this experience. Is this really fair? Is this done because those who have lived a conformist life style need the college years to experiment because they will never have this opportunity again?
College Curriculum
One of the most striking concepts this movie presents is the idea that curriculum should be based on what student interests are and that students can teach themselves. The curriculum for the new college is based on students writing up what they would like to study, then organizing themselves to learn. The idea comes when a friend at a neighboring traditional university complains because she is not interested in the courses she has to take for her major, but at the same time, she will not credit for courses she is interested in.
This addresses the issue that many faculty, as well as students, struggle with on a regular basis: having to take courses that central adminstrators require, but many students and faculty do not find necessary. Why should I have students in my class that don't want to be there? If they can demonstrate that they have knowledge of the core competencies needed for the degree, why must they take the course? When I studied in Europe, students took courses that prepared them for their exams. They chose which courses they would need to fill in the gaps in their knowledge that they would then need for the exam. I would like to see a system where students chose their courses based on their strengths and weaknesses, however, with consultation with faculty to help them decide which courses would be the most useful.
Some of the courses offered at the "new" university included skate boarding (in which students learned the laws of physics and engineering), stess reduction (based on the principles of religion, philosophy, and psychology), and understanding women (using concepts from socialogy, women's studies, and biology). The assumption of the movie was that students would be able to teach themselves without any help from faculty. I would contend that faculty who set up the course could still have students teach each other, but point students in the right direction on resources and issues to research/investigate.
University as a place of dialogue
What I found especially interesting was the idea that traditional universities stiffle dialogue and conversations whereas the new university encouraged these conversations. This is something that I do believe has happened in colleges in the US as over the last decade there has been a move to "standardize" education (read cookie cutter approach). This ties back to the first point in that there is pressure from corporate America to crank out cookie cutter workers that will be creative as long as it fits into the mold of the company. Studenst that are allowed to ask questions and discuss issues will turn into employees that question the way things are done, power structures, and even things such as equity in pay.
I would love to see more dialogue and conversation in my classes. However, I am always surprised at how much work it takes to get students to present opposing views. In this movie, students are excited about giving their opinions. Is it because of the atmosphere that has been created in the learning environment or is it because these are students that are basically smart, but have been rejected from the best schools because they don't conform? Should we change the admissions process, identifying smart but creative students that are outside of the mainstream? How would this change our colleges and the students that come out?
Defining a University
Finally, in the conclusion of the movie, the college is brought before the accredidation board. They define a college as having a curriculum, faculty, and facilities. It was interesting that facilities was a requirement as today, many universities don't have facilities (they included having sports facilities, interesting that that was considered important by the movie writers).
So how would you define a university? What makes something a "university"? What curriculum should today's university have? What is the role of the faculty, student and administration in today's university? What should it be?
University is an experience
First of all, this movie supports the idea that in the US "college" or university is a rite of passage into the work world. During the movie, the parents come to check out the college and are pleased when the "Dean" tells them that college is just a preparation for the work world. However, the actual school is one in which there is damage to the dorms, constant partying, and students are allowed to create their own times and curriculums.
This is the paradox I live with on a regular basis. On the one hand, students want to experiment with living without "rules" but on the other hand college is perceived as the gateway to the disciplined, rule based world of work. In fact, college is the first place where students need to learn how to live with others who have each been brought up with different values, lifestyles, and beliefs. There is something called the "Sophmore principle" in which students between their freshman and sophmore year have values that are the furtherest from their parents than at any other time of their life.
What this movie brings out is students that have been conformist their entire life are given the opportunities to live a different life style at the university, whereas students that are "different" are excluded from this experience. Is this really fair? Is this done because those who have lived a conformist life style need the college years to experiment because they will never have this opportunity again?
College Curriculum
One of the most striking concepts this movie presents is the idea that curriculum should be based on what student interests are and that students can teach themselves. The curriculum for the new college is based on students writing up what they would like to study, then organizing themselves to learn. The idea comes when a friend at a neighboring traditional university complains because she is not interested in the courses she has to take for her major, but at the same time, she will not credit for courses she is interested in.
This addresses the issue that many faculty, as well as students, struggle with on a regular basis: having to take courses that central adminstrators require, but many students and faculty do not find necessary. Why should I have students in my class that don't want to be there? If they can demonstrate that they have knowledge of the core competencies needed for the degree, why must they take the course? When I studied in Europe, students took courses that prepared them for their exams. They chose which courses they would need to fill in the gaps in their knowledge that they would then need for the exam. I would like to see a system where students chose their courses based on their strengths and weaknesses, however, with consultation with faculty to help them decide which courses would be the most useful.
Some of the courses offered at the "new" university included skate boarding (in which students learned the laws of physics and engineering), stess reduction (based on the principles of religion, philosophy, and psychology), and understanding women (using concepts from socialogy, women's studies, and biology). The assumption of the movie was that students would be able to teach themselves without any help from faculty. I would contend that faculty who set up the course could still have students teach each other, but point students in the right direction on resources and issues to research/investigate.
University as a place of dialogue
What I found especially interesting was the idea that traditional universities stiffle dialogue and conversations whereas the new university encouraged these conversations. This is something that I do believe has happened in colleges in the US as over the last decade there has been a move to "standardize" education (read cookie cutter approach). This ties back to the first point in that there is pressure from corporate America to crank out cookie cutter workers that will be creative as long as it fits into the mold of the company. Studenst that are allowed to ask questions and discuss issues will turn into employees that question the way things are done, power structures, and even things such as equity in pay.
I would love to see more dialogue and conversation in my classes. However, I am always surprised at how much work it takes to get students to present opposing views. In this movie, students are excited about giving their opinions. Is it because of the atmosphere that has been created in the learning environment or is it because these are students that are basically smart, but have been rejected from the best schools because they don't conform? Should we change the admissions process, identifying smart but creative students that are outside of the mainstream? How would this change our colleges and the students that come out?
Defining a University
Finally, in the conclusion of the movie, the college is brought before the accredidation board. They define a college as having a curriculum, faculty, and facilities. It was interesting that facilities was a requirement as today, many universities don't have facilities (they included having sports facilities, interesting that that was considered important by the movie writers).
So how would you define a university? What makes something a "university"? What curriculum should today's university have? What is the role of the faculty, student and administration in today's university? What should it be?
Friday, April 3, 2009
What I learned from transcribing
As I have written before, I have been busy transcribing taped interviews for my dissertation. Interestingly enough, through the process of transcription, I have made a number of observations about language, how we interpret messages, and even perhaps, how easy it is to miscommunicate by hearing what we think rather than what another's words actually are.
These observations include:
1) There are filler words that we tend to tune out in listening. There were many times when "like", "you know", or "I mean" were in a sentence and I had to slow the tape down in order to identify those words. I knew I was missing something, but without slowing down the tape, I had trouble "hearing" the words as it seemed my mind ignored them. It makes me wonder what other things I don't hear in conversation for the same reason.
2) I just finished transcribing a tape which I found was extremely difficult. The person who was talking placed words such as adverbs (really, very, actually) in odd places. As a result, I found myself lost at times, trying to understand the meaning of the sentence. I remembered how tiring this interview was and thought it was because there was very little interaction between myself and this person (which was an accurate perception after completing the transcription). Now, however, I feel it was the non-traditional use of word placement that was difficult to follow.
3) I found often that I would type those words that seemed to make sense to me rather than really hear the words. As a result, those who spoke the same way I do were the easiest to transcribe. In other words, I often anticipated and filled in words rather than truely listening to the speaker. I wonder how often we do this which then leads to miscommunication (but I thought you said...). The transcription has made me more aware of my listening skills (which others have told me are good, but obviously can be improved).
4) I have always had trouble listening and writing at the same time. I was always a person who took very brief notes if at all. I could usually remember what was said. However, I realized that I missed a lot of information from the interview because I focused on certain concepts. Even stopping to take general notes made me miss some important things being said. I believe that taping lectures might be more effective for some students and note-taking might be more of a hinderance than helpful.
5) People who work together closely do begin to use similiar terms. But in distributed groups, these terms might be understood differently. In exploring this in my interviews, I was surprised how those who worked in immediate proximately had almost the same definiation to the word, but those who worked within the group but a different office differed in the meaning of the words they were asked to define.
These observations include:
1) There are filler words that we tend to tune out in listening. There were many times when "like", "you know", or "I mean" were in a sentence and I had to slow the tape down in order to identify those words. I knew I was missing something, but without slowing down the tape, I had trouble "hearing" the words as it seemed my mind ignored them. It makes me wonder what other things I don't hear in conversation for the same reason.
2) I just finished transcribing a tape which I found was extremely difficult. The person who was talking placed words such as adverbs (really, very, actually) in odd places. As a result, I found myself lost at times, trying to understand the meaning of the sentence. I remembered how tiring this interview was and thought it was because there was very little interaction between myself and this person (which was an accurate perception after completing the transcription). Now, however, I feel it was the non-traditional use of word placement that was difficult to follow.
3) I found often that I would type those words that seemed to make sense to me rather than really hear the words. As a result, those who spoke the same way I do were the easiest to transcribe. In other words, I often anticipated and filled in words rather than truely listening to the speaker. I wonder how often we do this which then leads to miscommunication (but I thought you said...). The transcription has made me more aware of my listening skills (which others have told me are good, but obviously can be improved).
4) I have always had trouble listening and writing at the same time. I was always a person who took very brief notes if at all. I could usually remember what was said. However, I realized that I missed a lot of information from the interview because I focused on certain concepts. Even stopping to take general notes made me miss some important things being said. I believe that taping lectures might be more effective for some students and note-taking might be more of a hinderance than helpful.
5) People who work together closely do begin to use similiar terms. But in distributed groups, these terms might be understood differently. In exploring this in my interviews, I was surprised how those who worked in immediate proximately had almost the same definiation to the word, but those who worked within the group but a different office differed in the meaning of the words they were asked to define.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)