Blog # 6: Mastery Perspectives

Perspective

Building expertise or mastery has many definitions, all of which are dependent on the evaluation and evaluator. Chapters 5 and 8 in Kallick’s Information Technology for Schools demonstrate well the varying perspectives of what determines expertise. Short term and long term goals for students and teachers, administrative focus, classroom and lesson structure, and expected student performances all gauge what personal and administrative lenses show us to be a level of expertise.

Ultimately it is the understanding acquired by learners through each level of development and training that the goal is to gain new skills, knowledge and proficiency which in turn reveals we only have more to learn at the next level. Once this understanding is embraced one has finally reached the temporary level of expertise. In this new age of learning with technology Holvig and Crisci look in two directions to explain “The Changing Pursuit of Knowledge” Teachers must now become a coach, demanding synthesis, analysis and critical thinking to solve problems and investigate issues. The mind set of regurgitation must be eliminated; development of new ways to learn and understand must rise to the front.

Many tools are available to assist students in their quest for knowledge. Proficiency in assessment of these tools and resources must be modeled by the teachers, but at the same time the teachers must realize that the amorphous masses known as the internet and education are constantly expanding, connecting and refiguring. Use of the basic critical analysis tools must too remain ever fluid. Teachers and trainers must learn to understand there will never be the ultimate eureka experience; instead they should look to expect a series of epiphanies serving as an indicator of a level of proficiency. Being able to roll along and continue to ask appropriate questions, look for new learning opportunities and resources, search for new twists and interdisciplinary ways to facilitate learning are goals semi-technology literate teachers should be aspiring to reach.

Attempting to understand how to use the software, websites, and technology tools to support student investigations reveals that there is more to learn and someone always knows more and presents a sinuous path to mastery for all involved. Students, innovative industry, new pedagogical research, and in-school resource availability can present teachers with the discouraging feeling of floating in Dante’s new version of technological purgatory and can inhibit teachers’ creative attempts to aid their students. Just as understanding of how and why is within reach we are often thrown back 3 steps after having taken two.

These images and emotions can be overwhelming to teachers and students in even the best mindset. To those who thought the learning was through when their classes were over it can be so intimidating that they begin to avoid the technology and look at it as a hindrance, something extra that distracts from what they can “make kids learn.” It is this “the teacher teaches students” philosophy which must be creatively transformed to one of coaching or transparent guidance. Through support and ongoing spiraling evaluation our school systems can develop into communities that facilitate understanding.

Rising to the level of expertise in any discipline should allow for new development and understanding must be modeled from all quarters of the support corps. Districts, teachers, and the community must understand there is no stopping point, the support and training must be ongoing reaching expectations. By demonstrating that learning is expected to continue educators can avoid the equation of expertise equaling end of new roads to travel.

References
Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning For Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum, 1(2), 12.
Holvig, K. C., & Crisci, G. (2001). Using Technology to Promote Classroom Innovation. In B. Kallick & J. M. W. III (Eds.), Information Technology for Schools (1 ed., pp. 121). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kallick, B., & III, J. M. W. (Eds.). (2001). Information Technology for Schools: Creating Practical Knowledge to Improve Student Performance (1 ed. Vol. 2001). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blog # 5: A level playing field

Does use of “Mindtools” really level the educational playing field?

Educators are constantly searching for technologies (tools of the trade) that enable students to develop higher levels of understanding, application and creativity. Computers and their applications, it is hypothesized if used correctly, provide learning venues which promote the ability to visualize abstract concepts, develop sophisticated expressions of knowledge and create unique methods to categorize, analyze and interpret newly acquired information. Jonassen (1998) categorized a variety of software and Internet based applications as Mindtools (semantic organization, dynamic modeling, information interpretation, knowledge construction, conversation, and collaboration) implying use of these tools engage students in advanced critical thinking as they work to present their knowledge (Jonassen, 1996).

Elimination of the need to conduct traditional processing methods in mathematics or the dangers of experimentation are examples of benefits often sited by proponents of Mindtools. Expert systems and modeling tools enable students to simulate real world situations by designing or collecting datum to be incorporated in the package’s processing through editing programs. Through these virtual worlds and those programmed into video microworlds students can control and manipulate variables to create visualizations of abstract concepts or phenomena not accessible to most students. Additional Mindtool bonuses include the potential for increased communications, community reach, and potentially creative collaboration efforts. In theory use of these technologies should be providing opportunity for visualization and conceptual awareness that may have been lost in the “process” as students become overwhelmed with methods instead of concept application.

At the surface this appears all well and good, but since we are discussing critical thinking we must investigate the quality of learning through computer-supported efforts. Are we supporting the development of deep or surface learning by skipping the basic techniques when we move quickly past prerequisite skills right to creative and critical problem solving efforts? Are we indeed providing the necessary interaction with the information involved in the decision process (Newman, 1997)? By assuming the artificial intelligence found in microworlds, simulations and expert systems provide the “best” analysis methods and representations of information could we be digging holes in our critical thinking field? Are we disabling students’ ability to develop their own concepts webs in their personal language or forcing them to use the accepted form of expression?
Kayuga and Sweller’s (2004) discussion of expertise reversal effect serves to place greater divots and mounds on our playing field. Ironically use of technologies and multimedia and to reduce cognitive load on working memory creates positive, efficient learning in learners with less initial knowledge while knowledgeable learners find it more difficult to process the “canned” information if it does not conform with their schema for the content area.

Suddenly our level field is not as easy to negotiate as Jonassen and other proponents of Mindtools may lead us to believe. As with most educational trends any misuse or unawareness of pitfalls, can lead instructors and their students right off the edge of the cliff like lemmings. Critical thinking development should not merely be a goal of educators for their students but also for themselves as they are introduced to new technologies and movements.



References

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H-P. (1988). Computers as Mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24- 33.

Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 558-568. Retrieved from Research Library database. (Document ID: 737347421).

Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., Cochrane, C. (1997) Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (6), 484-495

Walker, S. (2005), Role of Education and Training in Agricultural Meteorology to Reduce Vulnerability to Climate Variability, Climatic Change, 70 (1 – 2), 311 - 318

Blog #4 - Growth from Within

Logic and practice often elude each other. This phenomenon is ever so clear for individuals learning the English language. Faced with holes and conundrums students of English jump between forms of conjugation and roots of diverse linguistic origin noticing lack of linguistic patterns. Frequently individuals new to English find these deficiencies frustrating and will carry past language terms into current practice to provide relevant terms for their experiences. We, as a culture, create and preserve words that emphasize interests and priorities and ignore subjects or ideas falling beyond our periphery.

Papert identified in his commentary A Word for Learning education’s this tendency toward egocentric language development. For eons those in charge of education were not the students but the “professionals”…those trained to teach. The locus of control was centered over the act of teaching not the students’ reception of knowledge.

Introduction of the computer and self directed learning into the “teaching” toolbox destroys the method-centric education schema and inserts many educators into a world of constructionist and constructivist approaches. Allowing students to direct knowledge quests on guided yet creative whims permits links between areas of knowledge thus delivering students to higher levels of cognitive process. Students are able to, on their own terms, confront personal misunderstandings much like Papert did in his flower example. The computer and other learner-centered technologies encourage nontraditional learning environments and promote increased levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy. (Clark, 2005) “Because non-formal learning environments are not constrained by the structure and policies of traditional schools, they allow participants to see the relevance of their learning efforts based on things that are important to them.”


Reference:
Ausburn, L. J. (2002). The freedom versus focus dilemma in a customized self-directed learning environment: A comparison of the perceptions of adult and younger students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26 (30, 225-235).

Clark, K. (2005). SERVING UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES WITH INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES: Giving Them What They Need, Not What You Want. Urban education, 40(4), 430-.

http://sfx.lib.lehigh.edu:9003/sfx_local?genre=article;sid=ProQ%3A;atitle=SERVING%20UNDERSERVED%20COMMUNITIES%20WITH%20INSTRUCTIONAL%20TECHNOLOGIES%3A%20Giving%20Them%20What%20They%20Need%2C%20Not%20What%20You%20Want;title=Urban%20Education;issn=00420859;date=2005-07-01;volume=40;issue=4;spage=430;pid=Kevin%20Clark