Okay, oops! I guess before I wrote my reflection on Chapter 11 I should have looked ahead to Chapter 12’s title. I wrote that I hoped that current educators and students weren’t forgotten and here we have this chapter.
In Chapter 12 the author points out the discrepancy between leaders’ vision and practioners’ actions. This is a reoccurring theme that can be found in many technology related journals. A recent article that I read in Edutopia stated that we have only been “dabbling” with technology in our schools. We really have only made a small change to do “old things in new ways.” Educators still show resistance to new technologies. Technology integration efforts are difficult to sustain, which I think is true in MSAD9. Additionally, many school systems put up resistance by blocking email access, Wikipedia, cell phones, unfiltered Internet access and more. These are issues that the author of this chapter agrees with and offers suggestions for changes in professional development.
Judith Harris reintroduces the “wicked problem” of TPCK. Not only is TPCK interdependent with the other variables previously introduced and explored throughout the book but is influenced by other factors such as culture, socioeconomic status, and organizational structure. All of these factors have to be weighed and considered as teachers plan their units of study and teaching strategies. Definitely a “wicked problem!” The additional problem of lack of time for planning and learning was also discussed. This is certainly our reality.
The author recognizes that experienced teachers need a different type of professional development than novices. She proposes that professional development be developed around activity types (structures) within and across curriculum-based disciplines. I was especially interested to see that one of her examples was Japanese Lesson Study. Before I changed position I had read about and gone to a workshop on this collaborative professional development model. The PLC work many of districts are now supporting is somewhat similar but I feel falls short of this model. Maybe it is a step in that direction. I think focusing on activity types in these collaborative groups could help teachers support one another in recognizing, discussing, and selecting TPCK activity types that would transform their instruction.
I really thought the break down of Social Studies into “knowledge-building” and “knowledge expression” activities was an interesting way to think about instructional design. Modifying this model to another curricular area and for multiple grade levels would be helpful but challenging.
The chapter ends with an equation that defines an experienced teachers’ willingness to integrate technology: utility= value/effort. The problem comes in identifying the utility. The quote on the top of page 268 sums up the problems that interfere with teachers identifying the utility of technology integration. If, as teachers, we have a tendency to hold onto the comfortable old practices we are familiar with and if we tend to change by resurfacing our practices with new approaches then deep change will surely be slow and difficult. We are, however, not alone in this. Administration often asks for us to implement changes that are not supported with focus, time, professional development or monies. Deep change needs continuous support. We can’t just plug new in for old and continue on our way. As the author states, The development of pedagogical approaches,...is an additive, recursive, and expansive process.”
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Chapter 11 Guiding Preservice Teachers in TPCK
What I liked most about this chapter were the quotes. My favorite quote was one by Thomas McINerney’s, who said, “Hope is not a strategy.” That quote reminded me of several experiences that I had as a Technology Integrator. I think that many teachers came to the lab “hoping for the best.” A combination of lack of training, confidence in their ability to problem solve technology issues and a lack of time to research and prepare lessons led to this strategy being commonplace. Many of the suggestions for preservice teachers could and should be extended to teachers in the classroom that are expected to “ integrate” technology without a background, not just in the hardware and software, but in the thinking and planning necessary to do so in a successful and meaningful way.
At several points in this chapter it was recommended that preservice teachers be involved in field practice. These experiences were recommended to help preservice teachers understand planning, preparation and classroom management with technology. I agree that this is important and that more needs to be done in this area as students from UMF come into our classrooms. Last year Johanna Prince and I were beginning to talk about a structure that could make this happen. Practicums and student teachers are not always in placements that support TPCK. They have great learning environments but they may be more PCK in nature. Johanna and I tried to promote opportunities for practicum students, to be “invited” to observe or participate in, learning opportunities in a variety of classrooms. We had hoped that this could begin to provide experiences for practicums where technology integration was not part of their placement. This arrangement was not really successful. Practicums have such limited time with their mentor teachers that it was hard for them to break away and with good reason. I think more formal arrangements for TPCK field experiences will need to be designed.
Another section that I related to was the section on classroom management. I currently have a 16 week student teacher. She just had her final observation before break. She used the Smartboard and an Internet site to present an interactive science lesson on “Balance.” This was a very successful lesson. Students were engaged and challenged. My student teacher moved from teacher demonstration to whole class interaction to individual exploration, discovery, and concept application. Her supervising teacher was very pleased with the classroom management as well as the excitement in the room. She remarked that her student teachers were often hesitant to do a lesson, for observation, integrating technology, because of the classroom management piece. When this lesson was in the planning stage my student teacher and I brainstormed many aspects of the lesson together. The time spent discussing and preplanning was worth it and could be translated to many different lessons.
I think that planning for and implementing TPCK in preservice teacher education is extremely important. The case has been made about the needs of our students in the twenty-first century and beyond. Dewey’s quote, that opens this chapter, refers to the need to change teaching to prepare students for a future we cannot envision. I hope that attention and funds can be directed to supporting the existing teaching staff in our public schools as well. Current students also need to be prepared for the twenty-first century. We owe it to these students and teachers to provide them with support and opportunities for success.
What I liked most about this chapter were the quotes. My favorite quote was one by Thomas McINerney’s, who said, “Hope is not a strategy.” That quote reminded me of several experiences that I had as a Technology Integrator. I think that many teachers came to the lab “hoping for the best.” A combination of lack of training, confidence in their ability to problem solve technology issues and a lack of time to research and prepare lessons led to this strategy being commonplace. Many of the suggestions for preservice teachers could and should be extended to teachers in the classroom that are expected to “ integrate” technology without a background, not just in the hardware and software, but in the thinking and planning necessary to do so in a successful and meaningful way.
At several points in this chapter it was recommended that preservice teachers be involved in field practice. These experiences were recommended to help preservice teachers understand planning, preparation and classroom management with technology. I agree that this is important and that more needs to be done in this area as students from UMF come into our classrooms. Last year Johanna Prince and I were beginning to talk about a structure that could make this happen. Practicums and student teachers are not always in placements that support TPCK. They have great learning environments but they may be more PCK in nature. Johanna and I tried to promote opportunities for practicum students, to be “invited” to observe or participate in, learning opportunities in a variety of classrooms. We had hoped that this could begin to provide experiences for practicums where technology integration was not part of their placement. This arrangement was not really successful. Practicums have such limited time with their mentor teachers that it was hard for them to break away and with good reason. I think more formal arrangements for TPCK field experiences will need to be designed.
Another section that I related to was the section on classroom management. I currently have a 16 week student teacher. She just had her final observation before break. She used the Smartboard and an Internet site to present an interactive science lesson on “Balance.” This was a very successful lesson. Students were engaged and challenged. My student teacher moved from teacher demonstration to whole class interaction to individual exploration, discovery, and concept application. Her supervising teacher was very pleased with the classroom management as well as the excitement in the room. She remarked that her student teachers were often hesitant to do a lesson, for observation, integrating technology, because of the classroom management piece. When this lesson was in the planning stage my student teacher and I brainstormed many aspects of the lesson together. The time spent discussing and preplanning was worth it and could be translated to many different lessons.
I think that planning for and implementing TPCK in preservice teacher education is extremely important. The case has been made about the needs of our students in the twenty-first century and beyond. Dewey’s quote, that opens this chapter, refers to the need to change teaching to prepare students for a future we cannot envision. I hope that attention and funds can be directed to supporting the existing teaching staff in our public schools as well. Current students also need to be prepared for the twenty-first century. We owe it to these students and teachers to provide them with support and opportunities for success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)