Prompt: Share your musings about one of these questions (or more) from the context of your classroom, your teaching practice and your student's learning experience. Consider the following in your writing: How does CBL connect to Culturally Responsive Teaching? In light of Dan Pink's research, how might "flipping" and CBL increase student motivation? What additional benefits did the CBL research show? Will your review of this content influence your research or project design? If not, then do either "flipping" or CBL have a future in your teaching practice? Why or why not?
Response: In light of Dan Pink's research, how might "flipping" and CBL increase student motivation? I have a very personal connection to this question. Daniel Pink's Book A whole New Mind was what got me interested in a more creative centered classroom. This eventually led me to my Driving Question. Originally I had the intention of focusing my Masters on a flipped classroom model. After preliminary research, I found that a flipped classroom is great in theory and has the ability to be successful in certain settings, but I do not believe that it is a methodology that can used on a large scale and across age groups and varying communities. That being said, I am not negating the possibility that an altered form of a flipped classroom could not be the solution the that issue. After I moved passed the idea of a flipped classroom, I focused my attention on project based learning(PBL). Though PBL and CBL are distinctly different, there are many aspects of these methodologies that mirror one another. Pink's claims surrounding the need for creativity and exploration is what really drove me to settle in on PBL. Not only do both PBL and CBL have that key ingredient of creativity, they also connect student learning to the "real world" and allow for students to take control of their learning through choice. These methodologies put the emphasis on the learning process, rather than product at the end. A student being "right" or "wrong" during the learning process is less important that them learning from their mistakes and being able to change directions. Not only does this create a less stressful environment, it allows students to think creatively because the fear of being "wrong" becomes less of a factor.
0 Comments
Prompt: This week feel free to blog about whatever is on your mind as a result of exploring this week’s materials. If you are stuck on what to write about, here are a couple of starters you might use:
Response: Response: I have read Culturally Responsive Teaching by Hammond, but I have never heard her speak prior to this week. Right off the bat, I enjoy how relatable she seems and open to answering any question that people might have within what can be a sensitive subject. In her webinar that was linked in this week's ICARE, Hammond brought up a lot of points that I know she has mentioned in her written work, but further elaborated in this webinar. One of the points that I remember making a note of when I was reading Culturally Responsive Teaching had to do with collectivism. I read her book in the very first semester of my credentialing program, and as someone who had never studied education or had any teaching experience at the time, it was really eye opening. I heard "Culturally Responsive Teaching" and initially thought of visual representation in the classroom. Hammond mentions more than once that many think the same thing. Though there are many layers to this topic, I think that what continues to stand out to me is how individualistic classroom environments are set up to be. This is something was first introduced by Hammond but is something that I see reiterated in other literature when discussing what holds students back from learning. I tend to talk about this a lot, but Hammond brought up a point about this idea of collectivism that I hadn't seen her mention before. She addressed the critique of collectivism in the classroom. She mentions that many point out that if collectivism is the basis of classrooms, then students will never learn to work independently. She challenges this notion, and claims that collectivism actually promotes independence in work and thought. This is because students' independence is supported by their classmates. They are able to fully develop their original ideas through conversation. Even further, when working collectively, students have groupmates dependent on their contributions which drives independent inquiry and agency. All of these things are more reflective of the outside world than the framework that is widely used currently. I then went down a rabbit hole of thoughts and came to the loose claim that maybe collectivism in classrooms creates independent learners, while individualism creates uniform producers. That is not an absolute, of course, and maybe it is even too hard of a statement. But even so- I think there is some truth to it. Before I end the blog, I do want to address the question that asks “what helps students regain confidence?”. I think the answer to this ties with my previous thoughts. I think allowing for inquiry and exploration through collaborative efforts is what builds students confidence. I think that when students work alone and are punished for being “wrong” on all their work, it can be devastating to their confidence and ability to advance their knowledge. So I think that maybe redefining what it means to be “wrong” will allow students the space to be okay with learning rather than just “being right”. Prompt:
Response: WOW. There is a lot to digest from this weeks material. I feel like the videos that were watched all vaguely had things to do with how our minds work, but overall, they all sent me down different rabbit holes of thought. Three videos, in particular, stood out to me: Howard Gardner, Ken Robinson, and Dan Pink. Which I think is fitting, because I think I found the most correlation between them. Gardner speaks broadly about the mind. Robinson places those ideas in the context of society and ultimately our school systems, and Pink dives into the individual human(student). One of the quotes that stood out to me the most during Howard Gardner's talks was “to think outside the box, there must be a box”. This was within the context of his claims towards creativity(or lack thereof), but he was referencing something that he had previously explained, and that is the importance of synthesizing information. Knowing facts is not understanding a process or transferable knowledge. This makes me think of education systems. Learning facts and figures that can be replicated on tests, but aren’t paired with the learning of the process. This lack of transferable knowledge means that there isnt even a box to think outside of. What Gardner is claiming, ultimately, is that we are suppressing creativity by not creating learners. He goes on to talk about how the “process” of learning is looked down upon because everything is given a grade. You are not allowed to fall on your face and get back up again. You succeed or you don't. I think this really ties to Daniel Pink’s clams, but Ill get to that in a bit. Next, I watched Ken Robinson’s video “Changing Education Paradigms”. His whole video agrees with both Gardner and Pink, but he makes a comparison that really piqued my interest. He speaks about how our current education system is out of date in a very specific way. Students are clumped together in batches based on age and given set standards that they should all meet regardless of circumstance. He called this a sort of factory type system. I am so glad that he pointed that out, because I feel that there are so many educators that can recognize this as well. He also speaks about the changing of times and that we are in the most stimulating time in all of human history. So not only are the older ways of teaching functionally ineffective, but students can’t pay attention. He attributes the increase in diagnoses of ADHD to this as well, though he makes a point to clarify that he is not denying the existence of ADHD as a disorder. The point he is trying to make though is something that I can see in my school and in classrooms. Students aren’t being challenged creatively and are not being actively engaged. This, of course, has been the case since the start of compulsory education, but now we have a student body that can’t and won’t excel in such a uniform and under-stimulating environment. Finally Dan Pink speaks about creativity. I love this guy and his book “A Whole New Mind” so I knew I was going to enjoy his video. He spoke about a study that was done, within which, half the participants were given a prize incentive and the other half were just told that the results were only for the sake of analysis. The participants who had been told about the prize actually did significantly worse on the task given. THIS is where I tie my thoughts back to Gardner. Learning, and learning how to learn, is suppressed when you are not allowed to fall on your face and try again. The severe consequences that have been put into place for students who are “wrong” do not allow for exploration, synthesis, and ultimately creativity. All aspects that are driving forces in the 21st century workplace. Prompt: Reflect upon this week’s content and how it relates to your daily practice: Include the key elements you believe must be included in your classroom/school to prepare your students and colleagues for the future.
Response: This week's content had me audibly responding with things such as "Exactly" or "Yes!!". I think that this week really transitioned my thoughts on innovative teaching styles from theory to reality. A lot of what I know about things such as Project Based Learning, and the effectiveness of Tech Tools, lies within the pages of textbooks or within my own experience. To see other teachers and schools believing in, and successfully implementing, these teaching styles was both clarifying and invigorating. I think that the case studies were rather interesting, as well. As I have been researching my topic and searching around for resources, it has become apparent from this week's ICARE material, that I have fallen victim to a bit of tunnel vision in my research strategies. Going through the resources on the ICARE this week, there were many topics and strategies that I found enlightening/useful that had not directly correlated with my focus topics of PBL or World History. I always tell my students to search for different perspectives and to broaden their horizon(I am even in the middle of teaching them how to do basic research)... Yet, here I am, falling short of my own advice. I think that this week taught me many great lessons, most of all to practice what I preach. Beyond the concrete examples of innovative teaching strategies, I was taken aback by the amount of resources that concurred with the thoughts in videos such as What Adults Can Learn From Kids . My Masters is really diving into the importance of communication and creativity, which is something that stems from my claim that the classroom should exemplify what students will be experiencing in their professional lives. Why, then, are teachers complimented when their classrooms are perpetually silent in apparent obedience? That environment does not seem conducive to learning and is not teaching them the skills that will lead to success in this 21st century work place. I think this week was really validating when it comes to the aspects of the classroom that I believe are important. And though I stand by my claims that seeing implementations of these practices was clarifying, it also stirs up a bit of anxiety and intimidation. This jolt into reality is a reminder that I will have to do some of this implementation as well. Its an exciting step, but one that I do not feel fully prepared for. Prompt: Please take some time to write again about your passion (aka the wicked problem you’d like to solve) and what impact our changed format for teaching & learning has on the ways and means you can use to investigate it.
Response: Standardized tests were always something that bothered me. Traditional testing in general was something bothered me too. As teachers, we are given all of the tools to differentiate, and preached to about access and "reaching students where they are", yet when it comes to how we test our students knowledge it seems like we are transported back in time. We are still testing our students in the same way that we have been testing them for decades. If the way we teach has evolved, why hasn't our way of assessing learning evolved as well? This did not become the topic for my Masters, but it led me in that direction. I have always thought that skills that were not emphasized or tested for were important- skills such as analysis, communication, creativity, teamwork. It wasn't until I started to read literature about these topics that I could fully articulate why. I think the benefit of these skills is two fold: for one I think these skills are extremely useful in being an educated adult and building a successful life, but I also think there are more immediate effects as well. I think that the skills that I have previously mentioned are also key in creating a classroom in which students are motivated, interested, and feel a sense of accomplishment. I also think this would have an affect on test scores as well. Now that we are in the second Semester of the Masters Program I have now narrowed my focus. This issue that I see(teaching to test, lack of student efficacy, teacher centered environments) can be addressed in so many ways. After research and thought I have decided to use the concept of Project Based Learning to address this issue and the needs in the classroom that I think are not being widely addressed. |
AuthorGrace Ingersoll |