Margaret Nerney
EDU 583- Cohort 1
Chapter 12- TPCK in in-service education: Assisting experienced teachers’ “planned improvisations”
Due: April 29, 2009
Improvisation: the most accurate description of the field of education! I see myself as a perpetual contestant on “Whose Line is it Anyway?” Teachers have to think on their feet and adjust their lessons constantly. It does not matter how wonderful the resources you found or how time consuming the planning, the lesson flows in the way of the students’ needs. I do not know how many student questions have sparked passion filled discussions and on the spot researching. From a click of a mouse and a brief discussion of an author, a 6th grade boy discovered his love for the inspiring words of Langston Hughes. With the viewing of the Presidential Inauguration a fifth grade class is made aware of and curious about a previously unfamiliar topic, the civil rights movement. Real teaching and learning takes place in those moments when we allow ourselves to stray from the rigidity of a lesson plan and truly explore the world around us. Teaching is certainly improvisation at its best.
Technology cannot stand alone, it must be integrated into that daily educational improvisation. Judith B. Harris highlighted the ways in which we fail to do so as well as highlighting some of the shared activities that lend themselves to the proper integration. Proper integration starts with letting go of integrating all of the time and embracing the tool only when necessary and appropriate. I hear so many teachers shifting their lessons to include technology as a presentation of research without ever taking a step back and looking at the damage that can cause over the long run. As part of the Research Methods course with Dr. Griswold, my partner Meg and I are researching the ways to bridge the gap in post-secondary writing needs and secondary writing expectations. Through our research we have determined that there is a deficit in writing skills that is not only impacting college freshman, but also those in the workforce and military services. Yet I listen time and again as people brag about making the traditional research paper more enjoyable by removing the tedious writing component. Where is a student to learn how to write effectively if not in school? Why is it better to have them create a Ning, documentary film, or wikispace? What are we giving up for the sake of engagement and entertainment? I too have fallen into that trap, and yet I am one of the first to complain about dwindling writing proficiency. I think one of the most important points that Harris raised was that of the “why” integrate. Replacement is not always the answer. What is the purpose of the project? What is the skill that the student will need to be successful? Chances are that their professor or employer would rather the student be able to research and support ideas and have well reasoned responses than to be able to wow them with a pretty slideshow transition and regurgitated views of others. In focusing on the creative tools, we often forget to help students focus on creative thinking.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
TPCK Chapter 11 Reflections
Margaret Nerney
TPCK Chapter 11: Guiding pre-service teachers in developing TPCK
Chapter 11 was certainly not written with the in-service teacher as audience. Margaret Niess clearly directed her essay to those in charge of teacher preparation programs at the University level. Yet, I was certainly able to glean a sense of how to assist future student teachers that might be placed in my classroom. It was clearly asserted that pre-service teachers need the experience of real classroom settings and real classroom problems to grow and evolve into effective teachers. I agreed with much of Niess’ recommendations, however, I disagreed with her assumptions that pre-service teachers would not be digital natives or that they would need substantial observations to understand the mental workings of tech. savvy, modern students.
As a twenty-seven year old teacher, I have not found myself out of touch with my students or fearful of their technological fascinations. I am very comfortable with, and aware of, their personal and educational technology devices and habits. I grew up with computers and the Internet, and even now feel excited to try out the latest gadgets or technological trends. This leads me to completely challenge the notion that those entering the field will be unaware of technology as a tool or lacking the ability to truly understand the needs of today’s students. If I have been teaching for five years and don’t feel disconnected, I doubt that someone with more classroom opportunities and experiences with technology will either.
My comfort level may be, in part, from my own interests, but I know a large part is also from my excellent methods courses here at UMF. During my teacher training, I was required to address the use of technology in the classroom and was encouraged to integrate technology in all of my methods courses. So TPCK is not foreign to me or even new. At first, it was difficult to teach differently than I learned, but that is easily overcome when you are exposed to the multitude of affordances by these new technologically inclusive methods. What I have found new and interesting are the ways in which to think about TPCK. I hadn’t thought of the inclusion of technology as declarative, procedural, schematic or strategic, but I see the benefit of assessing its use in this way. I have not spent enough time analyzing the ways in which I use technology or the ways in which I am meeting technology standards. This is certainly an area for growth, as I am teaching my students these skills for use in their real lives. I realize that my comfort level makes it hard for me to remember to stop and explain the technology as a skill at times. I assume deeper understanding of the programs, even word processing programs, than is truly there. Kids really do need those step-by-step lessons at some point in their schooling. In fact, it struck me that one should worry more about those who lack the experience of those new methods courses than those who have had the enriching opportunity of a technology inclusive training program. We are the ones that need to learn how to slow down and teach technology as its own content when necessary.
Seasoned teachers, like many of my colleagues, are the ones who need more in the way of focused technology groups, as indicated in the pre-service training. We are the ones who would benefit from content specific teams to explore new technologies and then reflect on the inclusion of those new technology laden methods in our classrooms. It is not enough to train the next generation. What about those of us in the field? How long will it really be before all of the teachers with limited technology skills are out of the profession? Should education wait that long for change? Should mandates be established that require the integration of technology? These are the real questions that apply to my educational sphere.
TPCK Chapter 11: Guiding pre-service teachers in developing TPCK
Chapter 11 was certainly not written with the in-service teacher as audience. Margaret Niess clearly directed her essay to those in charge of teacher preparation programs at the University level. Yet, I was certainly able to glean a sense of how to assist future student teachers that might be placed in my classroom. It was clearly asserted that pre-service teachers need the experience of real classroom settings and real classroom problems to grow and evolve into effective teachers. I agreed with much of Niess’ recommendations, however, I disagreed with her assumptions that pre-service teachers would not be digital natives or that they would need substantial observations to understand the mental workings of tech. savvy, modern students.
As a twenty-seven year old teacher, I have not found myself out of touch with my students or fearful of their technological fascinations. I am very comfortable with, and aware of, their personal and educational technology devices and habits. I grew up with computers and the Internet, and even now feel excited to try out the latest gadgets or technological trends. This leads me to completely challenge the notion that those entering the field will be unaware of technology as a tool or lacking the ability to truly understand the needs of today’s students. If I have been teaching for five years and don’t feel disconnected, I doubt that someone with more classroom opportunities and experiences with technology will either.
My comfort level may be, in part, from my own interests, but I know a large part is also from my excellent methods courses here at UMF. During my teacher training, I was required to address the use of technology in the classroom and was encouraged to integrate technology in all of my methods courses. So TPCK is not foreign to me or even new. At first, it was difficult to teach differently than I learned, but that is easily overcome when you are exposed to the multitude of affordances by these new technologically inclusive methods. What I have found new and interesting are the ways in which to think about TPCK. I hadn’t thought of the inclusion of technology as declarative, procedural, schematic or strategic, but I see the benefit of assessing its use in this way. I have not spent enough time analyzing the ways in which I use technology or the ways in which I am meeting technology standards. This is certainly an area for growth, as I am teaching my students these skills for use in their real lives. I realize that my comfort level makes it hard for me to remember to stop and explain the technology as a skill at times. I assume deeper understanding of the programs, even word processing programs, than is truly there. Kids really do need those step-by-step lessons at some point in their schooling. In fact, it struck me that one should worry more about those who lack the experience of those new methods courses than those who have had the enriching opportunity of a technology inclusive training program. We are the ones that need to learn how to slow down and teach technology as its own content when necessary.
Seasoned teachers, like many of my colleagues, are the ones who need more in the way of focused technology groups, as indicated in the pre-service training. We are the ones who would benefit from content specific teams to explore new technologies and then reflect on the inclusion of those new technology laden methods in our classrooms. It is not enough to train the next generation. What about those of us in the field? How long will it really be before all of the teachers with limited technology skills are out of the profession? Should education wait that long for change? Should mandates be established that require the integration of technology? These are the real questions that apply to my educational sphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
