Edited by author 12-08-2007 08:08 PM
I would like to reflect on Lydia’s statement that we are the evidence that the industrial model did work in some way. I believe that it taught me the basics that I needed to know in order to get where I am now. But my vision became clearer when I discovered what I enjoyed doing and how I could make that dream a reality that I could live everyday. I used my own very basic model of the Personal Mastery project mentioned in Schools That Learn.

I believe that by having a living system we could inspire many students to find their dreams by sparking their interests. Then we can help them to plan their path to achieve that dream.

Edited by author 12-08-2007 11:59 AM
The comments posted by Bill G and Dennis H are particularly interesting to me since they are both in fields where performance is part of the instruction and coaching is more explicit in those areas. I guess I think that choice and the levels of choice for students are accommodated more easily in PE and Art than in fields such as literacy or mathematics.
Farryl’s comment about looking at the past made me think that studying the past from the teacher education perspective might actually be helpful, so we can see the repetition of what didn’t work and ask -why are we still engaging in these teaching practices? I am wondering if those who said they were products of the industrial model are evidence that it did work in some way. What happened along the way to make your vision clearer?

In terms of vision and choice, yes, it is an individual responsibility to make choices and establish your learning paths. But, I also believe that teachers and students (and people) are far more effective and successful at doing this when they are in an environment that offers support for their individual personal and professional growth.

First in response to Jane's comment about the getting cut from the travel team and taking away a child's dreams. At the high school we have a no cut policy. I have 25 girls on the varsity tennis team of which I have to set 11 in permanent positions. So I have these girls every day at practice-there are not enough courts for the permanent players to improve and practice their skills and in the end the team suffers. When do we put a "reality" check into a child's life. They cannot always get what they want-and I think if we cater to that notion then we are going to create a very selfish population.

Did anyone have the experience that I had when I first started teaching?? I read all about how great "group work" was and that children need to learn "at their own pace"-create a "safe environment"....and then I started teaching. My first teaching job was with kids that I was told "If they want to leave the class..let them". Not the easiest bunch. I was soooo excited to use the methods I had read about and dreamt would change the way they saw Math. Unfortunately, it didn't quite work out that way-what I learned is that every classroom is different. As a teacher you need to know when one type of learning will work and when it is okay to just say-nope, not with this class.

I try to do the best that I can everyday. I know that some days my lessons might be boring, but I hope that I can catch the students with some idea the next.

Sorry for the late response I honestly forgot! After reading the section on Personal Mastery in Schools That Learn and reading everyone’s responses on the quick topic I greatly agree about what was said. I especially feel strongly about the whole notion of involving children into an environment in which they want to be there and want to learn. I feel that there is a way to create this atmosphere with lessons that are very involved and hands on fun ideas, rather then the original one way of teaching. We also have to take into consideration that every child does not learn the same way as others, therefore with different lessons and activities you many just be able to reach out to each student and they can have an understanding of the lesson.

I thought the section on personal mastery in Schools That Learn sounded quite interesting. Basically if you can wish for it, really want it and work for it, you will achieve your goal. The problem with this concept at the elementary school level is that so many children tend to wish to become professional sports players. Next, the students find out that they are cut from their local travel team. After this disappointment, the students tend to stop dreaming.

I think that if you introduce any assignment and the final product is using technology, the students will try harder to master whatever technology is selected.

Edited by author 11-28-2007 07:51 PM
Wow! What an array of responses throughout this QuickTopic! I found people have very staunch opinions about teaching and how they feel it should be done. (I don't necessarily agree with all that was said.) I also found time, or the lack thereof, to be a major frustration. With all one wants to do, with all one wants to add to his/her classroom instruction, where does one find time to explore and create? And then there are those state tests! Having taught for many years, I have found that my personal mastery lies in being eclectic. I will use the textbook and workbooks. I will also use manipulatives and games and role-playing. I will also get a feel for the class and what makes them comfortable... and sometimes I will delve into what makes them uncomfortable (like public speaking, for instance). One of the many things that makes me grateful to be a teacher is the ability to make changes each year. And many of the changes that come are because of the kids.

I agree with Bill that Personal Mastery requires the creation of a sense of ownership in your own learning. Developing a sense of ownership has to involve giving kids choices - these choices allow them to select and feel control over the direction of their own learning. Even as we seek to move away from the "school as machine", the introduction of more standardized testing is taking us in the opposite direction. How can we balance the demands of standardized tests, which by their very nature run counter to creating a sense of ownership in kids, with the goal of developing learners who are see themselves, not as bystanders to, but as equal partners in, their own learning.

I had a similar experience in Middle School to Danielle's. We had teams that were based on the slowest students, the average students and the smartest students. All of the students knew which team was which. It was actually quite obvious.
I think that this was terrible and that children learn from each other when you have a diverse group. The smarter kids will also benefit from teaching the other students. The weaker students will also try much harder to strive to be the other student's level.

In reading some others’ posts, and my own awareness, I sense that personal vision and current reality are so very much at odds, that it seems a balance cannot be struck. I appreciate that “the practice of personal mastery keeps engaging you to set your standards higher. You keep expanding and deepening your vision and you challenge yourself further (pg. 65, STL).” I think that, for me, the only way to proceed is with the support of a group, the creation of a shared vision. I agree with Bill that we need the backing of a community of parents, teachers, administrators and students.

What strikes me as key in regards to Personal Mastery is the concept of the neceesity of 'ownership' in learning. It's natural that kids will 'own' that which they find relevant to their lives. When presenting lessons in my art class I find I'm most successful when I begin with questions that ask for opinions, personal experiences,or desires. I've found this shows the students I value and care about their feelings. From that simple common base a learning journey can take place. Without that ownership students can learn only if the idea of 'teacher pleasing' is imporatnt to them or if they have a natural interest in a subject.
   Documenting this or any success can be a subtle undertaking. What strikes me of paramount importance is to make parents, and the media, understand that deep learning takes place in ways that are not recordable only in standardized tests. Our constructivist learning objectives should include parents as well as community to foster the notion that we now need to fashion a global sense toward education. The internet, with the tools we and the children are now learning, are building a new learning environment which will 'link' solutions and re-invent the way children will interact with their world.

Edited by author 11-27-2007 10:05 AM
'Personal mastery: keeping dreams whole while cultivating an awareness of the current reality around them.' I found this section of the five disciplines to be quite powerful, yet depressing. It provoked a lot of thought/reflecting. How do you achieve your goals? Is it really possible? Are choices really an option? I think that depends on the situation. There are obstacles that we are faced with that we are not always able to bypass, which makes our dreams difficult to reach.

Edited by author 11-27-2007 12:38 AM
I loved Stephen and Dennis's postings and reflections. Interestingly Dennis experienced a surprising accuracy in the students' self labeling and Stephen had the opposite experience. Stephen's question is a very important one: How do you assist in the process of personal mastery when students cannot identify the things they want to master? (Question taken directly from Stephen's posting). Their inability is probably a result of rarely having a choice. This is so unfortunate. Here the system really needs to change, but part of the problem is the sheer number of students that are in the system. The assembly line concept is a result of the attempt to teach "en masse".

Perhaps the question needs to be made in a more general, even philosophical way. What kinds of things do you want to master? Or what kinds of things do you NOT want to master? What do you like? What don't you like?

For me, personal mastery means taking responsibility for your own learning (or other) experience, your own goals, your own future. Even though students feel they are given few choices, they need to understand the importance of taking charge of their lives, thinking about the future as well as the present, where they are, where they want to be, and how they might get there. This is a very difficult task for a single teacher to take on (in some ways, I see a parental role in developing and nurturing PM). However, I do believe even a little, limited choice goes a long way. If students can make some choices (like the technology they would like to use for a project, make a movie, do something "cool"), I suspect they would more willingly partake in the assignment, enjoy it more, and thus get more out of it. These are the kinds of small steps many teachers are taking and, from what I have read, they seem to work.

The assembly line has worked for all of us in some ways because here we are now. Interesting to note that even though the assembly line allows us to slip through the cracks a little bit, after reading the conversations, there is a lot of emphasis on that one teacher/lesson that made a difference because of the way it was presented. If we remember that teacher or that lesson, why shouldn't we try to teach outside the box as much as possible. It's hard enough for our students to remember what they did in class yesterday, but if we can put a stamp in their minds by doing something differently, they will have no problem remembering. For me, one of the reasons that I am here now is to learn how to teach outside the box. By that I mean learning how to use technology into the classroom. This is a different way of teaching. My teachers only wrote on the chalkboard and rarely used overheads. For me, I find myself emphasizing more on the use of technology as my way of teaching outside the box. Results may vary.

The high school I went to was certainly an assembly line, but I never thought their was anything wrong with it since I did well. Scary thing is, I got great grades in English but I graduated without really knowing how to write a paper. It wasn't until I got to college that the writing clicked. The difference was made by an "out of the box" thinking English professor who assigned creative, hands on activities. By the end of the semester, we were writing papers and poems and maybe they weren't spectacular, but I certainly learned a lot. I had a lot more confidence in my writing. Students should not leave high school without these vital skills, especially since not all students go on to college. Our classrooms are filled with many students who have a variety of interests, prior knowledge, learning styles and abilities. It is certainly a challenge to give each one of them the individual attention they need to succeed, but they certainly deserve it! That's what makes teachers so special!

Edited by author 11-26-2007 05:35 PM
I didn't totally agree with the author's description of schools as an assembly line because there is a degree of personal growth and accomplishment that I experienced in high school that was not like that of any other student. There were also significant relationships formed between teachers and students, as well as student-to-student that, in themselves, were unique. Moreover, my experience in high school, prepared me to follow a humanities path, whereas some of my peers followed completely different educational and career paths.
The other problem that I have with the term assembly line schools is that it suggests that students are products and, as such, they are all identical and/or they share the same function or purpose. I believe that students are all unique. They all learn differently and bring their own sense of what it means to be a student in the classroom.

Wow, school as an assembly line. Interesting thought. I guess I too was part of the assembly-line. I did however, have teachers who took that leap of faith and were creative and even captivating at times. I can still remember back to my 7th grade Italian teacher. The energy he brought to class everyday, the love of the subject, and his desire to keep us involved and hooked was incredible. He immediately made everyone feel comfortable speaking aloud, and created an anxiety-free environment. As a direct response to this, the performance of each student was great. I learned more in that one year than any of the 4 following. We were interested and captivated by the language and the history. He made us feel that we had mastered the language in only a year. And for some of us, that was true. He never set standards for the class as a whole, he allowed each student to create there own standards and goals. I am sure he had certain expectaions for each class, but that never got in the way of each students personal goals.