I have seen some teachers that have the "ideal" classroom. They seem to balance group work, self-discovery and teacher centered learning. I am in awe of them. I find that I tend to different styles in different classes. In my computer classes it works to the students benefit to introduce a lesson, then let the students learn through labs that they work on both together and alone. As I watch the students I realize that there will always be some that need that teacher-centered approach, while others just want to get out there and do it on their own, and then others need their colleagues to help them.

I still haven’t seen the PowerPoint but when Bette posed the Systems discussion thoughts I started thinking about my 16 year old son’s parent teacher meetings. My son tends to fall asleep in classes often, including his best subjects like History. Some teachers mentioned it and I have talked to my son but he says “it’s boring” and “that he can’t help it.” I know the teachers have to teach to the tests, especially the Regents, so students can graduate but during my graduate studies in Library school and here in Educational Technology school it is impressed on us to make it interesting. I learned how to use WebQuests to make the students learning become alive and real. I know they are a lot of work but if we are to teach to all types of learners I believe it is necessary. During the parent teacher meeting with my son’s history teacher I asked if he planned to use any WebQuests and his answer was “honestly, I have to teach to the test.” Luckily, I have a good friendship with him and he said he would do one after the holidays. Of course I told him I would help if he needed it. I am hoping that at least one of his classes would become more learner-centered.

I find many of these thoughts to have a common thread, or rather, a common frustration: there's just not enough time or equipment to do what is ideal, or what we feel would be an ideal classroom situation. Systems encourage us to be individuals and to embrace multiple intelligences
and diverse learning. Unfortunately, the way the "system" is set up it's rather difficult to do this. I agree with what Stephen said. He feels that our classrooms are our "systems", and what we do is how we make it all work. We ARE fortunate to close the door and have our own little worlds to "make a difference".

I agree with Eileen and Carissa that time is such a big factor in our ability to be able to construct the kind of learning environments we feel would best benefit our students. I have always likened change in education to fixing a car while you are still driving it...it gets frustrating because we read about and hear about all the great things that could be going on in our classrooms, but you feel so constrained by the practical realities of teaching...most of which have little or nothing to do with money. It's about having the time to develop new activities and approaches to learning...it's about trying to (or deciding not to) reconcile the current "rush to test" with a new way of doing things...it's about trading the security and sense of control of how you've always done things; trading this for something less certain. It's almost like you wish school could be put on hold for a year, so we could reconfigure what we do - like putting the car on blocks while we fix it.

After reading all of the comments, I agree with many things that have been said. I feel that students will absolutely obtain a deeper understanding from figuring things out on their own, and exploring different areas on certain topics withing certain subjects. However, I do think that it not 100% realistic to do this on a regular basis. I agree with Eileen that this is a very time consuming process and being a Math B teacher that ends the year with a Rigorous Regents Exam, I personally would not have the ability to exercise these different strategies. However, I do feel that if you are teaching a course at your own pace, with your own final,with no state mandated exams, you are much more likely and able to take this kind of approach.

Edited by author 11-27-2007 05:07 PM
Is there one correct way to view our educational system let alone put it into action? Considering our students are all different, the challenge is to create an individualized (or dare I say that dreaded word...differentiated) educational experience. Some students love essential questions or cooperative learning while others find more success when lessons are extremely structured or offer opportunity to work independently. This approach to teaching is incredibly time consuming and requires a lot of planning and collaboration with colleagues. TIme and collaboration are two things I feel we do not have enough of. I have had my past classes complete a questionaire to determine what type of learner they are and then depending on the results they received an assignment that correlated with their learning style. The kids loved it, however, it took serious effort and time to set up and then some more time to administer and this was just one topic in one subject...

Edited by author 11-27-2007 09:47 AM
I agree that schools should treat the educational system like a living system, rather than a machine. Children should not be programmed to respond on cue, and simply learn to restate questions and facts for tests. Children are individuals, and their voices need to be heard. We are so quick to take away their individuality. As a teacher of special education, we address their individuality, needs, strengths and weakness' and provide opportunities using multiple learning styles. The educational system needs 'teacher centered' as well as 'learning centered' tasks to provide learning support, as well as activities to learn skills on their own. We don't strive the right answers. It is the process, not the product.
Schools, families, and community need to work together to function as one. Learning needs to overlap as we are continuously learning.

Edited by author 11-27-2007 12:00 AM
Jillian's comment is very interesting. In the Innovation QT section of this assignment I almost wrote about the student who prefers working alone (also mentioned by Adam in the Innovation QT), the student who abhors group study and for whom such assignments are anxiety provoking. I was not sure that was so valid, so I left it out, but I see from Jillian's posting that it is a valid concern. Not everyone is outgoing and social, characteristics that are by no means required, but certainly help the student in an OLE working collaboratively with others. I know people who would not thrive in such a setting. That said, such students are probably the minority; many students get used to working in groups fairly quickly.

Back to the idea of living systems, I think that although the textbook offers an almost idealistic - perhaps unrealistic in our society of constant testing - notion of learning and teaching environments, it is nonetheless important that we view the system and the subjects we are teaching as living, evolving systems. Even if we cannot do as much as we would like, keeping this notion of living, evolving systems in our mind and doing what we can when we can to keep the system alive and growing, to keep ourselves as part of the system alive and growing, is very important.

I couldn't agree with you more John and Kate. As a math teacher myself, I taught a connected Math program where the emphasis was on students investigating math topics with their groups on a real life problem. Not only did this allow students to learn how to work collaboratively with one another, but it builr a sense of trust between classmates and knowledge that they can problem solve. This model is definitely student oriented and it worked. However,that was in RI and they do not have to worry about all of these tests. Now, the model here is less group work and more sticking to the calender to get through the material. This definitely is teacher oriented and it creates stress not only among students but with myself as well. With group work I knew who was having trouble with the work, now unless they speak up I won't find out until they have already taken a quiz. I try to incorporate as much group work as possible but there just doesn't seem to be enough time with all the stress of teaching to the tests/standards.

Two years ago I was a leave replacement library media specialist in a district where I did not have to give grades. In this school I was also in charge of the computer lab and the principal wanted me to teach the students computer skills. The students loved coming to the library. They had no tests and were not forced to memorize facts. I explained to them what website I wanted them to look at as well as the steps I wanted them to become familiar with, but after that they were on their own. One of my biggest problems was trying to stop the students from running into the computer lab, as well as getting them to leave at the end of class. These lessons were very time consuming to prepare, but the end result was positive. The lessons were learning centered and I hope were able to encourage the students to want to learn more.

I have read about all the frustrations with state testing and time constraints, and though not a teacher (I am the computer lab teaching assistant in our school), I daily witness these in all the teachers using our labs. Also, as a mother of two sons, both in high school now, I realize the stress and frustration our children experience.

In considering “reintegrating education within webs of social relationships that link friends, families, and communities,” my mind jumped to thought of parents, who, through the boards and communications with administration, affect our schools. If they were introduced to some of what we are learning and experiencing, for example how impossible it is to prepare students for tomorrow’s jobs given today’s constraints, perhaps some pressure could be put on state and federal leaders…it seems to me we have to get support from the top in order to truly move to a significant and effective learner-centered environment.

In the meantime, I watch teachers do what they can, perhaps one project a quarter. One teacher, whom I really admire because technology is not first nature to her, and she has over twenty years of experience teaching, has begun to bring her students to the computer labs to work collaboratively. She has said she doesn’t care, she’ll make up for the time somehow (these living systems do take more time to nurture), but she feels her kids are really learning.

State tests is always a hot button topic, so why should this be any different? As I stated in another QT discussion, I'm a second year teacher still learning the ropes. The mere fact that I teach to a "Math Calendar" tells me that something is not right. We are told not to "teach to the test", yet then we are forced to "teach to the test". I have on average 40 minutes each day to make math fun, understandable, and logical. I have to hope that "most" of the students get it, and the others? Well as Jon said, they have to attend extra learning. I think when it comes to science, most students are excited, motivated, and sincerely interested in learning. Why is this? Because there isn't a 5th grade science state test. They are able to conduct hands-on activities where they use critical thinking and discovery methods to solve problems. I'm able to make math fun maybe once or twice every few weeks if that, and as a teacher who had aspirations to make everyday "fun" I feel I'm failing. What do we do?

Standardized testing and state standards do play a big role here. Two years ago I switched from teaching 4th grade to 2nd grade. I quickly discovered that the demands from the state were a lot less in the 2nd grade classroom - the amount of material to be covered in the same amount of time was about cut in half! This has really allowed me to teach in a way that I'm more comforatble with. I have the time to let the kids explore concepts and work at length on different projects. I don't have that sense of, "I've got to get through this and move on," that I had in 4th grade. This does keep the kids more motivated and I think they walk away with a much better understanding. It's a shame we can't get the state to understand that their standards need to be revamped!

Every day, sixth graders come into my classroom asking if we're doing anything "fun". My response is, "all math is fun", but many kids do not agree. Most self-motivated students will learn no matter what, but as teachers we are responsible for "hooking in" 25 different personalities for 40 minutes at a time. I've noticed that each time we do some kind of group work or discovery learning, they are much more engaged and seem to retain much more.

Teaching math, there is the age old question, "when are we ever gonna need this." STudents are constantly complaining that they didn't get the right answer, or "why did you GIVE me a C?" In light of these things, I would like to see us make some changes to what and how we communicate with students. The system now mandates us to teach toward the state assessments, final exams, SAT's, etc. I know in math, I would love to take what we are required to teach per year, say in half or so. I would then take the topics that are left, and study and teach the entire depth and breadth of each. Less topics, more detail. How much less anxiety there could be if we took our time taught until all the students understood? Instead of hoping that most of the students understand, then telling the rest to seek extra help. The students should be the center of the learning process, it only makes sense. Let them help each other, critically think and create solutions, whether right or wrong. Empower the students to learn in a way they are comfortable, not in a way that is convenient to the teacher.

Edited by author 11-26-2007 01:06 PM
There is a proverb that hangs on the wall of my classroom that I believe whole-heartedly embodies learner centered learning. "Tell me, I'll forget; Show me, I'll remember; Involve me, I'll understand." I believe that in order for students to fully comprehend what they learned, they must be involved in the problem solving process.