The worst advocates for educators using social media for do it yourself professional development are those educators who have been successful developing their own do it yourself professional development. This probably applies to other successful educator undertakings as well. Many of those educators who achieve success with innovative ideas tend to expound on the achievements and benefits of their strategy, method, or project, which tends to overwhelm those educators exposed to it for the first time. This alone, seems to scare off some educators to even being open to considering change.
I remember attending an education conference back in the early 90’s and seeing the most impressive presentation on education that I had ever seen before. It incorporated every bell and whistle that Apple hardware and presentation software had to offer. There was a standing ovation from the entire audience at the end. Of course during the question and answer period I had to ask: How long did this take to prepare this presentation? The answer made me feel stupid at my own lack of understanding for what I just witnessed. The answer was simple, 48 years. The presentation was based on this person’s life experience through the lens of an educator.
Too often we buy the sizzle, but miss the steak. We don’t pay enough attention to what it takes to get to that success that impresses us so much. A Personal Learning Network consisting of thousands of collegial sources did not develop in a few months. A successful project, using project based learning methodology, was not the result of mapping out a lesson plan the night before. A school does not go to 1:1 laptops by merely handing out the hardware on a special school tech day.
If any change is to successfully take place in any aspect of education, it will take an understanding of the foundation for that change. Preparing the educators who will implement and support that innovation is key in any plan for change. Providing collaborative time to support those educators is essential. Allowing time to deal with and correct failures in the development of that change cannot be overlooked.
Of course all of this is obvious and makes perfect sense as we read through this post, but I constantly meet with educators who have horror stories about the lack of support, training, collaboration, or even a basic understanding of the needs for educators in order to implement any innovation in their class, school, or district.
It is unrealistic to expect a wizard will come along and enable us to make all of the needed changes for education today and to be relevant, authentic, and meaningful to kids just by waving a wand and mumbling some cryptic words. We need to pull back that curtain behind the wizard and expose what hard work really needs to be done to achieve that needed change.
Educators are inclined to help and teach kids. Every educator must be more than a content expert. They need to be masters of pedagogy, methodology, and now technology as well. The ongoing problem is that all of these components of education are continually evolving as a result of a rapidly changing, technology-driven society. We need to keep our educators up to date with those changes taking place so rapidly. Change is never easy for anyone. Comfort zones are the biggest deterrents to change. The wave of a wand will always be preferred to the hard work required to change, but there are no magic wands. If we are to better educate our kids we need to first better educate their educators. Evolution in education does not only fall on teachers, it requires a large commitment from all constituents in an education community.
Magic wands have sometimes appeared in school districts as “solutions.” A company provides as much of a top-to-bottom product as it can. Perhaps the textbook series begins in the early elementary grades and marches (trudges?) forward to the end of high school. There has often been a sense that consistency is the cure.
On the other hand, giving a young teacher the official textbook and then visiting periodically to watch and judge performance does not necessarily mean good results for learners.
Every teacher who has been observant, understands that her subject isn’t a fixed curriculum. Each child walking through the classroom door modifies the way each class session develops. In the most effective cases, the interaction among the moving parts of materials, teachers and learners produce a mix which supports most of the learners’ needs. Few are “left behind”.
If technology is introduced as a solution, the wise teacher will realize it IS NOT a solution any more than a cohesive textbook/workbook/filmstrip/test pack has ever been. Technology is like any other support material. It needs to be fit into the daily routine.
“Daily routine” can also an impediment to any change. Teachers usually begin to feel they have a functional classroom when the daily routine does not seem disruptive. Disruption does not always come from unruly children. Disruption might walk in on shiny administrator shoes supporting a frowning authority’s face. Disruption might roll into the room on a technology cart, pushed in by someone other than the teacher. It is no surprise when such events are met by a teacher’s pursed lips and silence.
Yet, self starters may not succeed either. Technology which is not sanctioned by the school/district may result in bad evaluations for a teacher rather than praise for initiative. Innovative effort may yield unreproducible results, too. The drive to “data driven” education is, in my opinion, the currently most stifling impediment to innovation.
The best thing about a PLN is the support it provides a potential innovator. There is strength in numbers. A PLN gives support the local district may not or cannot give.
After all that, though, the innovative effort is always a work in progress. It is always a reinventing of the wheel. No “solution”, even one from a PLN will slip seamlessly into every teacher’s hard-won “daily routine.” Each teacher must want to become different hard enough to do the work which results in a new “daily routine” or a series of pilots: “Let’s try this to see how it can work for *us* in *our* class.” Note the emphasis in the last sentence on including the learners.
Keep your posts coming, Tom. They make us think.
After attending a Twitter 101 or “How to Build Your PLN” session at a conference, I can’t imagine many educators actually stick with it. While connected educators do a great job sharing the benefits of networked learning, they usually neglect to mention how difficult it is to establish that network. It’s hard work. It takes time and commitment. You have to contribute back to the network to reap the benefits. I wrote this post awhile back to share my journey and try to help others understand that it doesn’t happen overnight. But once it does, the rewards are plentiful. http://lynhilt.com/effort-in-reward-out/
Lyn
As always, thanks for sharing your experiences.
[…] Read the full article at: tomwhitby.wordpress.com […]
With regards to technology in the classroom, I think many teachers feel like every time they are given a piece of technology, they are supposed to like it and employ it; otherwise, they will be fired. It is intimidating because, as you said, Tom, many presentations belie the real time and effort that goes into them, and many teachers are unnecessarily overwhelmed.
There is a clear disparity between teachers who are comfortable with technology and those who are not. I think in the last decade or so, new teachers have been coming in with a new comfort level and new ideas about technology that makes veteran teachers who are not tech savvy feel a bit intimidated. It seems like a lot to catch up on.
I think introducing technology should be like teaching poetry. It should be presented, as poet John McDermott says, like a buffet. There should be a broad exposure to many different choices; the students, and in this case, teachers, should be allowed to find what they connect with to develop further interest. I tell my students I like very few of the poems I read, but the ones I love, I love deeply because they have value to me. The same goes with the technology I use in my classes. I discard more programs, apps, and gimmicky sites than I can count. But the few that have value to me in the classroom, I use until they are obsolete.
I really appreciate this post – I have been doing quite a bit of reflection on the seemingly normal practice of early childhood educators to choose a philosophy by aesthetics and worry about the theory later. Jumping into the deep end finds us flailing and just hanging out in the shallow end because we just don’t think we can do it. There are so many phases of a teaching career – or any career for that matter – and it is much more interesting in the long term to evolve along with the job and the landscape.
Thank you.