Creative Writings

everyone is her own publisher, editor, and marketing director in the digital age

31 August 2006

Teachers who learn AND teach??!

I just snuck over to see what W. Richardson's been mulling over...and found a great post that intrigued me, nonetheless, since the idea of "teacher" is changing constantly, perhaps everyday. This excerpt is from his latest post, 30 Aug, entitled: http://weblogg-ed.com/2006/teachers-as-learners-part-27/ (teachers as learners part 27):

In a world where knowledge is scarce (and I know I’m using that phrase an awful lot these days), I can see why we needed teachers to be, well, teachers. But here’s what I’m wondering: in a world where knowledge is abundant, is that still the case? In a world where, if we have access, we can find what we need to know, doesn’t a teacher’s role fundamentally change? Isn’t it more important that the adults we put into the rooms with our kids be learners first? Real, continual learners? Real models for the practice of learning? People who make learning transparent and really become a part of the community?
I hesitate to make blanket statements about teachers because a) they are seldom appropriate (the statements, that is) and b) they get me in trouble. But when I ask myself what percentage of the thousands of teachers I’ve worked with over the past two years are practicing learners, I have a hard time convincing myself that it’s more than half. Maybe even one-third.
I’m not saying this is necessarily their fault. We teach teachers to teach, we don’t teach teachers to learn. Even in professional development, we teach them stuff they need to be better teachers, but do we give them the skills they need to be better learners? Do we evaluate them on what they’ve been reading? On what they’ve been writing? On their reflectiveness?


I think this is one of the key issues that we are dealing with now: what IS a teacher?

Semantically speaking, s/he cannot only be someone who teaches because there is so much evolving in the world, technology, society, education, that what the teacher knows one day is "radically changed" the next.

So then, if teachers are suddenly (like this is a "new" concept...and it is for most) to become active teachers, aka active learners, then education is in for a rocky future. What about those teachers who have been at it for 20+ years, and it may be too late for those "old dogs"? What about their students...should we just say that they'll pick up the skills they should already have with the next teacher who is with the times? Or should there be specified refresher courses for all?

While technology is a huge factor in this question, since computers are the gateway to the future, I think that dramatically requestioning and reconfiguring what a teacher is would ultimately be the most important step in understanding the changes for education. I don't consider myself a teacher, probably because I lack the "teaching" experience as of yet, but also because I define myself as a perpetual student, always searching, reading, looking for answers...and I think this is what teachers need to do rather than just teaching.

Thanks, Will. You've put into words what I've already been thinking.

Teacher= learner

7 Comments:

Blogger James said...

Hey Dawn, welcome back to Blogland. Excellent post, and I agree completely that teachers need to always be learners.

While I don't blame teachers who have fallen behind (given how fast technology moves), I think they should at least be making an effort by now. I mean, it’s not like this technological revolution is just starting. Teachers who refuse to acknowledge that the job is changing are doing a disservice to their students. You have to keep up with changes to your profession. This is true for any professional job, and it is the reason that thousands of trade journals exist. So even if these “old dogs” aren’t surfing the net, rocking out on their iPods, or blogging the podcasting digital rights movement (I don’t know what that means either), they need to make the personal effort to stay up-to-date or they risk losing their students.

-James

1:24 PM  
Blogger Dawn Larson said...

James,

What if they have already lost their students? Or, what if these teachers are so distanced from what is "now" or "tomorrow" that they have become unaware of their limited knowledge?

What are YOU learning now?

2:52 PM  
Blogger James said...

Dawn,

Stop asking me hard questions! I think we have already seen what happens to "lost" students. Some seek out the things they are interested in outside the classroom, and the rest just stop caring. Either way, it's hard to get them back when things get to that point. I don't have an easy solution.

For teachers who are unaware of their limited knowledge... I'd say you would have to be willfully ignorant to not notice the technological changes going on right now. But if those people really exist, somebody should tell them. I nominate you.

-James

8:19 PM  
Blogger Mr. Johnston said...

Maybe we still need more debate about whether the job is changing . . . .

Maybe English class should stay a class in which the emphasis is on reading, writing, critical thinking.

Maybe kids should be required to also take 4 years of technology class.

I mean are math, history, biology teachers agonizing over technology in the classroom?

Why are we so obsessed with changing the definition of English class? Maybe it's not interdisciplinary, necessarily incorporating computers and ipods and itunes. Those are transitory tools. English class is about profound epiphanies and emotional revelation.

What did James and Dawn do to deserve this post.
Absolutely nada.

I'm off to go repeat myself.
xo
chris

2:03 PM  
Blogger Dawn Larson said...

Chris,

There is a REASON that you posted it here: you were inspired by our genius ideas! Thanks for that!

And on your idea, I definitely agree, but how are schools, whose budgets are already stressed in technology, going to afford to hire enough tech teachers for all high schoolers in America?

How is that economically sound when some schools have no computers at all?

And if this IS the solution, how would tech teachers communicate with the content areas in order to collaborate on projects when content teachers don't even communicate with each other?

I think your point is valid, but if it can be used to solve the tech gap in kids and in schools, what would it do to the English teachers who love tech and teach it regularly in meaningful ways to help their students with English?

And what about those parents/community members who are unable to switch gears and realize that computers are here to stay; those people who vote down every budget because the school desperately needs a computer lab?

What about those obstacles in your plan, Chris?

Just thought since James complained about tough questions, I'd give you a shot.

8:16 PM  
Blogger Mr. Johnston said...

2 many questions. make my head hurt. ouch. just like to talk, not think.

10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watch what you say about those "old dogs" James!! Some of us are cooler than teachers half our age. Now who would that be! Can't imagine.

And I have to disagree with Mr. Johnson (whoever he is!)...First, Eng. and technology aren't separate "classes" but rather tech tools inform the kind of production (reading/writing/critical thinking) our students should be doing in school.

And yes, other content area teachers are on board...and some of them (not all) are getting there faster than English teachers are.

I think the reason we're focused on the "epochal shifts" (Bruce in Alvermann--read it!) in ELA is because if what constitutes literacy itself is changing and it is--make no mistake--then we're on the front lines of that shift or we're nowhere.

Eng. class is still about reading/writing critical thinking!! The new apps are not transitory.

DO you think our ancestors (can't imagine who they would be?) who typed papers and correspondence, etc. thought that word processors were transitory?

Wow, were they surprised!!

KES

6:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home