Good morning!! Based upon the first six chapters of Marc Prensky's Teaching Digital Natives, please respond the the following prompt with a quick write in the comments section below.
Is Prensky's idea of partnering realistic? Could a teacher (particularly one faced with high-stakes testing, pressure to achieve AYP, etc.) realistically set up his/her curriculum and instruction to use this approach daily? Why or why not? What could you do as a school leader to foster the partnering approach?
I am basing my position on dialogue we had in class yesterday regarding new teachers entering a system that may be entrenched in more traditional teaching methods, at many levels. For instance, we discussed how an academic department (and department chair) may dictate to a brand new teacher that very specific methods will be used for class processes and structuring, and will not include any “radical” methods such as “partnering”, “inquiry based learning”, or shared technology methods of teaching and learning. I believe that such common “real-life” scenarios in education would limit the ability of teachers (new and seasoned veterans) that are moving forward progressively in regard to emerging and developing technology based teaching to implement those processes in their teaching practices.
ReplyDeleteEducational leaders (administrators, etc.) who are also staying current and continuously developing their knowledge and skill sets in concert with current research and emerging technologies I believe will be more effective facilitators and proponents in their systems. For instance, more technologically informed administrators may support professional development workshops to the educators across their systems, and concurrently encourage across schools and departments in their systems the collaborative development between teachers in regard to the integration of pedagogy that will include partnering, inquiry based learning, or shared technology methods of teaching and learning.
Even a teacher faced with high-stakes testing, and achievement pressures can realistically develop their curriculum to use this approach. It obviously requires creative thinking, research and dedication to become effective; it can be done but the teacher needs to want to. Although many teachers may be fearful of “losing control” of the classroom, or changing their methods; it will in turn, create an environment that fosters creativity, that develops students’ cognitive ability, and instills the value in life-long learning.
ReplyDeletePrensky advocates for teachers to act as coaches to facilitate learning that is applicable in the student’s lives. The focus needs to be on the students and their engagement in the classroom, their discussion, and their own explorations of learning; which can only be successfully completed if the students can relate it to their everyday lives and are interested not merely in the material but in the methods of acquiring the knowledge. Students need to “own” the learning, and by researching and investigating on their own and discussing with others in class, they can accomplish that; otherwise it’s simply a teacher telling the students what they don’t want to know.
As a school leader, I would approach the topic of partnering in many ways. First, with seminars for teachers outlining helpful strategies, then creative courses. Art, communication, and technology teachers could easily assist the “general studies” teachers with many of these concepts. Next, I would stress that although there are high-stakes the learning environment needs to change. Some teachers think that because there are intense pressures that alternative teaching methods cannot be used, the need for “kill and drill” is only necessary to get these students to pass the tests. I would allay those fears, by stating that these methods will more effectively teach the material because it actively involves the students. By engaging the students, they are more likely to retain the information and develop a passion for learning. Teachers need to want to grow and the only way for students to do the same, is to have a teacher who is acknowledges their strengths and weaknesses and can create an environment where the student wants to learn.
Prensky’s idea of partnering is realistic in the right conditions:
ReplyDeleteAn environment where teachers and students have autonomy.
Supportive administration
Collaborative teachers and students
When high stakes testing are involved, it is difficult to use this type of approach daily, occasionally yes but not daily because:
Curriculum comes with a time line- when things need to be completed, for the exams.
The Partnering approach requires plenty of time. Students should not be rushed to explore or solve problems. We need room for error and discovery.
Unfortunately students are used to the idea of preparing for an exam, and having information given to them. Take for instance mathematics, we model an example of how students should solve a problem, and they have to repeat steps to solve other problems. Some students become confused when faced with a new teaching model unlike their previous experiences- things may get messy at first.
A school leader can foster this partnering approach by cultivating an environment that:
- Empowers teachers to test different teaching approaches (autonomy)...encourage risks
- Empowers students to take risks in learning (autonomy)..encourage risks.
- Celebrate failures, they lead to progress
- Allows students to discover and utilize their strengths
- Cultivate a collaborative working environment (for children and teachers)