No need to teach naked

You know how you collect stuff throughout the year and make mental notes, maybe even written notes, to remind yourself of things you want to do differently the next time you teach a particular course? Well, I've been collecting articles about technology in the classroom because I want to think as broadly and deeply as possible about ways to integrate technology in my classroom as transparently as possible. I have a few challenges: I'll be teaching a new course with a completely new prep at a university at which I've never taught before. Eh. No biggie.

So something that caught my eye in July was an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education by Jeffrey Young titled "When Computers Leave Classrooms, So Does Boredom" (p. 1). Young writes that José A. Bowen, dean of the Meadows School of the Arts, challenged his colleagues to "teach naked" or without technology. Shocking, you say? In the 21st century, a dean challenging teachers to teach without technology? But then a few sentences later we learn that Mr. Young was simply being provocative, as was Mr. Bowen, because the challenge really was to discourage teachers from relying on PowerPoint. To that I say, "Hear! Hear!"

We all know plenty of teachers who believe that using a PowerPoint (PPT) is integrating technology. Once upon a time, it was. But then PPT became commonplace and some teachers were using it in every class and then it was no longer innovative. Too often, too, it was badly done: there were too many lines on a page, the font was too small, and way too much information. Students had no idea how to take notes from a PPT deck and copied everything off the slide which meant that anything the teacher was saying was like Charlie Brown's mother--indecipherable noise. PowerPoint has led to terrible teaching and missed opportunities for learning.

Young also reports that the British Educational Research Journal published a study in which 59% of the students reported at least half of their lectures were boring. My thought? Only 59%? But I read on and learned that the classes students enjoyed most were those that involved group discussion and practical sessions. That is, classes with PPT or computer-assisted activities were deemed boring. Ergo, "tech-free classrooms were the most engaging" (A13). Call me crazy, but I think that's a huge leap. I've watched plenty of video with students truly engaged in computer-based activities, but what I've also noticed is that there was also plenty of interaction--kids with kids, teacher with kids.

Let's fast forward through a few more paragraphs in Mr. Young's article and there it is, near the top of the 2nd column on page A13. The paragraph that makes reading this dreck worthwhile: "In short, don't be boring." There you have it. You want your students to learn? Don't be boring. You want your students to dredge up even the minutest interest even enthusiasm in your content area? Don't be boring. Think of all of the teachers you thought were best and why. I'm guessing they weren't boring. Think about your audience--your students--and don't be boring. They have had to endure a lot of passive learning. If you want your students to be engaged in their learning, then implement ways for them to be engaged. And don't be boring.

In the end, even Mr. Bowen didn't really want his teachers to "teach naked." What he really wanted was for his teachers to think differently about using technology and get out of their PPT rut. Mr. Bowen took desks out of the classrooms and put in tables and chairs so teachers could reconfigure the classroom. That doesn't always work, by the way. I've taught at a school with tables and chairs that were so crammed in a funky shaped classroom that moving anything around was next to impossible. And it was the main classroom for the college's Department of Education. Go figure.

So, the point is that it is perfectly fine to use PPT if it makes sense and when it makes sense. But teachers should also use podcasts that are supplemental or required, that can amplify any reading assignments, that can prepare students differently for class. Rather than lecture in class--because, let's face it, podcasting is a form of lecture--teachers will have more time in class for discussion and more time for review. All the resources made available to students outside of class can also be used in class for lecture, discussion, and/or review.

Down side for teachers? Way more preparation. Up side for students? They might be more involved in class. Up side for teachers? You don't actually have to be naked. . . and your students might be more involved in class.

Do Teachers Need Education Degrees?

"Do Teachers Need Education Degrees?" is the title of a rather provocative opinion piece published in the August 16 edition of the New York Times. I was intrigued it was titled in such a manner because we could parse it so as to argue that the author acknowledges that a degree of some sort is necessary, just not necessarily an education degree.

So let's think about this for a minute in this context: I was allowed to start teaching at the collegiate level simply because I had several years of experience. I started out teaching computer science courses; I had 12 years of experience by then but did not a Master's degree in that content area. While I had done some corporate training and taught a few computer courses for BOCES, I was woefully unprepared to teach. I knew nothing about pacing and even less about assessment. Over the years, I figured it out. I talked to a lot of colleagues, I read a TON, and I was willing to change practice whenever something didn't work. But that's just me and maybe I have a talent for teaching. So what is the big deal about a degree in education?

After teaching computer science courses for a while, I started teaching in my content area, which is English. After a change of institutions, I was in a position to work closely with the Teacher Education department. Now I was one of those who had had an elementary education major when I was an undergrad. While I wrote research papers, she worked on creating little games or arts and crafts. Like many people, I thought anyone who was an education major was getting a fluff degree. But in working with my Teacher Education colleagues, I learned that wasn't necessarily the case. After working with a number of folks involved in teacher education, I learned that the quality of the program was incredibly dependent on the quality of the teacher education faculty and the quality of the framework and program they designed. I gained a much better appreciation for and understanding of certification requirements, but also why accreditation visits were so important.

Basically, though, a teacher education program can do no more than suggest the kind of educational experience the teacher candidate has received. Even if a teacher candidate completes the most comprehensive and rigorous practica experiences possible, there is no guarantee he or she will be a good classroom teacher. On the other hand, anyone in teacher education knows that the true professional is going to continue to learn how to improve his or her craft and not just because teachers tend to be passionate about learning. So even if the first year isn't great, the dedicated professional will find ways to improve; will seek out a mentor; will find those who have different skills, knowledge, or abilities and learn from those folks. And, from my observations, the truly dedicated professional continues to learn even after he or she has been tenured.

The article includes guest commentaries of administrators and college faculty, each of whom discuss what they think should be the hallmark of a classroom teacher or be exemplary characteristics. There are some who believe the university from which a teacher graduate matters. They are some who believe that educational capacity matters. What was striking is that there was little consensus and that seems to be a problem. If we're going to reform education and educational programs, there have to be some fundamentals on which everyone agrees. I fear we're a long way from that.

However, just for kicks, I think K-12 classroom teachers need education degrees. There is too much at stake for teacher candidates NOT to have some sort of preparation and to learn how students think and how they learn. Of course, I think university faculty need more than a graduate degree in their disciplines. I think all first-year university faculty must have a mentor who works with that first-year teacher to assess their fundamental teaching skills and develop a professional development plan (PDP). Even better, I think all first-year faculty need to have a reduced teaching load and be required to be involved in workshops or classes--online and/or face-to-face--to learn how to teach, how to assess, how to design instructional objectives, and all of the other things that K-12 teachers begin to learn in their educational programs to be able to complete that professional development plan successfully. And I think first-year faculty should not become second-year faculty until they have demonstrated a specific level of capability by completing at least 90% (that number is somewhat negotiable) of their professional development plan with an evidenced-based degree of satisfaction. That professional development plan doesn't have to be complex or rigorous, but it should help the first-year teacher be successful as a teacher, regardless of the institution from which the faculty graduated. Because just because someone has graduated from a top tier research institution doesn't mean the person can teach.

My PDP would not be easy to implement for a number of reasons. It's hard to find senior faculty who can or will be mentors let alone help those first-year faculty develop a solid professional development plan, then help them find ways to complete it successfully. It would take a lot of time on the part of the mentor. Unfortunately, most universities don't see that kind of time and effort as an investment in its faculty or its students.

But imagine what kind of a difference that could make for teacher education programs. Imagine if all of the faculty throughout the university--any faculty with whom a future teacher might come in contact--modeled good even outstanding teaching habits, modeled what it really means to continue to hone and refine the craft of teaching. Imagine how much easier it could be to refine or even reform those teacher education programs in such a way that classroom teachers graduated with that much more capability, competence, and confidence. Then not only would they be reasonably well-educated and well-prepared, they might even succeed extraordinarily well in those first few years, not lose their joy and their passion, and stay in the profession. Imagine that.