Theories of Critical Thinking - Katelyn Walker
Educational theories about technology use have compounded over the years. The research pool here captures this commonality, in that each article confronts the use of technology to forge new strategies for teaching and learning compatible with the demands of the digital age. “The Adoption Process” by Everett Rogers (1963) seems to be an outlier, however, but its value is certainly understood in the implications relevant for introducing change, as well as resistance or acceptance of something new. It’s incredibly interesting to me that the research was done on farmers in the Midwest in 1963. My initial thought was immediately of the practicality of the study. And in fact, Rogers suggests as much when describing the rate of adoption of a new innovation, stating that the “relative advantage” of a new idea is equivalent to its profitability (social or economic). Well, this makes complete sense, as does his concepts of “complexity,” “compatibility,” “change agents,” and “adopter categories” (1963). His article concludes with perhaps the most self-evident idea of all: change agents are most successful when working with clientele of similar socio-economic status. He goes even further to draw a parallel to the classroom: “This communication problem is similar to the ‘middle-class’ teacher in a classroom situation who cannot effectively reach the ‘lower-class’ student” (1963).
The reason I like this article best of all is perhaps what draws it closely to the argument in A Rich Seam, and that’s this larger idea of relevance. Fullan and Langworthy (2014) argue for “new pedagogies” that promote “deep learning.” The authors further summarize and clarify, “deep learning is more natural to the human condition because it more clearly connects with our core motivations: to directly and deeply engage in learning; and to do things that truly make a difference to our lives and to the world” (2014). This is essentially the same argument made by Rogers in 1963, and it remains true today as we apply it to learning to use digital tools.
Ultimately, deep learning only happens when students see the relevance to what they’re learning in their lives and are highly motivated to learn. All the technology in the world won’t necessarily make this happen. It’s the secret sauce of pedagogy, and I’m not even sure it’s something we can learn as educators. (I might be going out on a limb here.) I certainly think we can become better educators through professional development, but there’s another intangible factor that we have to possess, and I think it’s a hearty amount of common sense. If deep learning occurs through practical application and solving common problems, educators have to be able to replicate this process, and to do so in a way that is relatable for students, to motivate, to inspire, and to encourage in such a way that students buy in to the program. Educators have to fill the classroom with opportunities to apply their knowledge in practical ways where they feel a sense of profit from their efforts, which often requires something beyond a letter grade. Here, I'm applying Rogers' (1963) theories of learning to students, but I realize it also applies to teachers, as well, when it comes to learning how to use technology and being willing to trade old pedagogical practices for new.
When it comes to thinking about how students receive instruction, as well as my approach to teaching, my husband has taught me a lot. I've realized that many students don't really think the way that I do about learning, my husband being the prime example. We’re about as opposite as it comes as far as our educational backgrounds and our attitude towards learning. I’ve always enjoyed learning for its own sake, and that has manifested as a career in education. On the other hand, my husband hated school, struggled to learn, and has zero patience for things without practical value. Now, when I teach, I think about teaching him. Well, not literally, but I think about students like him! Whereas I might have started this career assuming that everyone in the classroom had the same attitude that I do, I no longer carry that assumption, and it's changed how I think about teaching. As an aside, my husband owns and runs a very successful small business, using skills and knowledge that he learned outside the classroom. He took advantage of every opportunity he could to get experience in a field that he loved. And I think a lot of students could learn more from him than they could from me, honestly. So, my goal is to teach students to become autonomous, more self-reliant, and more capable. I think technology can help me do that, insofar as I'm able to keep things real, relatable, and pertinent to the lives of my students so that they care.
There are so many dimensions to teaching, and I think technology allows us to tap into potential that we otherwise wouldn't be able to do. Matthew Kuhn explores the way technology enables differentiated instruction in "Connecting Depth and Balance in Class" (2008). He mentions Bloom's Taxonomy, but even more, I think his perspective on learning styles is even more powerful. Using technology to create differentiated instruction based on learning styles is something I can really get behind. But even here, with this use of technology, I think the commonality to Fullan and Langworthy (2014) remains: it must be rooted in solving real world problems.
In “Empowering learners with digital and media literacy,” Renee Hobbs (2011) glorifies the quest for “the new set of competencies required for success in contemporary society.” Hobbs includes the range of digital and media literacy skills necessary for college and career life, referring to the Common Core State Standards Initiative: “To be ready for college, workforce training, and life in a technological society, students need the ability to gather, comprehend, evaluate, synthesize, report on, and create a high volume and extensive range of print and nonprint texts in media forms old and new” (2011). And I appreciate that she acknowledges that simply buying technology isn’t the answer, noting that the use of these tools to produce creative and critical thinking, communication, and collaboration is key. I think Hobbs is right; we do have the responsibility of teaching students how to handle their lives and the influx of digital media in an ethical, safe, and effective way. But, I think we have to keep in mind that our ultimate goal is helping students be able to find answers to their own questions, and ultimately, to find their passion. Maybe that’s pie in the sky, but all the standards in the world, all the curriculum in the world based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, isn’t going to work if students can’t get behind the program, and don’t trust you to lead them.
References
I agree with you about deep learning and students needing to see the relevance in what they are are learning. However, to play devil's advocate here, not everything that we teach has relevance in today's world. I am talking about grammar and sentence structure, figurative language, slope intercept form, scientific, artistic, and psychological theories. Certainly, if we are trying to train students for life beyond school, whether that be school, a trade, or work, understanding the relevance of iambic pentameter or art history may not happen for many students. Furthermore, many of us teachers aren't provided the same type of instruction that we are expected to give students. Many teachers do not understand how differentiate a class by learning style, especially when many of their education classes focus on auditory and visual learning practices. Furthermore, professional education for teachers, although it encourages us to use different strategies fail to engage many kinesthetic learners. Aside from virtual learning, many teachers don't have the opportunity to receive "deep learning" in their college careers.
ReplyDeleteI love how you related your real life experience to our practice of your husband not being engaged in learning. I was not the best student in school, but I loved learned what I was interested in. Today I still love learning. I have found that I may relate to my students even more as I may have adult ADHD. As a teacher I struggle with differentiation in my teaching to help all students. I also struggle sometimes in seeing the relevance and the real world application of some of the concepts I teach in my own class. I love my subject area, but I am not sure that my love for grammar is going to help students find relevance in a hanging participle. I do use technology a fair amount in my class (almost daily), however, my struggle is that sometimes technology in education is not used appropriately to engage students in learning nor help them retain the information they are learning.