Learning Anytime, Anywhere: Advanced Distributed Learning and the Changing Face of Education

Learning Anytime, Anywhere: Advanced Distributed Learning and the Changing Face of Education
by J. D. Fletcher, Sigmund Tobias and Robert A. Wisher

Another article that offers excellent opportunities for personal and professional reflections was reviewed this week. The implications of the research identified in the article are encased in the current movement to transition our classroom instructional strategies to a 21^st century context. The constructivist approach to instruction surfaces again with this article. Educational research is diving into what the government and industry repositories that have been used to educate and train their workforce. Again research is asking educators to critically analyze the research, its implications for instruction and most importantly, its implications for the student we are preparing for future. Critically thinking teachers who believe in their personal effectiveness are better able to create critical thinking students who can be 21^st century problem solvers.

Envision a child receiving an education that promotes learning anytime and anywhere and be diverse, tailored, to meet their individual needs. The harmony between home, school, and the rapidly changing work place would provide each and every student with the tools to tackle the challenges that are now in place due to physical or economic reasons, become successful and productive members of an ever changing society. The authors as researchers have confronted the specifications of technology integration, the issues facing education and educational research, the need for technology to be shared. They also wrestled with the affordability and cost effectiveness of their viewpoints. Fletcher, Tobias and Wisher addressed the value between distance learning and distributed learning. They visualized the disadvantages and advantages of online learning. One of the disadvantages of on-line learning addressed was the quality of the instructional process. Whereas Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, and Wisher argue that Web-based instruction is more effective than classroom instruction. There are many kinks for the ADL theorists need to address and concentrate on: one being the physical presence of the instructor monitoring the learning that is taking place. Baggaley, Spencer and McCabe validate my concerns. Viewing my students in the classroom, especially the academically challenged, I experience poor work ethics, rampant plagiarism, and deceitful behavior. Granted they are not using the suggested hand-held devices or have had the advantage of the Wisc-Online program, but they are given all the opportunities and resources in our school to be successful, yet they choose the easy way out.

As usual theorists love to dream and in a perfect world ADL would be the panacea, universal remedy, for all. The traditional classroom, distance and distributive should and could complement one another. Teachable moments in the classroom could be continued to the distributive and distance learning. Engaging, or sparking an interest in classroom environment would let the student continue to learn anywhere and anytime once leaving the traditional setting. Whether the topic be granular or massive edification, teachers evolving role from directed instruction to the constructivist’s role of the facilitator in project based instruction is ever changing. A curriculum based on ADL is a vision of utopia in the educational schema, but let’s be realistic. Academia dreamers keep dreaming, I invite you to work in the real world of education and see how your bubbles will burst.

Politics of Curriculum

Politics of Curriculum: Origins, Controversies, and Significance of Critical Perspectives
Authors: William F. Pinar and C.A. Bowers

This article offers excellent opportunities for personal and professional reflections. The implications of the research identified in the article are encased in the current movement to transition our classroom instructional strategies to a 21^st century context.

The constructivist approach to instruction answers the “critical perspective” of asking educators, as consumers of educational research, to critically analyze the research, its implications for instruction and most importantly, its implications for the student we are preparing for the 21^st century. Critically thinking teachers who believe in their personal efficacy are better able to create critical thinking students who can be 21^st century problem solvers. We need to create students who possess the skills to anticipate problems, analyze multiple solutions and apply their understandings in circumstances such as those generated in the ecological crisis.

The parallel hierarchy of schools and society support the need to create classroom environments which provide the learning student with more opportunities to control their own destiny. The statement “Alienated labor is reflected in the student’s lack of control over his or her education…” is evidenced each day in most classrooms. However, we need to question why the status quo is protected and why many of our educators take harbor in mediocrity. The identified textbook issue is one manifestation of this issue.

The author challenges the current educational system which functions to “…privilege certain sets and orders of knowledge over others.” As a profession, we extend the “Matthew Effect” sustaining instructional programs which reserve the more complex, thought provoking and challenging content for the most capable students and, as a result, expand the achievement gap for the students not evidencing the same level of academic success. Is the achievement level of our students a product of their learning or a product of our teaching?

The author discriminates between the official curriculum and the hidden curriculum. He even addresses the issue that those who challenge the status quo, through oppositional behavior, are referenced in psychological terms such as “disruptive” or “deviate.” How can we be a profession that promotes reflection, change, and best practice if the only students (and teachers) we define as successful are those who function successfully within the current system? By design, we protect the status quo, discouraging critical thinking by our students and our teachers. We have created a professional environment which respects mediocrity and challenges ingenuity. What would be the result if diary mapping, a strategy providing teachers with a systematic opportunity for identifying the divide between the written curriculum and the hidden curriculum, became the basis for professional reflection for change efforts?

There is a political piece of the curriculum puzzle, but classroom teachers can control their own acceptance of its influence. Changes at the classroom level, which embrace 21st century skills and are based in reflective practice hold the most promise for making necessary changes in our profession. We can prepare for the future, one student at a time.

Assistive Technology and Universal Design for Learning: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Assistive Technology and Universal Design for Learning: Two Sides of the Same Coin
by David Rose, Ted S. Hasselbring, Skip Stahl and Joy Zabala

Assistive Technology (AT), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), differentiating instruction, accommodations, Individual Educational Plans (IEP) and Response to Intervention (RTI) are all ways educators make the curriculum fit the needs of students. Tailoring the curriculum to meet the needs of diverse students is not an easy task. We as educators have a responsibility to create and administer different learning strategies that will engage and encourage students to become lifelong learners. Determining what intervention is needed for diverse learners is certainly a challenge that every teacher faces daily. In some subject areas we try to have the student adapt to the curriculum rather than have the curriculum fit the student. How many teaching colleagues do you know that have a cookie cutter curriculum?

The Education of All Handicapped Children Act passed in 1975 to the most recent Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004 changed the world for diverse learners. The more advances in technology the less barriers students will have. AV and UDL can work hand in hand and should. After reading the article I thought about the 170 students I see every day and how diverse they really are. Physical disabilities and learning differences occur in all of my classes. Assistive technology used in our school only address the needs of students with IEP or 504 plans. Students without the proper documentation, testing, and the red tape that parents and teachers have to wade through, I’m sorry to say, those students are out of luck. UDL plans would alleviate all the disservices being done to the students who could benefit from the AT.

Our district is currently building a new elementary building. I wonder how much planning was given to building a school using a UDL. Will the planning committee only think of the AT accommodations that will be needed or will it have a UDL. Will the new building be equipped with digital texts, voice recognition software, digital online tutorials, or audio and visual enhancements in the classrooms? Our school implemented RTI for each and every student. It seems with this implementation our district is moving in the right direction to a UDL.

As a side note check out this website for UDL with AT Software and Reviews:

http://homepage.mac.com/seilts/udl_at/software.html

You might find them interesting.

Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning

Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning
by Elizabeth A. Davis and Joseph S. Krajcik

How many times have you attended a workshop or a school improvement day and walked away feeling it was a waste of time and what did the training have to do with what you teach? On the other hand, the workshop was engaging with all the bells and whistles that you would like to try but you won’t be able to implement them into your curriculum because you don’t have the resources or tools to try it. Who writes and decides the curriculum for a school district? How could a curriculum that has been taught for the last 20 years be of any value to teachers and students in today’s world. These we just a few of the questions I began asking myself after reading this article.

When I began teaching in my district I was given the textbook and was told here you go. We didn’t have a curriculum; the textbook was the curriculum. Any supplemental materials were added at your own expense. Today, it’s somewhat better but not much. The state mandates our curriculum and the district asks if you are following their mandates, everyone says yes and all is right with the world.

I concur with the article that educative curriculum materials need to be concrete. These materials need to help teachers adapt curriculum to the multi-needs of the classroom. By improving curriculum materials, teachers have a deeper understanding and the power to affect what is taught and how it will be taught. Curriculum materials can provide teachers with new opportunities to increase their expertise based on research. Have you ever attended a workshop and the main presenter is very knowledgeable, but has no idea on how to explain or teach it in a way their students will understand or become engaged? When planning a curriculum in a particular subject area, the teacher needs to be aware of who their audience is and how to modify the lessons accordingly. What are their main objectives and goals? How will the subject matter be assessed? What questions and activities can enhance and promote higher learning? When planning a curriculum administrators should first promote teacher learning.