10.16.06
Posted in General, Conferences at 5:30 pm by Norm Garrett
I am in Hawaii, having survived yesterdays earthquake, and had some observations I shared with my graduate students. Here is the posting from their class blog:
I had mentioned in class that I would be gone most of this week presenting a paper at a conference. The conference is ELearn 2006, an international conference on ELearning, held this year here in Hawaii. I arrived late Thursday and my presentation was yesterday. At 7 yesterday morning, local time, we had a 6.5 magnitude earthquake. My room is on the 14th floor and it was a wild ride for about 10-15 seconds. Of course, before going to bed the night before I watched a Discovery Channel documentary on the 2004 tsunami and so the first thing that entered my mind, since our hotel is right on the beach at Waikiki, was that. There turned out to be no tsumani because of the depth of the quake (about 12 miles down), but had there been one, it would have arrived here only 20 minutes after the quake. Power went out and was out for over 14 hours before finally being restored about 9:30 last night. By the way, I did give my presentation, but without electricity. Our meeting rooms here have large windows that open, as all face the sea. We opened all the windows, had plenty of natural light and a nice sea breeze, and went ahead with the conference sessions (without, of course, our computers, PowerPoint slides, etc.). I think it turned out OK, though, because the sessions were more informal, allowed for more interaction, and weren’t tied to the canned presentations as much. When it became dark and the power had still not returned, the hotel issued us all light sticks (like kids use on Halloween). They worked fine and we got by.
I wanted to comment on a few observations I had with regard to technology and our dependence upon it. These are small examples that happened here:
- One of the biggest problems at the airport was the toilets. The autoflush systems need power to operate and there is no manual flush backup. Nobody at the airport could use them, and people were stuck there all day (of course, we didn’t know about any of this at the time, since we didn’t have power … I read it in the Honolulu paper this morning)
- Cell phones worked sporadically on auxiliary power, so I got all my news by calling my wife in Illinois, having her look at CNN.com on the Internet, and report to me what was happening here! She wanted to know what was going on, but we were clueless here because we had no communications (TV, Internet, etc.) except cell phones. So she told me what was going on around me because I had no way of finding out.
- When you lack communication with the outside world, you become a community of your own, operating independently of that outside world. Most all of the guests in this hotel (which is a considerable number … it is 25 floors with hundreds of rooms) stayed here, since venturing out was dangerous (no traffic lights since all power on the island was out). Many rumours flew around with no way to verify any of them unless you could get through on a cell call. Without cell phones, it’s hard to say how we would have found out anything. People talked, made friends with total strangers, and just sat around and relaxed. It was really something you don’t see much of any more under normal circumstances.
- People are very resilient and can adapt quickly to unforseen and unanticipated situations.
- We have a great reliance on technology. If it weren’t for the disaster preparedness plan that this hotel has, things would have been a lot worse. They broke out supplies of water, food, and kept us fed all day even though there was no supply coming from the outside into the hotel. They had auxiliary power and knew exactly which things to keep powered and which to shut down. We had lighting in the emergency stairwells and all hallways, but all other lights were off. They kept the ice machines in their kitchens powered so they would have ice for us, and minimal power to be able to cook. They also powered their refrigerators and food stores so that they could provide us with food, having no idea how long the power would be out, as well as the speaker system when they needed to talk to us. They had the supply of light sticks to give us so that we could navigate in our rooms after dark and their employees were well-trained on what to do, moving right into disaster mode without missing a beat. The employees had battery-powered lanterns to cook and work by and they had really planned ahead for this contingency. So while we didn’t have elevators, Internet, radio, or TV, we got along fine as a group and got through it all unscathed.
Today, everything is pretty much back to normal, but a few hours without technology was, actually, quite refreshing. I wouldn’t recommend the earthquake to anyone, but getting away from technology for awhile is good for the psyche.
See you next Monday.
Dr. Garrett
Permalink
10.04.06
Posted in General, Learning Styles at 10:41 am by Norm Garrett
I was recently reading an excellent article entitled Academic Generations: Exploring Intellectual Risk Taking in an Educational Leadership Program, by Carolyn Ridenour and Carla Twale.
Education is a culturally conservative profession that rewards conforming rather than bold behaviors. In fact, McCarthy (1999b) characterizes educational leadership programs, in particular, as complacent and unresponsive to needs for reform. After her national study, she concluded that educational administration is fairly self-satisfied, indicating perhaps, less inclination to take risks. Nyquist (2002) calls for innovation in Ph.D. programs; but innovation often involves risk. She calls on doctoral programs to espouse and support creativity and adventurous research, a move away from what traditional educational leadership may have valued. While teaching growth and change to students, the faculty in the field of education may be slow to change their programs or to purposefully take risks.
This is an interesting statement, but not one that is at all surprising. In their oft-quoted paper about 21st century skills, the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory said this about risk-taking:
Risk taking is the willingness to make mistakes, advocate unconventional or unpopular positions, or tackle extremely challenging problems without obvious solutions, such that one’s personal growth, integrity, or accomplishments are enhanced.
The very nature of learning requires risk taking. Asmall child would never learn to walk, talk, or socially interact without taking risks, experiencing successes and failures, and then monitoring and adjusting accordingly.
Quantum leaps in learning, solving problems, inventing new products, and discovering new phenomena require risk taking. Risk taking within the learning environment requires a willingness to think deeply about a subject or problem, share that thinking with others to hear their perspectives, listen to their critiques, and then build on those experiences toward a solution or solutions (Dweck, 2000; Weiner, 1994). Too often, students are engaged in learning activities that focus on the “right answers.” Instead, students should be encouraged to engage in discussions about numerous approaches—and potential solutions—to a problem (Brophy, 1998; Vispoel & Austin, 1995).
Given that we need to teach students to engage in risk-taking, why aren’t we willing ourselves to take risks in the classroom? Education, as is pointed out above, is slow to change. Why is that? I would submit that most educators enjoy their comfort zones and like to settle into them, resulting in a generally risk-averse population. What are the fears (risks) of trying new things in the classroom? Here are a few:
- Failing in front of students
- Failing in front of colleagues
- Having classroom failures result in displinary action
- Looking stupid to students
- Losing control of the classroom
- Receiving a poor teaching evaluation as a result of failures
On the other hand, we can stay in our comfort zone and accomplish all of the following:
- Follow routine
- Bore students
- Not fail in front of students, but not challenge them either
- Get adequate teaching evaluations because we are not “rocking the boat”
- Not have to use new technology, since we can always use older technology with which we are more familiar
In higher education, many of our students look to faculty as examples. How can we talk about taking risk and changing the world (for the better) when we are not willing to do it ourselves? That is a question we all need to ponder.
Permalink
10.02.06
Posted in General, Learning Theory, Learning Styles at 1:46 pm by Norm Garrett
A recent paper entitled Technology in Schools: What the Research Shows, published by Cisco Systems and the Metiri Group outlines the current state of research in a variety of technologies. Here is a key quotation from the report:
The research on the effect of technology in learning is emerging. Overall, across all uses in all content areas, technology does provide a small, but significant, increase in learning when implemented with fidelity. While this statistic is encouraging, the real value to research lies in the identification of those technology interventions that get sufficiently positive results to warrant the investment. Most educators are looking for the value proposition that will significantly advance learning, teaching, and school system efficiencies. Taking advantage of these leverage points requires serious review of specific research studies that specifically address the needs and challenges of specific schools and serious attention paid to leadership development, professional development for teachers, school culture, curricular redesign, and teacher preparation.
While this report focuses on research in the K-12 area, some of it is also applicable to higher education and it bears at least a brief reading. We in higher education have to keep in mind that what affects K-12 education today affects our students of tomorrow. While we in higher education are often heard complaining about our incoming students (and often their lack of sufficient preparation) we have to keep in mind that if they experience a complete paradigm shift when they enter our halls, they are on a path for difficulty, if not failure. In actuality, it may not be their lack of preparation, but our inability to teach them in the manner in which they are accustomed to learning. Before we throw all of the blame on our students for not being adequately prepared, maybe we should check out our own (often archaic) instructional methodologies, as they may be, at the very least, contributing to the problem.
Permalink
