 |
|
|
I’m in the middle of about a half dozen books, all fresh from under the tree on Santa day. But on my way out the door for my first trip of 2009, I grabbed Presentation Zen, by Garr Rynolds. I’d not started it yet, PZ feeling more like desert, compared to some of the others I’m working my way through. I’m also having fun learning to take notes on the Linux side of my Netbook, using Freemind. It’s a bit odd to have room here, for my computer, a plastic cup of ice, an AA issued can of Diet Pepsi, and my digital camera, all on an economy-class seatback table.
Early in the book, as Reynolds is making connections between Zen and business (and academic) presentations, he suggested an interesting distinction. He writes that designing presentations is not a method. It’s an approach. It is not a “..step-by-step systemic process.” It is “..a road, a direction, a frame of mind.”
This seems to me like a useful way of thinking about how we use technology and how we teach it. Anyone, who has delivered technology staff development, has witnessed teachers, desperately writing down notes, step-by-step instructions, so that they will be able to repeat that specific function when they return to their own classrooms. I’m not making fun. Repeating steps is sometimes the best way to accomplish a goal.
As I think about how “digital natives” and “settlers” go about working through their tasks with information and communication technologies (ICT), compared to how many immigrants go about it, the method/approach comparison makes a lot of sense.
Considering the differences between my generation’s use of information technology and the way my children use it, I want to think about my wrist watch. When I was growing up, all watches looked and acted pretty much the same way. You set the time by pulling the tiny nob out and twisting it, to twist the hands around to the correct positions. I still wear an analog-style watch.
However, the time-pieces of years later, digital watches, all came with three different buttons, and with those three buttons, you could perform fifteen functions, by pressing the buttons in seeming infinite combination. I wear an analog watch today, because I can’t remember the steps. My children grew up learning how to reason their way into the solution. In fact, they don’t wear watches at all. It’s all in their cell phones which tell time, keep schedules, record addresses, take messages, and, oh yeah, communicate through a 26-character alphabet with fewer than 26 keys. You operate these devices natively, by approaching it with a certain frame of mind, not by method. There is absolutely no harm in this.
The harm comes when we try to teach technology by method. When we try to teach word processing, spreadsheets, and image editing software through scripted lessons — to kids who are at home accessing and interacting with the world from their pockets — there is a disconnect that may well be a big part of why so few of our children are interested in pursuing technology fields. The harm comes when we try to test our students proficiency with technology through method, when we ask them to solve a problem with a computer and then score them based not on how resourceful they are with the tool, but to what degree their solution matched the one that was taught.
This is one more reason why I am increasingly insisting that we, as educators, need to began to picture ourselves as master learners, and to project that image of ourselves to the community. If we become enthusiastic learners, then we are modeling the concept and process of life-long learning. If we walk into our classrooms as master learners, then we might come to better understand that working with information is as much about approach as it is about method.
Powered by ScribeFire.
I enjoyed Presentation Zen a great deal – and from it a take away has been Pecha Kucha. (http://www.pecha-kucha.org/) I have attended a few Pecha-Kucha nights and am amazed at what different styles happen when you present from an (as you said) approach vs a method. Thanks for reminding me that I should re-read Presentation Zen and perhaps use the ideas for more then presentations.
You have articulated what many of us have stumbled to say – with Zen like style. I think that most technology integrators model this behaviour, but I wonder how representative we are of the majority of teachers in our schools?
I just blogged about this a few days ago (comfort zones and 21st Century Learning) from the viewpoint of staff development. My frustration is HOW to communicate this. Or can I?
David,
Simply put, the method we should use in designing instruction is quality instructional design. This post raises questions about the method of teaching technology and the disparate gap between what we teach and what the kids need to learn (i.e. do they need word processing when they’re accessing the world from their pockets). A solid instructional design approach would identify needs and then build a lesson around those needs and that specific group of learners.
Push for more instructional design, not more technology. Technology should be subservient to instructional design otherwise it can be elevated to an unnecessarily high status.
Chris
This is interesting to me because it explains why I “get” certain training and why I have so much trouble at other sessions. I guess I am half and half when it comes to professional development. I like the step-by-step, but only when I can see the whole picture and know where the training is headed. Step-by-step is maddening if I’m not reassured occasionally that there is an end in sight. On the other hand, I can go just as insane if a trainer goes too far describing the big picture, end product and global ramifications without getting on with it already.
Considering differentiated instruction in a typical classroom, a teacher — theoretically — accommodates a dynamically changing spectrum of learners who, in turn through the course of a normal school day, are accommodating a dynamically changing spectrum of learning situations. Today’s educational technology provides an array of choices for the teacher and the learner to establish new playing fields for the learning/teaching encounters of the day. This “classroom” should not be considered merely a construct of method(s) of some science built around acquisition of old, perishable knowledge, but rather, an “artification” of something new, a moment-to-moment artifice constructed in cognitive apprenticeship devised around a common experiencing of the object of study. We can’t necessarily anticipate the outcome of this experience, hence, a lesson “plan” makes little sense. Instructional design as “approach” makes more sense, since there is always more than one “outcome”, no “right” answer.
I have considered picking up Presentation Zen. It sounds worth taking a look at.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
David,
I was just discussing this very thing with our media coordinator/carpool buddy on the ride this morning. In fact, a short point of something similar made it into my most recent blog post. Teachers do far too much “tool teaching” and not enough in depth about the need for such tools. The prime example is “teaching” PowerPoint, not how to design a powerful presentation. There are far more tools out there than time to teach, but similar skills are necessary for each. I wonder how many of my students would be able to seamlessly move from PowerPoint into Google Presentations into Zoho Show into Keynote into OpenOffice Impress. Granted some would be able, but a large number would get hung up on “this doesn’t look like what we did in Mr. So and So’s class.”
I think I may actually try that last idea…giving students a different tool to use and looking at the overall outcome. Thanks for the ideas you share here on your blog.
Your post reminded me about my own process of developing digital literacy. My parents purchased our first family computer when I entered 9th grade – I played with it, broke it, and fixed it. I think that “playful” process of exploration, feedback, and response is something that people may tend to lose over time, because the step-by-step approach is so useful in so many ways. But like anything, including “play”, it has limits. A few summers back I did a workshop on Google Apps for a group of educators – the younger were comfortable with instructions along the lines of “play until you get confused and then ask for help”, whereas the older were visibly uncomfortable with those instructions and asked for a more step-by-step approach. Perhaps the “master learner”, much akin to the Zen master, needs to consciously bring forward more of the “play” mentality.
I can only echo the sentiment here of “read PZ” and having done that, echo the sentiment of PZ that it’s not a system, or even a style, it’s ‘sense’. Importantly though some people seem to miss an important element of the PZ approach and catch only the idea of ‘simplify’, dumbing down and down and down their message.
It’s not the message that should be simplified, it’s the means by which that message is passed on!
Simon
David,
Your article and comparisons are well positioned. As a former ICT professional, I well understand what to expect from a group of professionals who are trying on their first attempt at a new e-task. Occasionally it’s even rather comical to watch. Oh, I too matured during the analog age, but did switch to a kinetic-electric about seven years ago. I’m intrigued at producing electricity while I go about my daily tasks. Go figure.
As a former corporate Db programmer and systems analyst I tend to over solutionize things a bit and from my limited exposure into the education community since being laid off, I often see instances where colleagues simply do not consider efficiency as a goal and seldom an initiative. From this comment, old-schoolers as I’ll call them, may recognize the business analyst showing forth. Most teachers and administrators simply do not think in this mode. Often computing topics database are thought to be developed with chart-paper, tape, glue-sticks and a stapler. Sometimes I question where I fit.
Please don’t take me wrong, I understand the physical aspects of the teaching task, but when it comes to computerized teaching, time spent on how the system works, the business positioning of the effort, being intimate with terms like ROI, OC (opportunity cost) and DIL (delayed implementation losses) seem seldom considered.
I enjoy being around children, and showing them very useful aspects of computing that they’ve seldom if ever considered. I guess my problem is that I come from an age where good design begins with good discussion and a legal pad of notes rather than banging away at a keyboard that presses the backspace key half the time. Recently I had an administrator tell me that he more preferred a daily manual written email than an automated Db driven professional report with the school logo on it. I was jaw-dropped. The admin is barely 40.
What does NC really expect from their efforts in the 21st Century technology goals from its faculty? Most of the staff have never had any real world business experience. Sometimes I feel like hiking up my toga and moving on?
David, This reminds me of the looks I get when I tell adults that I don’t think kids need to take keyboarding classes. If they have access to computers and web 2.0 and social networking, you bet those same students want to type fast so they can communicate with their peers. They don’t need drill and kill anymore. It’s about what they communicate not how fast they are.
I think that method and approach are related. I find that I have to internalize methods in order for an approach to emerge. The methods I choose are not so much right or wrong, but more what is personally appealing and, I think, what fits my particular stance on the world. They work together. Just as no one would argue that process and product are separable, so too methods and approach.
In the last fifteen years as an educator, IT person, in-service teacher, etc., I have learned one big idea. It has never been about the technology, but it has always been about good pedagogy. True, we had to fumble through the first wave of new tools, but soon it should have become apparent that tools is what they are; they are not the teachers. It has never been about the technology, but always about the learning.
Now we need to be engaging in implementing good pedagogy.
It amazes me that already it was said by Einstein that information is now knowledge. Almost a century ago, Henry Adams said that it is enough to now how to learn. I believe that is what we need to be about today; kids need to understand the process of learning, much more than the do the content. We have long erred on the side of content.
I do empathize with the IT leader above who wonders how best to get this message across to her staff. It is harder and takes more work to design and teach this way – and some will retire without making that effort. If I can get a leader in each department I consider it a joy and success. Some change is slow. Embrace working with those who see the light!
I enjoyed your post and followed the link to amazon and listened to a podcast about Presentation Zen. I want to thank you even more for your last paragraph. We do need educators to think of themselves as constant learners and to live this role out every day. My most recent post, Aun Aprendo (I am still learning) focuses on this aspect of our lives. It helps to hear your take on it. Thanks.
I love your idea of the road, direction and frame of mind and how it’s our approach to the information instead of the method that may be the most important. Students now need to develop critical thinking skills and creativity instead of merely memorizing large chunks of curriculum and the traditional types of instruction administered in many classrooms do anything but develop those skills.
Modeling good educational behaviors and showing our students we are willing to be the learner instead of being the instructor at all times fosters a climate of co-teaching in the classroom that seems to facilitate better interaction among groups. As my role evolves, I find myself becoming more and more a facilitator instead of instructor. I learn so many things from my students, and they seem geniunely pleased to be able to teach me new tricks. You know the old adage, give a man a fish vs teaching him to fish…
I think Gail (post 14) hits the nail on the head when she speaks of it being less about the technology and more about the sound pedagogy. We must be sure to keep the focus on the learning, not on the technology. To ‘do’ technology only for the sake of technology only frustrates learners because it is usually only a surface-type activity. We have to allow the students latitude to fully immerse themselves in the learning, even if we’re not sure where the learning is going to lead us. Scary at times, yes, but necessary if we want to foster those higher level thinking skills so lacking in today’s school children.
Method vs. Approach… Thank you to Gail (#14) and Anita (#16) for stating what is, from my standpoint, obvious i.e., it is not about the technology being used but about the pedagogy behind teaching about it and its possible use.
I got to thinking while reading this about some of my own experiences. I have been on both sides of this i.e., the trainer and the trainee and have given as well as received technology “training” via the ‘method’ method. Although I prefer to teach technology in a manner more like an ‘approach’, I also believe the ‘method’ can be advantageous in certain situations i.e., for those of us who are “digital immigrants” having a how-to-step-by-step approach to getting something done can sometimes be a lifesaver if it is for something that is done on rare occasions. I would certainly rather know which keys to press to print a semi-annual report than knowing why specific tools do what they do when I will never be utilizing them for any other purpose.
Back to the pedagogy… I do believe that the approach to teaching also requires knowing your audience i.e.,Digital Natives or Digital Immigrants (Mark Prensky article, from “On the Horizon”, MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001 from 2001). Teaching the ‘hows and whys’ of a new technology should be approached differently depending on the knowledge base of the audience. This always brings me back to a class I was taking on Excel at a major midwestern land-grant university (being politically correct here…). The instructor, an MIT graduate no less, was methodically showing the class how to enter formulas in Excel that would pull information from specific cells and would not change when the cell references were copied to other cells. Although I consider myself a digital immigrant since i grew up not having access to a computer until I was well into my college career, I was also a digital native when it came to Excel as I had utilized as well as sold the program for nearly ten years previously. Instead of creating a sound lesson in the tools of Excel, outlining the problem to be solved, then letting students (I was the oldest but the majority of the class was teens and early twenties) ‘solve’ the problem utilizing the tools (which is what all of us did), the instructor, in grading penalized most of us for not correctly utilizing functions, although there was nothing explicitly stated in the problem that we should be thinking about utilizing our answer in a subsequent question. Had this information been given it would certainly have changed the way most of the class had answered the initial question.
In any case, I saw this situation as an example of teaching software through “scripted lessons – to kids who are at home accessing and interacting with the world from their pockets…”. This is where the pedagogy of the matter comes into play. Good, sound, instructional design would have/could have changed the outcome of my situation and engaged students in what we were learning allowing us to take the concepts and utilize them outside the classroom rather than just for the purpose of ‘making the grade’ on the next exam.
This is probably why I am choosing to continue my schooling in Educational Technology and Instructional Design. Somebody has got to make a difference!