#12: From Constrained to Open Knowledge and Expression

My students are a part of the "App Generation," defined by Howard Gardner and Katie Davis as "young people growing up...[being] immersed in apps," which either enable meaning making or create dependency on the app's operation (2013, p. 7). In the concluding chapter of App Generation, Gardner and Davis report that "the majority...of education apps encourage pursuit of the goals and means of traditional education by digital means" (p. 179). These types of apps enable enhancement of traditional educational tasks via technology--see the SAMR model. There are also apps that enable or transform: they give "the chance to initiate and fashion one's own products...[and] the capacity to make use of diverse forms of understanding, knowing, expressing, and critiquing" (p. 180-181). Some differences in the two types of apps and associated education

• App-enabling: constructivism, subjective, existing and new (created) knowledge, open forms of expression
• App-dependent: behaviorism, objective, existing knowledge, constrained or instructed expression

So how do we put all the pieces together to help students be good users of information, have net smarts, and be app-enabled? Students who are good users of information have tools to evaluate resources (Halo Effect) and know how to search and sort. Teachers provide opportunities for these students to engage in the information-using process (SSCCS) to construct meaningful outcomes from their newly acquired knowledge to represent understanding (Students as Designers, C of ABCs). Students learn to be net smart via information-using and meaning-making processes; they learn crap detection via web resource evaluation and participatory and collaborative behaviors via social learning (Vygotsky). Students who are app enabled learn via activities that are student-centered and use applications to access and express knowledge--tasks which would not be conceivable otherwise.

#11: Being Smart on the Net

This past week's reading, Howard Rheingold's Net Smart: How to Thrive Online, felt very familiar with its tips on how to be an empowered user instead of a passive receiver. Mr. Rheingold offered five areas of advice, which the Doodles crew has touched upon at some point or other this semester:

1. Attention: Johnson's The Information Diet offers two chapters, "The Symptoms of Information Obesity" and "Attention Fitness," which convey similar thoughts as Rheingold's text.
2. Crap Detection: While Johnson offers advice on filtering, the Halo Effect activity--development of a web resource evaluation checklist--provided the best lesson in detection crap on the web.
3. Participation: I learned a lot about being a community participant in EDIT 784, Designing for Community Participation. Participation also occurs through weekly blog comments, class discussions, and peer feedback.
4. Collaboration: Renee Hobbs' Copyright Clarity offers practical advice on how to collaborate with copyrighted owners to build upon their work--without asking for permission or making payment--via fair use determination to build up. The theory of situated cognition and Vygotsky's ideas about the development of higher thinking processes also speak to the importance of social, collaborative learning.
5. Net Smarts: Knowing how to navigate small and large networks, make connections via social media, and build a bridge between networks is crucial to strengthening our own networks.

Above all, these items are skills that must be coached and modeled in the classroom context. We cannot expect our learners to come into and leave our classrooms as masters in focused attention, judging crap, participating, collaborating, and networking. Take these two scenarios:

• Teacher A has not trained her students in the Net Smart skills. She assigns a research project two days before Thanksgiving Break. It is a group project that must be completed before break. Instead of using their time wisely, most students decide to talk about their Thanksgiving Break plans, while the try-hards do all the work. Why can't they just watch a movie already?
• Teacher B has modeled and coached Net Smart skills. He clearly indicates group members' roles and responsibilities, and distributes a rubric for participation and collaboration. Students use a web evaluation rubric to search and filter good resources for their project needs. They have clear guidelines to keep their attention on the task at hand, and frequently monitor their own collaboration and participation.

Are you Teacher A or Teacher B? Wrangling--err, teaching--teens before any holiday break is like herding cats, but the explicit teaching of information processes can hopefully ease that burden.

#10: Boomers vs. Zoomers (Synthesis)

Have you heard the trendy phrase “OK, boomer,” which has been making its rounds in casual conversation, on NPR, and in Twitter posts? It is the response that occurs when a “boomer”--usually a baby boomer, but could be any adult--gives advice or relays platitudes to younger individuals of the Millennial or Gen Z generations. 

·       “You shouldn’t spend so much time on your phone--it’ll rot your brain.” “OK, boomer.”

·       “You can’t collaborate on tests in the real world.” “OK, boomer.”

·       “You can’t find everything on Google.” “OK, boomer.”

·       “You should read this article on why ‘OK, boomer’ shouldn’t be used.” “OK, boomer.” (This one actually happened between a student and his parent.)

·       “I’m going to write a blog about boomers vs. Zoomers.” “Ok, boomer.”

My students, the Gen Z-ers or “Zoomers,” are using “OK, boomer” in any situation they can. Urban Dictionary defines a “Zoomer” as an individual of Gen Z who has grown up in an age of rapidly changing technology, the Internet, and increasing interconnectivity of the world; changes happen (zoom) just as we have become used to the current technology. Zoomers are digital natives who have been copying, collaborating, communicating, creating, and sharing on digital channels from a young age. Collaborating...communicating...creating--sound familiar? 

Why can’t Zoomers take the heat from boomers? Is it that they cannot accept criticism or are too emotionally sensitive (see “snowflake”)? Or is it simply that they have a different way of consuming and using information than previous generations? I am inclined to believe that it is the latter. Yes, our students want quick answers and they know how to Google just about anything, BUT a search engine cannot teach good searching and sorting skills. Yes, our students would rather be on their phones than think critically, BUT a social media post or copyrighted material could be a great starting point for a critical thinking lesson (fair use, anyone?). Yes, there will always be too much information for consumption, BUT a smartphone cannot give “wait time” to process information. 

There are some things that technology can do better than teachers, but there are also many things that teachers (and humans) can do better than technology. Zoomers know how to use the tech. It’s simply good design to offer a learning environment where they can develop healthier and authentic information using skills in the safe environment of school before they face real world, adult consequences.

#9: The Copy-Frights and Copy-Rights of Users

Last week, I attended Igniting Innovation, a FCPS conference focused on blended learning. As I was exploring the creation tool Adobe Spark, I was flat out told by a FCPS SBTS that students should never use copyrighted music in their own work. Now, I didn’t want to toot my own horn during someone else’s presentation, but I recently read some information that contradicts that statement. 

My biggest takeaway from Renee Hobbs’ Copyright Clarity is that the general public is grossly uninformed about copyright law and the fair use exemption--myself included. Hobbs gives several examples of educators who are just not sure how to interpret copyright law and avoid using another’s intellectual property--“copyfright”--even if it could lead to better educational outcomes. Owners and publishers make it really hard for creators to get good information about how fair use actually works. Fair use guidelines and educational copyright curricula are written by those who profit from copyrights--the owners and publishers--and are interpretations of the law. So what is the law?

Fair use allows users to legally use copyrighted material without paying or asking permission from the copyright holders (Hobbs, p. 16). It is up to the users to think critically about the use of copyrighted material. In considering the specific nature and situation of copying, teachers and students can make a fair use determination for themselves. Users must consider the “transformativeness” of their new work. Hobbs asks us to consider: 

• Has the user added value or repurposed the work? (p. 41)
• Is the user using only what is necessary to accomplish his or her goals? (p. 55)
• Will the use of copyrighted material(s) affect the owner’s ability to profit? (p. 55)
• Does the specific use benefit society more than it hurts the (C) holder? (p. 73)

As a teacher of students who use and share copyrighted material every single day, it is my duty to make sure that students are informed about how to interpret fair use. For students, copying is a valuable part of their learning process. In examining the works of others, students learn to criticize and create their own interpretations. In Chapter 3, “Users Have Rights, Too,” Hobbs highlights the value of copying in the learning process: it “contributes to the development of skills like...synthesis” (p. 12). Hmm...isn’t synthesis the last step in the DDLS Information Using process? So students do actually need to use copyrighted material as a bridge to create their own meaning of the world! 

Also, look at society’s role models: what Youtube stars, what music artists, what politicians aren’t copying and reusing the work of others nowadays? If you aren’t familiar with the newest social media craze, TikTok, here’s a pretty fabulous compilation of Tiktok videos, in which creators repurposed 50 Cent’s 2005 hit “Candy Shop” for their own entertainment. Is 50 Cent losing profits on this? Is the nature of this work transformative? The users have made a determination in favor of their own fair use of the content.

#8: Fact from Fiction

It scares me that people nowadays find more comfort in a tiny screen than in talking to one another. What is it about the pull of a Facebook news feed or a Fox News video that is so attention-grabbing? The Information Diet: A Case for Conscious Consumption was an appropriate literary introduction to EDIT 781, Designing for Information Using. The book offers a warning for all information users: many of us consume too much of the wrong type of information and have a poor information diet, which affects our physical and mental health and relationships with others. Churnalized, sensationalized, ad-filled media ruins our ability to search, filter, create, and synthesize data from its original source. By developing better information consumption habits, we can achieve Clay Johnson’s mantra: “Consume deliberately. Take in information over affirmation” (p. 77). 

As I was reading, I found myself thinking about the difference between data and information. Data precedes information:

WKID pyramid (Doyle, 2014).

I also thought about data literacy versus information literacy. I found it interesting that Wikipedia suggests the two topics be merged. So what is the difference between these two literacies? Johnson devotes a whole chapter to data literacy: “the ability to process, sort, and filter vast quantities of information.” To be data literate, Johnson prescribes the skills of searching, filtering, creating, and synthesizing data into useful information. With reference to the PICKLE design principle, the future-ready skill of information using is “the ability to access and use information, data, and facts.” The DDLS process of information using adds an additional skill to Johnson’s data literacy skills: 1) searching; 2) sorting (filtering); 3) creating; 4) COMMUNICATING; and 5) synthesizing.  

Modern students must learn to balance conscious consumption with creation of information. A Google search for information is useless if it is not appropriately filtered, used to create understanding, communicated to others, and synthesized. Youtube user Pick Up Limes echoes Johnson’s warnings: “When we consume more than we create, we tend to feel drained of energy, a little disheartened...but when we shift that ratio to make sure that we create more than we consume, that’s when we tend to feel a bit more happy and motivated.” What high school teacher has not felt disheartened by the apathetic Gen Z students, staring at their Instagram feeds or playing Mario Kart? While these mind-numbing activities may be appropriate for down-time at home, it is the schools that students must learn the critical thinking skills associated with good information using. With all this data available at our fingertips, how can we learn to filter fact from fiction? 

References

Doyle, M. (2014, May 27). What is the difference between data and information. Retrieved from https://www.dqglobal.com/2014/05/27/what-is-the-difference-between-data-and-information/

Johnson, C. A. (2012). The information diet: A case for conscious consumption. O'Reilly Media.

Pick Up Limes (2018, September 25). A healthy imbalance [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/8a170TTaPt0?t=109

#7: A Designer's Job: Play, Build, Collaborate

During the final class of EDIT 780, Principles of School-Based Design, the teachers became the “students” of the sixth and final design principle: “Students as Designers.” This role reversal from designing as the teacher (first principle = “Teachers as Designers”) to learning as the student helped us to understand the perspective of the “customers” of the design process. Teachers design with students in mind. We utilized content (the six principles of design) to construct a meaningful outcome (a comprehensive video treatment). Our instructor comprehensively scaffolded our ability to design by providing us with skills instruction (a camcorder recording “how to” video), a Google Slides storyboard  template, and a place to collaborate online synchronously. We used Flip Video cameras, which feature minimalist video recording capabilities, to capture clips. These tools were carefully selected to allow us students to create something meaningful, while keeping in mind the affordance requirements of the tasks:

• Balancing pre-class planning with busy lives
• Limited class time to create a product
• A video recording device with a simple user interface
• Differing tech literacy levels of group members

As I reflect on the video production tasks and the creative spirit of design article (McDonald, 2011), I am reminded of concepts that we have been reading about and discussing for the past eight weeks. Designers use imagination to consider the world of coulds, just as a child uses imagination during play to turn actions and decisions into behaviors and understanding. A designer is creation-oriented when building, testing, and retesting ideas, just as many of our design processes (SPD, ABCS, AeCTS) and the last principle iterate the constructivist approach to good learning. Finally, designers engage in inter-disciplinary action when collaborating and connecting with others. Each interaction helps the designer to further develop a design idea, perhaps even causing the development of a new way of thinking or speaking. Similarly, students must be situated in the context of a specific community in order to experience community learning. Learning is social, based on exposure to multiple narratives and roles. The more conceptual representations students can experience, the more the students are able to shape their understanding of the concept.

Being a part of the Doodles crew does not mean letting go of everything I have developed during my teaching career. It does mean that I am on the lookout for tasks and tech that better meet the diverse needs of my students. It does not mean that I do not lesson plan. It does mean that I consider how to situate concepts in an authentic contexts and tasks. It does not mean that I design all the time. It does mean that I reflect on what works and what does not, and adjust accordingly.

References

McDonald, J. K. (2011). The creative spirit of design. TechTrends, 55(5), 53.x

#6: Matching Tasks & Tools

How do I know which tool will be the most beneficial to my students when learning about Roman history? What technology will help them to best mediate or connect with all the information out there? This week I read about affordance analysis (Bower, 2008), which is a design methodology to help educators match learning goals with e-learning tools. An object or tool’s “affordance” is its utility--its functionality in the learning process. The emphasis on a tool’s use or ability (or usability) is huge here--what can students DO with it? How can it help the students to DO (insert task here)?

The process of affordance analysis can be used to select--or rule out--technologies that are most beneficial--or most irrelevant--in our classrooms. The “beginning of year, no time for PD” simulation in class gave us a trial run of the process; we had to test drive new tech. I worked with two others to determine the affordances of 360 Environments for an English task of creating a scene using figurative language. Looking back at our analysis, we identified good outcomes and products, but did not list required affordances in the language of affordance analysis:

• What we listed: Graphic organizers, computers or iPads to watch the 360 Environments, publication tools

• What we should have considered (AKA language of affordance analysis): Write-ability, watch-ability, accessibility, playback-ability, browse-ability, permission-ability, share-ability

This is too often a reality in our own classrooms. We make daily decisions about affordances of objects. Affordance analysis is a clearer lens through which we can match the tasks with the tech. It offers us a way to simultaneously consider what the intention of the learning is, what is needed for learning to occur, and what tech best matches those needs. If the tool is wrong for the task, what else can my students use (focus on utility) to connect their learning to the desired outcome? It’s always good to have a Plan B tech tool, or even a Plan C analog tool.

Reference

Bower, M. (2008, 03). Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15. doi:10.1080/09523980701847115

#5: Technology: Ever-Changing Tools

The two technologies we learned about this week were the printing press and the telegraph. Both technologies changed the way that people interacted with one another and information. “The Victorian Internet” notes how the telegraph was called the 19th century’s “highway of thought,” due to its ability to connect individuals across long distances over a short period of time (Standage, p. 2). The telegraph went through many design iterations, caused new tech to be invented alongside it (e.g. vacuum tubes), and created a culture and language of telegraphers (as well as people who abused it).

The lessons learned from the telegraph can be applied to any new technology. There are always pros and cons. The creators & investors will sing its praises, the skeptics will argue how we can do without it. The youth and growth-minded individuals will embrace and apply it in new situations, the criminals will abuse it.. Its impact on society and cognition may only be observed with use over time. Tech is also ever-changing. Just as the telegraph eliminated the need for sending letters across long distances, so did the telephone eliminate the need for a 3rd party telegrapher to be an intermediary between message senders. 

At the end of the day, technology is a tool through which we human beings interact with the world, but the tool needs to be used properly for optimum effect. We tend to be optimistic about new tech: it will change our lives, it will make us smarter/better/faster/stronger. This “technological utopianism” (Standage, p. 211)  holds technology as the panacea for all our problems, when it could possibly just end up causing more. Going 1:1 with student devices is supposed to close the achievement gap, engage all learners, create future ready citizens (who are experts in the 4 C’s), increase access to information, personalize learning, etc. In reality, I sometimes spend more time patrolling student gamers than supporting meaningful learning on the student Chromebooks. It is very easy to get caught up in all the bells and whistles of new tech, thus losing track of the ultimate goal of creating authentic learning opportunities for all students. Is the tool being used in a meaningful way to develop and internalize meaningful thought? Does it support learning? If your answer is “no,” best to rely on tried-and-true tools, while keeping an eye out for the next big thing.

Standage, T. (2007). The Victorian internet. Walker.

#4: Learn to Play, Play to Learn

How often have we teachers heard our students beg for partner quizzes or group projects? There’s something to be said about the importance of social interaction and group learning in the classroom. Over the past four weeks in the EDIT 780 classroom, we have collaborated with each other and have constructed our own ideas about the principles of school-based design, which we individually consume prior to class. Whether we are writing dubiously rhyming poetry or solving Priscilla’s maladies, this way of learning is far preferable to the standard PowerPoint lecture. 

Vygotky emphasized the importance of social interaction in his theory of the zone of proximal development (or “ZPD”): learning occurs when a student engages in “problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). A student who observes, imitates, and problem solves pushes his actual developmental level towards his potential developmental level as informed by his interactions with peers and with proper scaffolding from the teacher. Learning is situated in engaging collaboratively in an authentic context. Understanding is socially constructed by groups of practitioners: the students and the teacher, who models, coaches, and fades (Brown, Collins, Duguid, 1989). Hmm--I wonder if there is a reason why we read “Situated Cognition,” followed by Vygotsky? 😎

Vygotsky (1978) also discusses the role of play in engaging within the ZPD. While play can appear infantile and purposeless, (e.g. a child playing with a doll), a child develops behaviors and understanding via the actions taken and decisions made during play (e.g. understanding the role of a parent). Imaginary situations contribute towards how we will eventually act in real life. Schools are an environment where students can safely role-play in authentic activities without facing the consequences or pressures of the real, adult world. It is ok to make mistakes and to try again. It is in schools that students can imagine and imitate being the next generation of mathematicians, scientists, librarians, economists, meteorologists, etc. When taking on one of these roles, a student observes, imitates, makes decisions, problem solves, considers ineffective strategies, works in a group, etc. The teacher designs the activity or role-playing to include authentic concepts (structures) and activities (processes) that one would find in that community of practice. 

When creating tomorrow’s lesson plan, it is very easy to slip into the old habit of using last year’s PowerPoint presentations, worksheets, and assessments. This may be acceptable, so long as the resources promote learning within the ZPD and engage students in authentic learning activities. In the case of my AVID class--the goal of which is college and career readiness--I can always ask myself, “What do college students actually do and how am I designing this task to get my students to that point?” What are my Latin students actually doing that relates to the authentic practices of classicists? I do not have the full answer right now, but I can recognize that there is a lot of potential growth within the ZPD of the Doodles classroom.

Works Cited

Brown, John Seely, et al. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.” Educational Researcher, vol. 18, no. 1, 1989, p. 32., doi:10.2307/1176008.

Vygotsky, Lev Semeonovič. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, 1978.

x

#3: Authenticity Matters

This week’s principle, the Knowledge Principle, directly echoes the main point of Brown, Collins, and Duguid’s 1989 research on situated cognition: students learn best when they learn to use the tools of a community while being immersed in the authentic activity and culture of that community. The classroom activities within school culture do not always reflect the activities done by authentic practitioners. Where else may students use math word problems outside the context of the math classroom? Will the declension of a Latin noun help you get a job after you graduate? Students are left not sure when and how they will use this arcane knowledge in a real world context.

Situated cognition research also suggests that knowledge is not assembled via piecemeal lessons. Learning happens through consistent use of the knowledge, or conceptual tool, situated in the context of a specific community. The more concepts are applied, or activated through different contexts, the greater the understanding of a concept is. Each activity done to teach a concept either forms or adds to conceptual knowledge, thus increasing the number of representations that a student has of that concept. 

I learned about the human brain’s learning networks this past spring. The big takeaway was that learning occurs when connections are activated between and within the three learning works. The more ways we have to conceive of a representation of a concept, the more neural pathways are activated. This idea loops back to what we know about tools: students must be immersed in and form connections with community learning in order to learn the authentic use of that tool. Our brains will not form those connections if knowledge is separated from an authentic context. Compare the students who learned new vocabulary from a dictionary to students who learned from engaging in conversation. Learning to use a new word in an authentic context is much more valuable than writing nonsense sentences on a sheet of paper, which will only end up in a binder.

Finally, we learned about two lesson design processes this week that relate to the tools and activities ideas of situated cognition research. Considering the structure, process, and discourse (SPD) of a discipline enables teachers to explore what people in a particular field actually do. The disciplinary SPDs may then be applied to the classroom context by considering what practitioner activities can be translated into student learning activities. Authentic, building knowledge, constructing, and sharing activities (ABCS) enable students to develop different areas of cognition by engaging in the environment, problem-solving, opportunities, and knowledge that are used by experts. Working with another classmate, we processed a set of economics SOLs into the SPD and ABCS that might be used in a real classroom; we analyzed the SPDs of an economist and turned those into authentic, classroom-based activities to support learning within a realistic community of economists. When we can see the current school culture as a problem, we can approach lesson design via a problem-solving lens. The SPD and ABCS are processes that educators can use to develop authentic concepts and activities within the expert culture.

#2: Build Our Youth for the Future

Created on Canva.org

If you teach in 2019, you have probably been told, “You must teach 21st century skills.” What are these highly coveted skills that students must learn in order to thrive in the 21st century and beyond? Are we creating a new generation of six-million dollar men and women--just because “we have the technology?” Most “21st century skills” literature discusses a need to prepare today’s youth for the world beyond school. The higher ed news website eCampusNews refers to these skills as “workforce skills.” Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association wrote that students must be competent in the 4 C’s-- “to compete in [a] global society.” The Common Core State Standards provide guidelines for reaching college and career readiness for all students. All three of these entities focus on life AFTER school AKA the end goal.

The Doodles crew--DDLS students--recently learned the second principle of design: the ends principle. Teachers apply the ends principle by designing learning with student outcomes in mind. Our job as teachers is to elevate our students to do and be better than when they entered our classrooms. The purpose of 21st century schools is to produce students who are: problem solvers, information users, community participants, knowledge users, literate, and ethical decision makers. You might say that students would be a real pickle in today’s world if they did not develop fluency in these skills.

Consider the case presented in J. Abner Peddiwell’s educational satire, The Saber-Tooth Curriculum. “Dr. Peddiwell,” also known as 20th century education figure Harold Benjamin, lectures about a paleolithic tribe that fails to develop a system of education that will ultimately lead to the betterment of its people. The system goes through many iterations but in the end lacks a clear vision for the purpose of education. A member of a rival tribe (on the other side of the mountain) remarks:

They do have something they call education, but it is just a collection of traditional activities, a machine which they worship for its own sake. The result is pitiful...They are forever blocked in attempts to better their lives by reason of having only mis-education, pseudo education, in place of real education.” (p. 135-136)

The tribe with pseudo-education “educates” its youth with the “degrading busyness” of rock play, relies on an oligarchical “board” of education, uses rare technology for the sake of using technology (e.g. using “rare” tigers in tiger-scaring exercises), and fails to change its paleolithic curriculum as the society changes. There is no ends principle in the minds of the paleolithic peoples; they stick to what is routine and reinvent the wheel any time the educational system needs to be shaken up a little bit. 

The satirical situation of The Saber-Tooth Curriculum is unfortunately as much a reality in the 21st century as it was when it was first published in 1939. The culture of schools is one in which abstract pieces of knowledge are taught, learned, tested, and forgotten. Knowledge, at this point, is just one tool in a student’s toolbox. The Profile of a Virginia Graduate calls upon students to become “life ready individuals” and to gain experience in content knowledge, workplace skills, career exploration, community engagement, and civic responsibility. The purpose and end goal of 21st century education is to prepare students to be “future ready” for life beyond school. 

Our job as teachers is to help students link what they are learning to what they are living through authentic learning opportunities. Instead of sticking to the status quo and teaching content that is no longer relevant, we must design a system of education with education’s #1 customer in mind: the student. We can prioritize empathizing with our students instead of implementing a teacher-centric system. We can be open to uncertainty and failure, as we traverse the unknowns of designing new educational opportunities. Perhaps we can even stop and enjoy a few daisies on the way.

#1: Teachers As Designers

Last week marked the start of my first fall semester in the GMU MEd program--with a concentration in Designing Digital Learning in Schools (DDLS). I had the opportunity to consider the work I would complete within this concentration:

• Designing: I will create solutions for problems of practice, including student learning and experiences.

• Digital Learning: I will facilitate learning that is “facilitated by technology that gives students some element of control over time, place, path and/or pace” (“What is Digital Learning,” n.d.).

• In Schools: I will design for my own context: my students, my content area, my classroom.

Prior to entering the DDLS program, I had not considered myself a “designer.” I am certainly an educator, a planner, a manager, a curator, and more--but not a designer. A teacher, unfamiliar with design thinking, may not consider the impact that he or she can have in addressing problems of practice via a design thinking lens. Henricksen and Richardson define “design thinking” as a systematic approach to coming up with solutions to authentic problems (2017). For a teacher, this means addressing challenges such as student engagement, utilization of technology, ever-changing instructional models, parents, administration, and more--but through a carefully considered approach. 

The work of a teacher is to “work with [students]...in action directed towards the betterment of their lives” (Benjamin, 2004, p. 14). As a “teacher designer,” my main focus will be on my students and their experience within my classroom. The ability to positively impact a student’s future is one of my most powerful tools. Student interest and input is crucial in the design of their education. My practice over the next two years will change greatly as I consider classroom challenges, student viewpoints, and the integration of technology via the design thinking process.

References

Benjamin, H. R. (2004). The saber-tooth curriculum. McGraw-Hill.

Henriksen, D., & Richardson, C. (2017, 09). Teachers are designers. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 60-64. doi:10.1177/0031721717734192

What is Digital Learning? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://gosa.georgia.gov/what-digital-learning#_ftn1