Make PORTALS
your home page and use "wiredbrain" password "synergy" for set-up start
pages.
MSN now does the best search
Social
ergonomics
The Global Village School House..InterNet 101
By Dr. Peter
E. Pflaum
ppflaump@cfl.rr.com
Real people, real schools:
We have 15,000 school boards and committees.
They oversee 60,000 schools for 55 million students. About a fourth of students are in different schools or districts by the end of each year there has been a 25 % turnover. In some places it’s much higher, some lower.
There is a general expectation of what students should learn - what kids from the 5th grade should be able to do - arithmetic multiplication tables, reading, and more vaguely geography, science, history, spelling.
These standards have declined since 1947, so more than half do not know what they are expected to know or do.
They are passed on to the next grade with the hope they can catch up.
The reality is that if a teacher gives bad grades for poor performance there is trouble. If they give good grades for little effort and poor performance there are no complaints or external pressure to get the performance up to standard. Everyone passes. By high schools more than half the students are behind, many below 6th grade levels of math and reading. Since they can’t read history, literature is rather a mute point. By the end of secondary education about 1/3 are gone having learning almost nothing at the cost of $50,000, about 1/3 have some skills, and about 1/3 are almost ready for post secondary education.
What it would take to made schools work is no mystery.
The secret is that it would not be popular. School boards, superintendents, principles, teachers MUST be popular. As soon as anyone really try to enforce standards there are those who will complain. Someone will FAIL - get bad grades, will be held back !
There is no way that is popular.
The student maybe a minority, maybe handicapped, failure is the teachers fault, it’s the systems fault, its prejudice, NEVER the lack of effort on the part of the student and the parents. Elected school boards can never enforce standards of dress, conduct, performance, on the part of unionized teachers who make up a critical electoral constituency, or parents which make up most of the rest of the voters. Local standards will never pass the popularity contest.
State and national politicians are less dependent on popularity of specific school teachers and parents. Voters will support the abstract idea of good schools, and employer groups are desperate with the poor quality of youth entering the labor market. So some states have tried to impose external standards. NOW if you empress external standards on a system with quality faults, you just drive everyone crazy. Maybe some schools can pass the buck when John fails by talking about external standards - but there will be a lot of bitching.
As everyone should know the only answer is open enrollment. If you fail go someplace else which accepts less. If you exceed standards you get rewards and more opportunities. Like the real world ? If you don’t get a year, or 50 % of a years progress for a year of school you are less effective than someone who can. Competition gets your attention. It can bring pressure to hold to standards - of attendance, dress, conduct, homework, behavior, learning - like the real world.
Documents Concerning Education on the Net
Lesson 1 Internet 101
FROM: pflaump@america.com
First go to FORM and registrar there is a form.
Second look at the yahoo pages we suggest for introduction.
We will set up a CHAT IRC we use irc.escape.com and
irc.colorado.edu
The virtural Classromm uses the same tools as the virtual office
.VIRTUAL
OFFICE...
join #dynasty or #gold depending on the time zone. We have
notes and mail drops on the home page.
You need to write to each other, use cc come up with a group
name and meeting time. Maybe you can check out winserve for
setting
up a real interactive system.
We have notes and mail drops on the home page.
You need to write to each other, use cc come up with a group
name and meeting time. Maybe you can check out winserve for
setting
up a real interactive system.
Places to fine programs you may need (for those with direct
connections)
South Carolina Supernet
http://www.scsn.net/
Quarter Deck
has
a complete package (IRC, FTP, newsgroups, mail etc) at
http://www.qdeck.com/documents/toolbox/
Patrick Crispen's Internet Roadmap at
http://www.brandonu.ca/~ennsnr/Resources/Roadmap/Welcome.html
is very useful
A stable and good Winsock applications is on Forrest H. Stroud's at
http://cwsapps.texas.net/ / More advanced links can be found on
Slides ...Slide 15..Slide 16...Slide 18
Bookmarks
RE: INTERNET 101, Understanding the method
First write to each other and find our who you are, each write
a little introduction to your self and what you want to achieve
in this class. A personal story about some time or place where
you really felt good a major achievement (peak experience) and
what really turns you on helps us understand you and get to know you as a person.
What I have found works for me in thirty years of college and
industrial training is the importance of using dynamic groups in active learning.
See
the summary of the research attached that confirms that when
people
are active and involved they clearly do better than when they
sit back and "teach me". You are responsible for your
own learning and setting your own goals. We provide a setting
and guides but not
direct instruction.
Every group is different. We create a "learning
organization".
I have done this for years in school and industrial training
and doing workshops. It's still experimental (from the 19th
century,
John Dewey et al) and you have to go with the of each situation
and group. What makes it fun is that it is never the same. Don't
worry about too many instructions, just do it! If you can find
a small (really small) one-room type school (we think there are
10,000 of them) most will individualize and use many of these methods
because you have to. You can't talk to a class of kids from 6
to 14 in one room.
Each student needs a INTERNET connection:
First:
The best is a direct server and netscape, an alternative
is Netcom but we will try with AOL. Prodigy, CompServe, etc.
Second:
a set of service programs, IRC, newsgroups, FTP, mail that often
come with the package from a direct provider or a on-line
service.
Your home page is a kind of loose leaf notebook,
sub-files are dividers, and the groups needs a file manager FTP
to maintain its material.
The home page notebook is called the
portfolio and contains all their work. It is turned in at the
end for the grade. (We keep them as a guide to the next group
to check out - since I've seen all the work in there) Work can
be put into a group notebook (pages) but individual notebooks
are also possible. If you use individual notebooks group work
has to be credited to those who contributed. If you use a
collective
portfolio then the individual http://www.wiredbrain.net/documents/ JOURNALs are separated by name in
the files.
You will create a main directory with
just a list of activities and names of groups. Each group has
a their own folder. As you do your work you put it in your folder
and notify me. I review the work give points on the papers in
the main file. After you are scored you can see how you are doing
and how many points you need to complete your work (portfolio).
I keep track of the points on Lotus 123 and make a graph of their
progress. (You'll like that).
I have a goal of 100 points. Everyone who get across that goal
has a B.
The A is a quality judgment. Evaluation is the points
- I give 2 for A, B and C. A poor papers (project) gets .5 or
.7, a OK is 1.5 excellent is 2. I don't have people evaluate each
others work but I encourage group editing by a sharing documents
before they are filed on your FTP processor.
Each activity has a reading (A) mostly from the WEB, and an
action task (B) some process to complete. I have collected a few
dozen activities that take about two hour each. I don't use a
textbook since using the INTERNET is better.
The C part is a
journal.
The http://www.wiredbrain.net/documents/ JOURNAL is not a diary but the statement of the ideas or
concepts
learned.
These concepts are then related to life, and other
concepts
learned.
The
journal
should give examples that show the student understands what you
are talking about. This is an individual responsibility but come
together in a package - Reading and research, activities, and
journals - with a nice cover go into the file under the group
names - the internet or WWW winners, achievers, etc. something
positive. You work with one group at a time - get them started
then use the in and out papers and reports as feedback and
suggestions.
You should learn to ask questions.
The one room schoolhouse work this way, as does individualized
instruction or multi-graded classes. For example there is an
activity
in search the net for information about the history of the
Internet,
The internet in other countries, the Future of communications,
Library applications, etc.
The group does some reading and
discusses
what you found. A member writes up a report (A). You find out
how to use a http editor, visit using FTP, do a group report
(Something
active) (B) and have a interactive project, report, video,
whatever
as a group effort. Each person then writes a http://www.wiredbrain.net/documents/ JOURNAL on what did
it mean to you personally(C). You earn points for A and B and
C and for having it all together as a group.
I use personality style to create groups.
The concrete sequential on one dimension to the abstract random
on the other. A 20 question instrument give scores from 30 to
70. I line them up and create groups. It come from a value
clarification
process. I also use a form of nominal group process. (ask if you
want to know more about this).
The biggest problem is FREE RIDER,
people who what to take credit for others work - the Little red
hen problem. I don't have a good answer except that's life and
to have the groups assign roles so that everyone has an equal
share of work to do. Group pressures are greater than anything
I can come up with but even that doesn't always do it. I have
a big sign up that says OUT WITH FREE RIDERS - if people don't
do their part the group should not put their name on it and you
get no credit.
Its fun, its easy, the students are happier and do better.
There is less conflict and every class is an adventure you look
forward to.
Synergy and
The New School Reform:
How could we provide Internet education to home-schools and
non-public schools? Is it possible to have a SLIP/PPP connection
to networks? Could we provide a structured path- way to learning
in an open environment?
We estimate there are 10,000 innovative and creative schools
in every part of the country.
These schools are mostly ungraded,
use individualized
instruction,
self paced learning; children are encouraged to learn on their
own and work effectively in groups, children help each other and
do peer tutoring.
These schools are friendly and happy places
where teachers guide and students learn.
They are socially stable
over time, people know and love each other. About 300,000
students
go to these schools with joy in the morning.
There are no drugs,
guns, or violence; few discipline problems and most of the
students
are above average on national tests.
These schools cost less than
50% of the national average expenditure and are clearly better
places to teach and learn. What is the common factor? What is
the magic?
They are SMALL.
The crisis in American Education involves quality, politics and
testing, and a new model for schools.
The small school linked
to a learning community by communications technology can be a
major path to reform.
There are from 500,000 to 1 million home scholars.
The majority are religious (80%) but almost all are concerned
with a quality education.
They are well organized and have
home-school
meeting and newsletters.
There are home-school facilities on
American
on Line, CompuServe, Prodigy , etc.
These don't help much are
relatively expensive.
How can we have these thousands of successful schools working
in almost every county and town in the country and so few know
about it? It is because they are non-public. About two-thirds
are religious.
The Catholics, ( over a third of the students)
Seventh Day Adventist, Lutherans, Episcopal, Mennonites, Amish,
Presbyterian, Baptist and other established churches run many
fine small schools.
The majority of non-public schools (not
students)
are evangelical and started for religious reasons.
There are
thousands
of small cooperative, parent run, or private schools in America.
Many are day care centers are expanding into the elementary
grades.
Discussion Total Quality
In 1950 W. Edwards Deming, an industrial engineer, introduced
to Japan a method of statistical quality control. Over the last
several decades Deming's approach has become well-known as
quality
control circles. An analysis of Deming shows there is a basic
misunderstanding of evaluation in manufacturing. Similar
confusion
is shown by belief that objective testing is likely to improve
educational quality.
A central point in this discussion is the difference between
standards and quality. Multiage grouping in schools can achieve
quality when people of various ages work together to achieve
results
of distinction. "
The Total Quality Classroom"
(Bonstingl,
1992) applies to education Deming's 14 principles for Total
Quality
Management (TQM). John Jay Bonstingl sees relevant similarities
of business organizations and schools. Alan M. Blankstein (1992)
explains how five of Deming's principles translate into school
terms. Principals and superintendents are management or
leadership;
teachers are employees, leaders, and managers; students are
employees;
student knowledge is the product; parents and society are
customers;
legislators are the board of directors. Lewis A. Rhodes explores
TQM concepts concerning values. He points to importance of the
totality of educational organizations.
Work processes encompass a unified system. Synergy "In
a school, everything important touches everything else of
importance,"
notes
Theodore Sizer recognizing "the synergistic character
of a school"
(Sizer, 1991, p. 32).
"No Pain, No Gain" suggests restructuring often
involves
painful break with tradition. Effective change demands attention
to all parts of a school. "
The Quality School"
(Glasser,
1990) is an adaptation of the book by the same name where
psychiatrist
William Glasser, MD, examines educational application of TQM. In
analysis of control theory, motivation theory, and non- coercive
management employed by "lead-managers," Glasser
recognizes
naturally resulting high- quality educational outcomes. Our
system
must encourage lead-management in teachers and principals. It
must discourage "boss- management," a scientific
management
approach employing fear, coercion, and intimidation. Because of
district office bureaucratic power struggles, Glasser feels lead-
management usually must be initiated at the building level. He
sees teachers and principals as leaders who can make a real
difference
in producing high quality American schools.
Quality Versus
Standards
It is not easy to understand the difference BUT VERY IMPORTANT
One is INTERNAL the
other EXTERNAL. one comes from inside out, the other from outside
in.
Can quality be defined, or is it more accurate to view quality
as a recognizable characteristic? Quality isn't something you
lay on top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas
tree. Real Quality must be the source of the subjects and
objects,
the cone from which the tree must start. To arrive at this
Quality
requires a somewhat different procedure from . . . . "Step
1, Step 2, Step 3" instructions . . . (Pirsig, 1974, p.
262).
"Quality can be defined only in terms of the agent. Who is
the judge of quality?" (Deming, 1986, p. 168).
Deming sees determination of quality as involving three
agents,
including workers and managers as well as customers. Deming's
philosophy represents a conceptual shift in how we view
organizations.
Quality does not result from inspection. Inspection and standards
reduce rather than promote excellence. Quotas, targets,
inspections,
and slogans exhorting persons to work harder and faster do not
motivate.
They merely defeat the purpose.
We must pay attention to process, but effective process cannot
be prescribed. It is developed through attention to guiding
principles.
Process in any organization is unique. Harmonious relations
should
bloom spontaneously as flowers do. It is a poor workshop where
operators and foremen are considered to be part of the machinery
and required to do a job specified by set standards. What
constitutes
a human being is the ability to think. A workshop [and a school]
should become . . . place[s] where people can think and use their
wisdom (Ouchi, 1981, p. 228). Inspection of schooling through
instruments such as standardized tests does not improve quality.
Emphasis on teamwork rather than on individual competition
enhances
productivity. Grades and similar assessment measures do not
promote
excellence.
They defeat it. Some leaders forget an important
mathematical
theorem that if 20 people are engaged on a job, 2 will fall at
the bottom 10 per cent, no matter what . . . .
The important problem is not the bottom 10 per cent, but who
is statistically out of line and in need of help (Deming, 1986,
p. 56). Asking teachers and schools to rework mistakes following
years of system failure is not a feasible path to improved
educational
outcomes. Parents and communities must work with teachers and
administrators in developing and adapting a process capable of
yielding educated, skilled, value-driven youth. Adapting Deming
to schools involves restructuring our educational organizations
as dramatically as the Japanese restructured their business
organizations.
Dewey's presence can be seen in efforts to adapt Deming to
education.
Thinking and Doing
Schools must, as Dewey advised, reconnect thinking and doing.
Group and teamwork, projects, integrated curriculum, peer
tutoring,
and teacher as facilitator reflect views of both Dewey and
Deming.
Multiage nongraded grouping is a logical framework where such
educational approaches can work. In education as in industry
"defects
are not free. Somebody makes them, and gets paid for making
them"
(Deming, 1986, p. 11). Rework of defective goods is not free;
it is expensive.
The product of schools is student knowledge.
When student knowledge is defective, it must be reworked,
compounding
time and expense. Members of the educational community who define
quality -- students, teachers, administrators, and society must
have input into our system of education. As organizations mature
and grow in size, they tend to become more structured and
bureaucratic.
Bureaucracy separates thinking from doing (teacher-proof
curriculum,
textbooks, etc.). Under scientific management the doer merely
follows instructions. Doers are often placed in difficult and
unmotivating circumstances.
There may be fool-proof systems, but often the fools are too
clever. This results in more inspections, more layers of
management,
more bureaucracy. Years after publication of A Nation at Risk
(1983), American Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker
notes implementation of numerous and various school reforms
throughout
our country. Largely, these attempts have not positively affected
student learning (Shanker, 1990). Often in education sound ideas
are found "ineffective" following poor implementation.
Sometimes implementors fail to follow guidelines closely
enough.
Cooperative Learning Strategies and Children. ERIC Digest.
Author(s): Lyman, Lawrence; Foyle, Harvey C. ERIC Clearinghouse
on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Urbana, Ill. THIS
DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT
ACCESS ERIC 1-800- LET-ERIC
Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy involving
children's
participation in small group learning activities that promote
positive interaction. This digest discusses the reasons for using
cooperative learning in centers and classrooms, ways to implement
the strategy, and the long-term benefits for children's
education.
WHY TRY COOPERATIVE LEARNING?
Cooperative learning promotes academic achievement, is
relatively
easy to implement, and is not expensive. Children's improved
behavior
and attendance, and increased liking of school, are some of the
benefits of cooperative learning (Slavin, 1987). Although much
of the research on cooperative learning has been done with older
students, cooperative learning strategies are effective with
younger
children in preschool centers and primary classrooms. In addition
to the positive outcomes just noted, cooperative learning
promotes
student motivation, encourages group processes, fosters social
and academic interaction among students, and rewards successful
group participation. CAN COOPERATIVE LEARNING BE USED IN EARLY
CHILDHOOD CLASSES? When a child first comes to a structured
educational
setting, one of the teacher's goals is to help the child move
from being aware only of himself or herself to becoming aware
of other children. At this stage of learning, teachers are
concerned
that children learn to share, take turns, and show caring
behaviors
for others. Structured activities which promote cooperation can
help to bring about these outcomes.
One of the most consistent research findings is that
cooperative
learning activities improve children's relationships with peers,
especially those of different social and ethnic groups. When
children
begin to work on readiness tasks, cooperation can provide
opportunities
for sharing ideas, learning how others think and react to
problems,
and practicing oral language skills in small groups. Cooperative
learning in early childhood can promote positive feelings toward
school, teachers, and peers.
These feelings build an important
base for further success in school.
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING FOR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL STUDENTS?
According to Glasser (1986), children's motivation to work
in elementary school is dependent on the extent to which their
basic psychological needs are met. Cooperative learning increases
student motivation by providing peer support. As part of a
learning
team, students can achieve success by working well with others.
Students are also encouraged to learn material in greater depth
than you might otherwise have done, and to think of creative ways
to convince the teacher that you have mastered the required
material.
Cooperative learning helps students feel successful at every
academic
level. In cooperative learning teams, low-achieving students can
make contributions to a group and experience success, and all
students can increase their understanding of ideas by explaining
them to others (Featherstone 1986). Components of the cooperative
learning process as described by Johnson and Johnson (1984) are
complimentary to the goals of early childhood education. For
example,
well-constructed cooperative learning tasks involve positive
interdependence
on others and individual accountability. To work successfully
in a cooperative learning team, however, students must also
master
interpersonal skills needed for the group to accomplish its
tasks.
Cooperative learning has also been shown to improve relationships
among students from different ethnic backgrounds. Slavin (1980)
notes: "Cooperative learning methods"
Cooperative Learning: Grouping Students for Success
Coperative Computer Learning with Cooperative Task and Reward
Structures
Susan R. Seymour
Introduction
America is in a recession that is strangling budgets and
challenging
educational administrators to stretch existing resources.
Compounding
this challenge is the ever changing field of computer technology
and the dire need to educate a technically competent work force.
Currently, the United States is falling behind technological
leaders
such as Japan and Britain in our attempts to educate a
technological
work force. Although the reasons for this lack of success in
teaching
technology are diverse, the most common barriers are financial.
These financial barriers are most noticeable in the regional
inequities
between suburban and rural schools and are manifested in the lack
of computer equipment in schools, or outdated equipment not being
replaced. (Mruk, 1987)
Therefore, the teaching of computer
technology
is faced with a distinct educational problem: how can we educate
more students using limited computer resources without
sacrificing
student aptitude or enjoyment of the learning event? Cooperative
learning provides a plausible solution. Cooperative learning is
a teaching strategy that encourages student success by
alleviating
overt competitiveness and substituting group encouragement. In
cooperative learning, individuals work with their peers to
achieve
a common goal rather than competing against their peers or
working
separately from them.
Research on the benefits of cooperative learning has shown
an increase in academic achievement, positive attitudes towards
learning and increased student satisfaction.
Review of the Related Literature
Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement
The
effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement has been
well documented and research suggests that cooperative learning
produces greater than the achievement than traditional learning
methodologies. In fact, a review completed by Slavin in 1984,
found that 63% of all cooperative learning studies analyzed
showed
increases in academic achievement. Slavin's review isolated the
prominent characteristics responsible for increased achievement
scores and discovered that cooperative task structures and
cooperative
reward structures were the two determining factors in the success
of cooperative learning. This data is supported again in Slavin's
1990 meta-analysis when he concludes that methods emphasizing
group goals and individual accountability are consistently more
effective in increasing student achievement than other forms of
cooperative learning. Although this holds true for the majority
of research, a study completed by Okebukola (1985) included
individual
accountability and group goals and showed no significant positive
effects on achievement. In addition, research conducted by Rich,
Amir, and Slavin (1986) incorporated individual accountability
and group goals but showed negative effects on achievement.
Cooperative Learning Effects Other Than Achievement
Cooperative
learning models have shown effects other than academic
achievement
that contribute to the overall satisfaction of course
participants
(Salend & Sonnenschein, 1989). A wide variety of social
benefits
have been documented. Such benefits include: promotion of
positive
attitudes toward schooling (Johnson & Johnson, 1978),
promotion
of group socialization and cohesiveness (Slavin, 1990), decreased
prejudicial attitudes (Johnson & Johnson, 1978; Slavin,
1990),
encouragement of risk taking (Johnson & Johnson, 1975),
fostering
of self esteem (Slavin, 1990) and increased ability to see
another's
perspective (Slavin, 1990). Cooperative Learning and the Computer
In almost all schools the number of students far exceeds the
number
of computers, however, individualistic education has dominated
the use of computers (Dickson & Vereen, 1983). One student
per computer is the tradition and few have challenged this in
the research arena, although understanding the effects of
cooperation
at the computer could have economic as well as academic
benefits.
One untapped resource for education of computers is peer
tutoring.
Peer tutoring is the cooperation between two or more students
in which one student actively takes on the teaching role. It has
been an effective cooperative behavior in fostering intellectual
and social growth (Hill & Helburn, 1981). In a recent study
by Teer Teer & McKnight (1988), students using peer tutoring
gained greater computer and relational skills than students
working
independently. Mehan (1985) suggests a natural tendency for
students
to collaborate at the computer regardless of adult supervision.
Mehan states9 that when students are placed at a computer and
"left to their own devices....(you) work out the details
of task completion themselves, resulting in voluntary instead
of compulsory forms of instructional activity". This
tendency
for students to rely on each other to work out problems is at
the heart of cooperative learning. Research directly relating
cooperative learning with computers is limited, but some
excellent
studies have been completed by Webb (1984) and Oh (1988). Webb's
study evaluated group effectiveness in the teaching of computer
programming to 30 students ranging in age from 11 to 14.
The study dealt extensively with group planning and processing
involved in the breakdown and dissemination of knowledge. Webb
also looked at the relationship of cooperative groups to
increased
academic achievement and found that cooperative group learning
was positively related to academic performance for students
learning
BASIC (a computer programming language). A study conducted at
Illinois State University by doctoral student Hyun-an Oh (1988),
looked at the effects of both cooperative and individualistic
incentive and task structures on achievement in computer
programming.
His study ran for seven weeks during which he compared the
performance
of 114 university students enrolled in a introductory
microcomputer
course under three treatments.
The treatments were variations
of cooperative task, cooperative incentive, individualistic task
and individualistic incentive. Oh's findings indicated that there
were no differences in achievement between cooperative learning
with computers and individualistic learning with computers. He
also concluded that incentive made no difference in student
achievement
for either cooperative structures or individualistic structures.
This conclusion was drawn from the fact that students who had
no incentive performed as well as students with incentive in both
cooperative and individualistic treatments.
Back To Global Village: