Select
a different paper
Download an entire copy of the paper
Educational administrators have been overwhelmed by technology and the speed at which new information has swept into schools. Two common areas require study: 1. how do we best use technology in an educational setting, and 2. how do we support teachers learning about technology so they can employ best teaching practices? Common questions curriculum developers ask include: What should be included in curriculum? What is age appropriate material? What resources provide the best support? How will the curriculum best meet the learning opportunities for students? How do you integrate technology into all the subject areas? How do you best use technology in the classroom? What learning strategies support technology in the classroom? Besides these very important questions, another issue emerges. How does the school-based administrator support his/her staff in this area? In this paper, I will examine the characteristics of a classroom that successfully integrate technology into curriculum and consider the qualities needed by administration to support such an environment. I will present my viewpoints and personal bias in this area, support this from the literature, critique the information and share my experiences to formulate conclusions.
This is my twenty-first year as an educator, twelve of which have been in administration. When I was a vice-principal I began to question the way students are taught in the public system. I taught mostly grade seven and eight during this period and was frustrated with trying to meet the needs of students who ranged in ability from grade three to eleven. In the primary grades there are differences in the developmental stages of students. However, it is my opinion that by the time the students reach the senior grades, many of them have not progressed and have fallen further and further behind throughout the years. Yet educators continue to pass them along to the next grade and force a curriculum on them that is above their level.
When the Adaptive Dimension was introduced to educators, it was met with resistance. This document, designed by Saskatchewan Education, was an attempt to meet individual needs within a graded classroom structure. Strategies and techniques are described in this document to address the needs of students who are different types of learners, who have different abilities and who are at different developmental stages. Teachers I work with feel overwhelmed in trying to meet the needs of individuals in their classroom where there could be students with ten or more different levels of learning, and teachers are not skilled in operating a classroom that focuses on individual stages of development.
I began looking at how an educator could meet the needs of students without having to adapt all subject areas to meet the individual differences. One factor was evident. My grade eight students had a wide variety of skills and many of them lacked the basic skills they needed in order to understand the work that lay ahead of them. Many had been pushed through the system only to encounter more and more challenging work.
With increased frustration from not being able to do the assigned work, and receiving poor grades and critical feedback, students became discouraged. Many students who entered my grade eight class had already ‘written off’ education. Their self-esteem suffered and most had given up trying to achieve.
During these years I began thinking about a different way to structure classrooms, and even schools. At the same time I was also learning about technology. We had had computers in schools for several years, but they were mostly run by ‘the computer expert’ in the school. Many teachers did not know how to even turn on a computer, much less teach students about them. I had begun a masters degree program and my own personal journey into learning about technology.
I was so excited about what I was learning I created opportunities to share some of the information with my students. They were so motivated that I began to recognize that technology could make a difference in my classroom. I also started experimenting with how I could meet my students’ diverse needs with technology. I spent countless hours consulting with other teachers who had similar interests. My staff took advantage of professional development opportunities and together we learned about strategies and techniques we could use in our classrooms.
It was during my own training that I realized that I could benefit my students, and also as an administrator that I could motivate and support my staff to learn more about using technology. During the last twelve years, three of which I have now spent as a Principal, I have discovered some key components to assisting staff growth in using technology.
In the field of education, the term ‘educational technology’ is widely used and defined in various ways. Some consider technology as hardware, the devices that deliver information and serve as tools to accomplish a task. However, for teachers in the field who use technology, educational technology refers to a systematic process of solving problems by scientific means. Hence, educational technology then refers to a particular approach. Instructional technology refers to the use of such technological processes specifically for teaching and learning.
Instructional Technology has been defined in many ways. I believe it can be viewed as the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning. These words embrace the key components of this term, where as Educational Technology can be described as a confluence of hardware, software and teaching practice. Educational technologies are not simply the tools of educators - although this is a popular misconception; rather they are the knowledge, values and practices that constitute the development and use of those tools. This simple definition encompasses the main concept that technology in the classroom should be used as a tool rather than a subject. How one uses this tool effectively is open for interpretation.
In order thoroughly examine this topic, there were two avenues I followed. I looked for resources relating to developmental learning, child-centered classrooms and the best teaching practices in the integration of technology. Then I reviewed administrative support and specifically how principals monitor teacher supervision. Action taken by principals in schools can help create an atmosphere of risk-taking and trust. If teachers are going to implement the changes that educational technology offers to classrooms they must feel affirmed by management.
It was during the review of the literature in this area that I developed an appreciation for the complexity of this topic. I therefore, decided to weave the information throughout my paper. As a result of the literature review I was able to find commonalities between integrating technology in the classroom and child-centered classrooms. It is for this reason that I started by looking at how a developmental approach and a child-centered classroom support technology integration. Then I present the information about how administrators can help create an environment conducive to this style of teaching and ultimately how they support and influence teachers in using technology.
To begin, it is important to examine the advantages of developmental learning and child-centered classrooms. If educators are to understand how technology can make a difference in class settings, they must first recognize the importance for students to direct their learning and have choices. This is not a new notion; it has been a significant topic for many years.
Prior to the 18th century, western writers tended to view children as miniature adults and expected them to learn the same way adults do. Williams (1987) wrote an article called Determining the Curriculum in which he outlined some patterns of history in this area. Rousseau discussed developmental stages young children moved through as they matured. G. Stanley Hall, who lived from 1844 1924, criticized a previous report that suggested that children should all be taught the same way. He was one of the first to suggest a child-centered approach to education. Having been influenced by Herbart, Hall developed a concept of developmental stages. However, these stages were interpreted as ones that should be delivered in graded classrooms. From that time forward the education debate about how children learn best began (Cotton, 1992). The work of such key figures as John Dewey, Maria Montessori and Jean Piaget all influenced the opinion that young children’s ways of learning are different from older children or adults and that learning activities need to be responsive to these changing developmental needs.
Even fifty years ago, educational changes occurred that have impacted the way we teach children. In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s there was a major thrust to educate children differently. Williams (1987) cites that the launching of the Russian Sputnik satellite in 1957 left the government feeling inadequate and the pressure bounced back to the education system to improve the quality of learning. Today, a number of professionals advocate developmental approaches, including psychologists, researchers, educators, legislators, and child development specialists.
Allowing students to learn developmentally suggests a self-directed curriculum. Glasgow (1997) prefers to think of students learning through a problem-centered curriculum, which emphasizes the resolution of problems and is thought to fit well in interdisciplinary learning and teaching. Glasgow states that learning is a result of becoming engaged in a problem one cares about. This design is most suited to combining perspectives and knowledge, which form a variety of disciplines.
Wien (1995) clarifies what allowing children to learn developmentally means. It does not mean the child is allowed to do anything he/she wishes. A developmentally appropriate practice focuses on the individual and the child is viewed as an active seeker of knowledge. The teacher is the stakeholder of responsibility for facilitating the learning but the child is given choice and allowed pace in the activity. Teachers provide a wide variety of activities and materials and present some plans for carrying out the activities in many different ways. Some activities could be more conducive to group work. Although the learning is child-centered and holistic, the teacher emphasizes mastery of specific content and is still the key-holder to the doors of which content and which skills are necessary.
The learner-centered design is a specific approach that makes the learner’s interest and needs central to the process of using a developmental curriculum. Teachers provide the learning objectives, resources, assessment tools, and alternative paths. However, these are guides rather than prescriptions for student learning. This model needs to include a complex array of strategies and techniques teachers can use. A totally individualized program is not easily compatible with mass public education. What is needed is a curriculum that is essentially student-centered with tactics that allow teachers to instruct without a great deal of preparation work. If the student is central to the learning, then the responsibility of learning shifts from the teacher to the learner.
In thinking about child-centered classrooms, we must also consider how subject integration is another part of strategic planning used by teachers. Tools such as technology provide a doorway for the inclusion of subject matter with the ability to explore and discover ways to locate and present information. I spoke with Shirley Coupal, a teacher at Francis Elementary School (personal communication, July 20, 2001) about two research papers she wrote about on this topic. She concluded in her research that teachers, in general, are interested in learning about how to use technology in their classrooms but are not as ready to take on the task of integrating curriculum. They continue to teach individual curricula and many of them teach computers as a separate subject. Even in multi-grade classrooms teachers spend their time dividing themselves between grades while students wait their return.
What Coupal found in her research is that the structure of the education system does not support integration of subjects because of formal structures such as graded texts, long range plans for grade levels and curriculum that is grade centered. The strategies that teachers need to develop, which reflect a more developmental method, include such tactics as thematic teaching, whole group teaching, small groups according to interests, literature circles and choice of assignments to name a few. She indicated that reading the research in this area has changed the way she teaches. She feels that the preparation work that needs to be done to originally shift your thinking is a bit overwhelming, but very worthwhile. Coupal also suggested that the rewards that come with a learning-engaged classroom far exceed the efforts made during the groundwork.
Mallory and New (1994) examined the way students learn and specifically studied cultural and developmental diversity. Their research indicated that children learn in many ways. The ideal classroom, which is culturally sensitive, is described as inclusive, spacious enough to incorporate what children construct together, and open-minded enough to allow children to bring with them the cultures of home and community. Children continually draw on what they already know and children’s learning is shaped by their own way of interpreting and responding to school situations and activities. The concept that all children learn differently is amplified by the fact that various cultures impact on the way they learn as well.
There are many differences in the way people learn. Teaching developmentally means honouring the diversity and pace at which children grow. Teachers are conflicted in a graded school system. A graded system rushes children through the designated program at a pace teachers determine appropriate and does not always take into account any individual differences. It is not that graded systems don’t address these differences but by the nature of a graded system, students move through grades regardless of their stage of learning.
There is a significant body of information available on developmental learning and student-centered classrooms. However, if education systems are to motivate teachers to move in this direction, professional development is key in providing experiences that are informative and practical. With tight budgets professional development is often one of the first things to be cut. But if teachers are to become comfortable with the technologies that will reshape schools, they must receive both pre-service training during their college years and in-service training during their careers. They need after-school workshops, summer sessions, and time off from their classes to learn how technology is being used elsewhere. They also need to be able to observe their colleagues' classrooms and talk with them so that they can unlearn old practices and build new ones. In the long run, for technology to succeed, as much time and money must be invested in teachers as is invested in the actual hardware and software.
In thinking about the kind of environment necessary for developmental learning and student-centered approaches, a second major topic surfaces for school principals. What is the role of administrators? How do administrators balance their responsibilities as managers, educational leaders, budget experts, role models, master teachers, confidants, curriculum monitors, staff supervisors, facilities advisors and student disciplinarians? It can be overwhelming to consider the responsibility that lays on the shoulders of the principal. Everything that is printed ultimately says that the accountability rests with the principal of the school.
I have felt that despite the many roles I play in my position, the most important role is that of supporting my staff. After all, it is my staff working in ‘the trenches’ with the children. If I’m going to make a difference with children, I must make a difference with the people directly involved with them. A happy staff translates into happy children. If I want a positive learning environment, I must take the time to make sure that staff is well informed, educated and open to new ideas and supported in their everyday practice. This can be a very challenging task.
When I began my first year as principal I asked myself how I could support my staff in creating a positive learning atmosphere. I knew that prior to knowing how I could support my staff, I needed to think about what I was trying to achieve. There were several questions that came to mind. What kind of atmosphere what I striving for in my school? If the evidence that a child-centered classroom is desirable, then how do I help my staff learn about this approach? How do children learn best? How do I help my staff understand the issues related to those children at risk? How do I support my staff in learning how to integrate technology into their classrooms? All these questions needed to be answered in order to know what kind of atmosphere I would like to see in my school and how I can then support my staff in creating that atmosphere.
This year in becoming a community school, the whole question of how we can help students at risk became even more important. Since approximately half of the school population would be described as at-risk, I started looking for information on how to help students who come from disadvantaged homes. That, in combination with the information I found on the importance of beginning children’s education in a child-centered classroom, was my motivation for studyinghow pre-kindergarten classes create this atmosphere.
According to Better Beginnings, Better Futures (1997), a Saskatchewan document on the policies and guidelines for pre-kindergarten, children living in poverty suffer greater risks and have a markedly inferior quality of life in comparison to economically advantaged children. I know that in my school, this is evident. Every day I see teachers struggle with children who have poor school performance, emotional or behavioral disorders, social impairment and chronic health problems. This document emphasizes the need for early intervention and preventive programming for children. By focusing on nurturing self-esteem, school success, speech and language development of three and four year olds, we can create a better beginning for vulnerable children. This handbook sites that research has revealed early intervention as key in reducing remediation education, welfare and even crime later. The philosophies and ideals of student-centered classrooms described in this book could also apply to older students as well. In fact, there are many approaches to early childhood education that apply to older students.
In observing several pre-kindergarten classrooms, it was evident that not only was this a critical time to develop literacy opportunities and skills that are needed in school and in life, but this is also a wonderful place to observe young children in an atmosphere where choice, exploration and discovery are honoured. I was amazed at how the teachers designed their classrooms and their daily plans to allow these three and four year olds the ability to direct their own learning and to freely interact with others. I remember thinking how motivated the students were in the classrooms I visited and how the interactions with their teachers were so purposeful and unobtrusive. All teachers need to decide if it is better to control student’s learning or act as facilitators or guides in the student’s learning process.
Educational technologists are aware of the impact of student motivation. However, the technological windstorm of the last decade has swept across the educational field and left most people standing dumbfounded in its path. One factor is evident. Technology can be used as a motivational tool in the classroom, provided teachers know how to use it.
Catchings and MacGregor (1989) studied children in grades one and four, and found that an electronic paint program was far superior to paper-based drawing for motivating children. They found that students using this program produced superior work with more thought and detail than the traditional paper-based group. The study also found differences in the interaction among students, editing mistakes, creativity levels, and quests for a polished product. They discovered that the electronic paint programs have significant advantages over paper-based drawing. Paint pictures were more creative and the stories accompanying them were longer and more interesting, and the more intricate the picture, the more detailed the accompanying story.
Coburn (1998) extensively describes ways we can use students in the classroom as computer experts. She explores the idea that instead of being the recipients of education, students can take significant responsibility for their own learning. By giving students opportunities and choices that enable them to construct their own knowledge, we allow students to take a leadership role in their own education. Coburn looks specifically at technology as one place students can surpass their teacher’s knowledge. Instead of teachers fearing this, they should embrace this as a way they can build on students abilities to explore, to expand their own knowledge, and to teach others in the process.
My experience has been that those teachers who fear technology in the classroom are also those who feel they need to know everything themselves before teaching it to the students. In my opinion there is a parallel between teachers who fear technology and teachers who fear giving up control in their rooms. If we’re going to develop student-centered classrooms, I believe that this element is key in helping teachers.
Catchings and MacGregor (1989) and Coburn (1998) describe the motivational benefits to having students working with technology. However, I believe the more significant findings center around the concept of allowing students the freedom to explore. The more I read in this area, the more I believe that teachers need to create environments which allow students opportunities to make choices in their own learning. Teachers need to let go of the notion that they are losing control of their class if the students go in a direction unfamiliar to the teacher.
The kind of pre-service preparation teachers received in Teacher’s College is much different than the emphasis now in the education program at the University of Regina. Even a decade ago, critical qualities of a competent teacher included organization and structure. A teacher was expected to students ‘manageable’ at all times. If teachers allowed too much noise or if there were students all over the classroom, one would judge them as lacking control. The interesting thing is that if some of those classrooms did lack control, it was often because teachers did not know how to combine organization with the student-centered philosophy. They seemed opposite to one another by nature.
It is interesting to compare the similarities of allowing students choices to the philosophy of technology integration. It is obvious that one of the strengths of having technology available in the classroom is allowing children to make choices about their learning. Allowing discovery and exploration is parallel for both students and teachers
Students need to have the freedom to explore just as teachers need to risk trying new lessons and teaching strategies. If we’re going to support teachers in learning about technology, we must first support teachers in exploring the tool of technology. We also need to help them not only understand the importance of using technology as a tool, but also how to integrate technology in creative ways in their classrooms to make better learning environments.
So what role does the teacher play in helping students learn through technology? One of the most important tasks is providing opportunities for children to explore. This is where organization and planning becomes as important as in structured, more formal class settings. Developing a differentiated learning approach in a classroom allows for students to use computers and other technological tools throughout the day, not just in a ‘computer’ period. True integration happens when the mindset of the class is such that students have time to either use their classroom computers for presenting information in new ways or to use the Internet as another way to locate information.
Trawick-Smith (1994) points out that sometimes teachers over-participate in children’s activities. If teachers are too domineering or directive, the course of a child’s self-chosen path becomes dependent on teacher direction. Trawick-Smith describes four appropriate times to intervene: to increase play involvement and social participation, to enhance play skills, to capitalize on teachable moments, and to make personal contact with students. The importance of knowing how and when to intervene is a true skill. Teachers who experience difficulty with integration in their classrooms need to learn about and practice these skills daily.
If we’re going to suggest to teachers that technology integration be a part of children’s everyday experience, we’ve got to show the correlation between this strategy and literacy. Rog (2001) describes how children are more likely to engage in literacy-based activities with a multi-resource approach. Teachers become facilitators of resources and writing tools, and are role models in this activity. Rog suggests that a classroom designed to promote optimal literacy development is full of materials to support reading, writing, and speaking. These materials should be in clearly marked locations and are accessible to children. The integration of technology, therefore, is not a replacement for books, articles, maps, encyclopedias or other paper materials. Educational technology is designed to be one more resource in the classroom to use in a child’s learning. The design of the classroom is to approach literacy through enjoyment. Literacy centers, which could include technological equipment, should accommodate quiet, individual learning spaces as well as a larger shared area for read-alouds, shared reading, modeled writing and a author’s chair.
Making information about ways to create a positive learning environment and available to teachers in a way that they’ll accept it is challenging. It’s one thing to know this information, but quite another to help your staff learn about it. A saying I’ve always remembered, but don’t recall where it was from is: ‘It’s funny how people don’t appreciate that you know what’s best for them.’ After all who are we to judge what’s best for anyone? However, in my role as principal, I do know that if staff are going to listen to any advice I give them, they must first respect me and trust my ability to lead. In working with my staff, I first begin by helping staff feel good about what they already know, and then build on that.
I believe that everyone needs to feel they can succeed if they are going to work at being successful. That includes students, teachers, and staff members. I began my very first staff meeting with the phrase, “Everyone counts in this building. There is no one more important than anyone else, and that includes me. It takes every single person here doing their best work in order to create the kind of school that makes a difference for kids.” It’s one thing to make a statement like that and another to live it. I work every day at making sure that all the people in my building feel valued. I know that if I did not have a positive secretary answering phones, that my first contact with the public was tainted. I know that if my caretaker does not clean the school, the impression left on the visitors and the people in the building is spoiled. I know that every person working in the classrooms has to go in there every day without their individual biases, with their personal circumstances set aside and with a dedicated, positive attitude towards working with those people whom the school is committed to: the students.
My role as leader in the school means that I have to find a way to keep these important people feeling good about their work. A positive atmosphere doe not just occur by accident. People create it. I have learned that a positive atmosphere is promoted when a leader constructs a set of circumstances that allows people to feel great about the work they do, supports staff through challenges and leads by example. Yet this person must have the kind of qualities that allow him/her to make decisions based on the needs of the students in the school. One of my favourite leadership phrases reminds me of the kind of leader I try to be:
“A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the quality of his actions and the integrity of his intent. In the end, leaders are much like eagles…they don’t flock, you find them one at a time.”Anonymous
Appreciating the needs of the staff while keeping the needs of the students in mind can be difficult. There are times when the decisions made by the staff conflict with the well being of the students. That’s what makes this task so difficult.
I continue to look for keys that determine what makes a difference in working with people. There is one component that I use with staff and students alike in trying to make a difference. That component is helping people see that they are the result of the choices they make. The actions that accompany this include: helping the people in your building believe that they have the ability to make choices that can turn their own day or a child’s day around; helping people know that ‘having a bad day’ is a choice, not something that happens to you; helping people believe that we need to celebrate the good choices we make and learn from the poor choices; and finally, talking about striving for dreams one step at a time and getting back up when something has pushed you down. All of these things return to the word, ‘choice’.
It has occurred to me that the power of all positive learning environments revolves around that concept of choice. Teachers sometimes continue to make choices based on out-dated information. Having said that, it is important to recognize that not all older approaches are bad. Teachers need to take from their experiences of what works with children and combine that with new information and educational approaches. If teachers have not received any current information on things like the educational technology, they are still basing their teaching practices on information that was given to them decades ago. Although we have excellent professional development sessions that teachers can take advantage of, I find that they are torn between too many things to learn. Between new curriculums, new components like technology and ‘forced’ implementation of board expectations they have a difficult time just keeping up, much less finding time to do something innovative like exploring the art of developmental learning. I see teachers torn in many directions.
What I have found is that getting to know your staff and their experiences is critical in knowing how to help them grow. One must know where a person has come from before you can begin to make suggestions about where they should go. I also grapple with the question of whether that is even my role. Who am I to say what direction a staff member should go? Instead, I have made the decision to help staff see their options. I provide the opportunities for staff to consider their choices.
At every staff meeting I try to stimulate innovative thinking by introducing something different. This may be a video that makes a point, an interesting or controversial article, a quick game that builds staff relationships or an activity that allows staff to explore something new. This is one way a principal can model a different approaches to learning. I feel I must model new ideas if I want my staff value growth and change. Staff meetings are key times for promoting this idea.
There are many ways to engage in meaningful conversation with staff. I visit classrooms regularly to observe teachers. I often begin a conversation by asking the teacher to elaborate on something fascinating that I see happening. Those conversation can then lead to things like asking if I can share their ideas with others, asking if they’ve heard of ‘some new idea’ and if they are willing to let me share some information about it, asking about what motivates the teacher and building on that. Classroom visits are key to getting to know what is going on in your school.
Another opportunity I’ve tried to encourage my staff to take advantage of is a half-day visit to another classroom. If the teacher is willing, I set up a half day where I think an observation in a child-centered classroom would help a teacher grow and think about how they can work on differentiated lessons. Our Regina Board of Education offers a half-day per year for visitations. This can be a powerful tool if the match of teachers is a positive one.
In conjunction with this idea, the Regina Board has Technology Consultants and just this year we have an Adaptations and Differentiated Learning Consultant. These people are wonderful supports for teachers. They put on workshops and professional development events. They visit schools and consult personally with teachers. They provide training and assistance for such projects as Grassroots and Cyber Challenges, which are funded through Saskatchewan Education Grants. Now, we also have Cyber Mentors, which are teachers who have worked through two years of Cyber Challenges and act as tutors to others in the system. The more people who are trained, the more knowledge is shared among our teachers.
One very important idea every principal should embrace is that the decisions made in the school cannot be top down. Although there are decisions that require direction and good judgment that might come from administration, the inclusion of staff in a vision for the school helps teachers take ownership of the kind of environment that is to be created. In a community school, one wants input from staff, parents, community members and students. When you create a mission statement that includes everyone’s view of what the school is trying to accomplish, it is a useful tool for helping teachers reflect about their daily lessons.
I believe that there are many factors to consider in supporting staff in child-centered classrooms. Principals must be positive. That doesn’t mean that a critical look at the present environment isn’t important. One must look at what they’ve done and where they are before deciding where they want to go. A historical scan of the school is a useful way to look at key events and activities that have been an important part of the community without singling out individual teachers. However, taking time to create a shared vision begins with valuing everyone’s opinion. That means knowing the people in your building.
As principals develop relationships and build trust with staff, it will become evident which strengths each person possesses. Celebrating those strengths is key to building on them. It is rare that you can change a person by beginning with their weaknesses. My style of leadership has always been to work with the skills teachers have and expand on their knowledge by providing information and opportunities that give them the choice to try new strategies. I know that instinctively teachers want to do the best job they can and I have found that when given the opportunities to grow, they take pride in their accomplishments.
Helping staff create a student-centered classroom is about providing them with the information that supports this type of learning as well as supporting their growth. This means recommending resources, giving opportunities for teacher observations and allowing time to develop their new strategies one at a time. It also means providing moral support, intervening when parents are questioning new approaches and helping those parents understand why we’re making changes, and it also means permitting teachers to take risks and feel free to make mistakes along their journey. Letting your staff know that they are making a difference for kids is key in developing the courage it takes to attempt a whole new classroom approach to learning. Quality school and quality classrooms don’t just happen. They are planned. Willa A. Foster states this well:
“Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives."
The objective of this paper was to examine how developmental approaches using a child-centered classroom is related to technology integration and to examine how administrators support teachers in creating this type of learning environment. The word ‘developmental’ would suggest an individualistic curriculum with some forms of sequence and continuity. The learner’s progress is self-determined at the rate in which the pupil can or wishes to move forward. Not all learning is sequential and not all learning is dependent on instruction. While some classrooms are structured with very independent learning, most have some format of conformity to them. Child-centered classrooms offer a different paradigm for delivering curriculum.
In order to understand how teachers can link child-centered classrooms to technology, teachers must begin by understanding differentiated learning. Educating teachers is critical to implementing modifications, but the way that implementation is done is imperative to whether these changes are realized. That’s not to say that educators are the only ones who need to be convinced about the changes in the ways we teach students. However, if the educators themselves do not see the benefits, how will they respond to the concerns of the community?
Child-centered classrooms need to be seen as a preference and not a fad. Teachers need to understand the integration model in order to adapt the existing graded curriculum. Administrators need to see the advantages of this sub-structure of the education system and support their teachers by altering the format in which they require plans and goals. In addition, educators need to see that the implications of social interaction and emotional development in child-centered classrooms are favourable and desirable.
Most importantly, we need to continue to ask the key questions. The ‘what’ to teach is always dominant, but the ‘how’ to teach, the ‘when’ to teach, the ‘where’ do I find support and resources and the ‘who’ is this learning relevant to should be the backbone of all curriculum structures. We need to value critical thinking in both teachers and students.
I conclude by saying that the essence of what is really important originates from a belief that students are only beginning their education in schools and post-graduate institutions. Life is a continuous learning process and if we can spark the fire in students to embrace wisdom as central and critical to their well-being, we have truly accomplished success. Knowledge does not mean wisdom. Rather, wisdom relies on knowing what is important and what is irrelevant information to be used within each personal life. Essentially, this is honouring developmental learning by valuing the diversity, the pace and the individuality of each learner.
To be an administrator in a school and have the privilege of working with dedicated professionals and committed educators is truly an honour. It is exciting to be a part of fundamental changes occurring in classrooms. Every time I see a teacher become excited about a new concept, or watch as a teacher works through the growing pains of learning about new ideas, it inspires me to make a difference. I believe the support administrators give teachers is critical in creating an environment conducive to new approaches and innovative techniques. I know that through administration support, teachers feel the confidence to try and the courage to proceed.
Since success can only be measured intrinsically, I will end this paper with my own quote:
“We need teachers who teach with both their hearts and their heads, who care about students and don’t despair about curriculum, who ask many questions and accept many answers and who recognize that they will never have all the answers, but don’t give up trying to find them.” Donna Gavin (2001)
Catchings, M. H., & MacGregor, K. (1989). Stoking creative fires. Learning and Leading Through Technology, 25 (6), 20 – 23.
Coburn, J. (1998). Kids in charge. Technology and Learning, 20 (8), 24 – 29.
Cotton, K. (1992). Non-graded primary education. School ImprovementResearch Series. Northwest Regional Educational Library. Portland, OR. Retrieved Nov. 27, 2001 from www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/7/cu14.html
Glasgow, N.A. (1997). New curriculum
for new times: A guide to
student-centered, problem-based learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Mallory, B.L. & New, R. S. (1994). Diversity & developmentally appropriate practices. New York Teachers College, Columbia University.
Rog, Lori J. (2001) Early literacy instruction in kindergarten. Newark, Delaware. International Reading Association, Inc.
Saskatchewan Education. (1997). Better beginnings, better futures: Best practice policy and guidelines for pre-kindergarten in Saskatchewan community schools. Regina, Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Education.
Trawick-Smith, J. (1994). Interactions in the classroom: facilitating play in the early years. Toronto, ON: Maxwell Macmillan.
Walser, Nancy. (1998). Multi-age classrooms: An age-old grouping method is still evolving. Harvard Education Letter. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved Jan. 6, 2002. from www.edletter.org/past/issues/1998-jf/multiage.shtml
White, R & Stoecklin V. (2001).
Children’s outdoor play & learning environment: Returning to Nature.
Early Childhood Magazine. White Hutchinson
& Learning Group. Retrieved Dec. 6, 2001 from http://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/outdoor.shtml
Wien, Carol Anne. (1995). Developmentally appropriate practice in real life. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Williams, L. R. (1987) Determining the curriculum. C. in Seefeldt (Ed.). The early childhood curriculum: A review of current research. New York: Teachers College Press.