Observations from teacher training

For the most part of the first morning of teacher training I spent the day struggling to figure out the best way to apply myself and help. Jackie , Sam and I shared some of our feelings at lunch that as much as we wanted to jump in and help, we were extremely limited due to language barriers. The funny thing is that these language barriers did not so much separate us from the teachers, it separated us from the lesson. As the leaders of each group instructed the large groups there was no point when any of us knew what the teachers were supposed to do or hear. Several times teachers stopped me and asked me what the group leader just said and even though I may have heard it, the best response I could give was to shrug my shoulders helplessly or call someone else over. This inability to follow along with the lesson being taught forced me in to a casual observer role for most of the morning.

As I walked around and observed peoples interaction with the computer, facial expressions and body language, one thing that struck me was that people were all at different varieties of skill level. I think I took it for granted that most everyone would have limited to no exposure to computers and would all be about the same skill level (predictably poor). I was surprised to find a wide range of variation: a large number soundly computer literate people, asking questions about the hardware/ software and trying to plug in their flash drive; a good majority that seemed to be at least exposed to computers in some respect, able to recognize common attributes, functions and care and condition requirements; and still a third group (surprisingly small) that looked at the XO’s as if they came from outer space.

This got me to think: The best way to apply myself is to work individually/ in small groups for extended periods of time with people who were on either end of the spectrum. So that’s what I did. Each day of the teacher training I worked extensively with people who were either far ahead and bored, or far behind and had given up hope. From both of these groups I was very happy with the results and the teachers I worked with seemed very please for the personal attention as well.

Again, this got me to think: Are we structuring the groups best for optimal results? I assumed that a blanket approach to training would work most effective as most everyone would be at the same skill level. What has become apparent is that these groups of teachers are a lot more complex than I expected and it is my feeling that designing a catch all approach to training may severely hold many teachers back who could be potential stars (with this group we risk losing their attention and motivation), while simultaneously leaving behind a large group of teachers who are at risk of never using the XO unless they receive the attention they need.

While I like the idea of grouping people based on geography (this has some obvious benefits), other ideas of grouping have been based on a teacher’s subject or grade level. Why not group by skill level? I think that in grouping by skill level many efficiencies can be achieved that would benefit all. Three different programs can be developed that would all have the same baseline objectives with the only main differences being speed of learning the content, depth of learning content, breadth of activities the teacher is exposed to, level of individual attention versus free exploration etc. At different points during the training I was teaching turtle art to groups of math teachers who were bored after taking a few pictures, mastering memorize and exploring the other activities that seemed intuitive to them. The teachers picked up turtle art amazingly fast and were eager to create geometric figues and explore. Also at different points during the training I spent time instructing small groups of teachers who so gave up participating because they couldn’t figure out how to operate a touch pad. The learning that took place in each group was worlds apart and required a dramatically different approach to teaching. In addition, the things each group needs to know/ know how to do, and speed of pace to keep them engaged are also dramatically different. From a perspective of efficient allocation of resources, if we split up the groups according to skill level we can maximize our manpower. With the most advanced group, the instruction would require less instructors, be based more on free exploration with guiding direction and can have a stronger focus on developing lessons and teaching style: we can operate with lower “teacher to student” ratio (i.e. 1:25). With the least advanced group the teachers would need more individual attention, direct instruction, as well as general information about safety, care, how to plug in, the meaning of the different color lights (most of the stuff that is intuitive to someone familiar with computers) etc.: this would require a higher “teacher to student” ratio (i.e. 4:25). The middle group teacher to student ratio would be somewhere in between.

The obvious question is how to arrange these people into groups: off the top of my head I think it would work well to have each teacher fill out a self-assessment describing their history/ familiarity with the computers in general as well as the XO. Each group would have a baseline, where all teachers in that group would have to have “X” level of familiarity/skills. The bottom group of course would accept all others. There could be three main groups or programs prepared (everyone receives the same help/reference booklet) which I don’t think would take a lot of extra work and would pay big dividends in the end.

Also, as opposed to other issues that we face, I believe this is something within our control as well as within the realm of possibility. I think that approaching teacher training in this fashion will serve to accomplish three main goals:

1) efficient allocation human resources

2) customization of programs for people at dramatically different levels of skill including special attention to those who need it

3) the ability to be flexible and more fully develop teachers by providing support, motivation, and interaction that encompasses everyone (rather than aiming for the middle of the group).

Those are my observations and thought. That being said, I think the overall week of teacher training went very well. The teachers were a lot more receptive to the program than I expected and most seemed genuinely excited to be there. Also, I think they all learned a lot. My only regret is not having more time to show them more activities. A lot of the teachers got off to a slow start but by the last day they were begging to learn new things. Wish I could be there for round two!

Lesson ideas Using the XO

Grade Level: P6

Subject: Math

Lesson: Straight lines, angles and geometric shapes

Activity: Turtle Art and Paint

Using turtle art begin with the basic foundation angles instructing the students to construct 180, 90, 60 and 30 degree angles. To do this they will need to use a forward command and turn (either right or left) command followed by another forward command. In the turn command the children can experiment with different numbers signifying the degree of angle they choose to construct.

This simple activity leads to the logical next progression of what happens when you start adding more angles? The students can experiment creating different designs on Turtle Art for a brief period of time then the real challenge can begin.

The teacher can write two columns on separate note cards or on a chalk board. One column will contain a list of different shapes and the other column will contain the characteristic of each corresponding shapes. Going one by one down the list, the teacher can describe the shape using side lengths and angles, have the students draw the shape on paint to visualize the shape, and then challenge the students to come up with a series of commands on turtle art that correctly draws the shape. Once one of the students believes he has the answer he can verbalize the commands to the teacher who can write them on the board and ask the class if they agree or disagree and why? Then using a protractor and the chalk board the teacher can draw out the shapes as the commands dictate and test the students’ predictions. There are many ways to draw the same shape, even using different commands and once one set of commands works the students should be encouraged to think of other ways to draw the same shape.

Examples of Shapes that can be used:

Triangle – Isosceles, Right, Equilateral, Scalene

Quadrilateral – Rectangle, Square, Parrallegram, Trapezoid

Hexagon

Heptagon

Octagon

Circle … etc.

Examples of Lessons:

Lines of Symmetry

Pythagorean Theorem

Congruency

Perimeter

Area

Interior, Center, Exterior Angles

Compliment/ Supplement angles... etc.

After a few of these exercises the students can be turned loose to experiment and come up with shapes on their own as there is an unlimited number of ways to draw different shapes using Turtle Art. Homework and group work for this activity will be fun and interactive. Groups can be assigned to create complex geometric shapes or designs, even real life objects such as buildings, houses or words. Individual homework can consist of writing a set of commands in write activity that accomplishes a set shape. Students can even come up with their own challenges, creating shapes or designs for other students and challenging them to create commands that correctly draw it out.

Turtle Art is very explicit and comprehensive tool for learning geometry and apply mathematical concepts. Lesson can often be taught completely through turtle art or Turtle Art can be used as a supplement. Although students will often surprise and impress their teachers with their abilities in Turtle Art, a few things should be expected: Turtle Art will actively engage students in lessons, encourage their creativity, internalize through experimentation and inspire a love for geometry.

For any major project that is expected to be successful and long-lasting, be it in construction, business, education etc. there must first be a foundation. A strong foundation ensures that everything that is built on top will function to the best of its ability and stand the test of time. As we plan for this next week of teacher training I find myself examining how to build a strong foundation with teachers who have had limited to no access to computers in the past. The questions I’ve concerned myself with are how teacher training has been conducted in the past, what we want to accomplish in the future and how do we get from point A to point D.

With the reality in mind that this process of teacher training and XO implementation is a long road, it may be best to think of this first teacher training (a brief 4 days) in terms of building a foundation and taking the first step: A to B. With each consecutive step we can introduce different ideas about how to use the XO in class and slowly nudge classroom education towards the OLPC vision. However, I fear if we give the teachers too much too soon, or set the bar too high it will overload them and create resistance to the change we are trying to initiate. By moving slowly and setting reasonable short term goals and expectations we can more effectively maneuver all stakeholders towards our long term vision. In the context of next week’s training session this means focusing squarely on the teachers, and introducing the XO and its functions. Classroom issues and usage in lesson plans may be better reserved for future training sessions after the teachers have gotten a chance to master some of the basic activities.

That being said, I believe it is also important to give the teachers a glimpse of the long term goal they are expected to participate in achieving. I think each day it would be a good idea to have a speaker they can relate to. These speakers should come from one of the schools that we have been working with and they should describe their experience to the audience, problems, apprehensions about using the XO or the program/ how they’ve overcome them, changes/ improvements they have witnessed, the impact it has had on them and their classrooms and give them a chance to field questions and concerns from the audience. The speakers should constitute a diverse group coming from different schools, age groups, subjects and levels of education. I’ve personally had experience with two people who would be excellent candidates. One is the headmaster at Escaf, also a father of two students using the XO, who everyday observes his students/ children and is impressed and excited. The other is Jaque a science teacher from Rwamaga. The speaker series will provide the teachers with relatable experiences, answers to questions which we cannot foresee/ answer sufficiently and create a sense of purpose and value.

In addition, throughout the week we can also take a little time each day to show the teachers projects the students have created. If it is possible we can also have a few students write a paragraph or two describing how using the XO has impacted them.

In the past we’ve learned that it takes a long time for teachers to actually use the XO’s in their classroom lessons. This occurs for many different reasons but too many to address in the first teacher training. We can’t do everything at the same time and some things have to be given up. I believe because we know this about teacher behavior and attitude towards the laptop it’s counterproductive to structure the training around using them in the classroom. The main issues we should try and address in this first teacher training are issues concerning motivation, interest and building a foundation to achieve computer familiarity. If we can accomplish these goals then we have achieved a great set up for future follow through. And as exhibited time and time again in Sunday’s football match of Germany versus England: the set up is just as important as the follow through in order to be successful.

This week I had the opportunity to sit in on classes at Rwamaga and Escaf. At Rwamagana I observed a teacher named Jaque and was able to have an extended conversation with him both before and after the class. He didn’t use the XO’s directly in the class I observed but assured me he has was excited about having the XO’s and has used them in other lessons. At Escaf I observed two different classes where the teachers were actively using the XO’s in lessons they had prepared. While all the teachers I observed were great with the students and exhibited strong teaching skills the main difference I recognized was the type of learning that was taking in place. At Rwamagana the students were taught using dictation and notes hand written on the board. It was a call and response method where Jaque recited a lesson and then asked questions to the class pertaining to what he had gone over. Although this seemed semi-effective in memorizing the direct material presented there seemed to be an implicit restriction on the ability of the students to engage with the material and expand outside of that which was given.

At Escaf the teachers gave a lesson and then turned the students loose to explore and learn without the boundaries of notes or explicit dictation. In this environment creativity, exploration and group learning was encouraged and the students were able to create their own projects. What was interesting is that even though instructions were given, the children often exceeded the expectations of the teachers with what they were able to produce. I think the distinct differences in the type of learning that was exhibited in these separate instances is what makes the XO such a valuable learning tool. Seeing this first hand led me back to the question: How can we get teachers to buy into using the XO in conjunction with their lesson plans?
One issue I was able to identify was the pace and fluidity of the class. With Jaque at Rwamagana his teaching style was very fluid and fast paced allowing him to touch on more material in one lesson using the methods of teaching he is most comfortable with. At Escaf while using the XO’s, the pace seemed to be slower and more fragmented as XO issues were addressed throughout the class with each particular student. A method that one of the teachers at Escaf utilized (and I thought was very perceptive of him) was when there was a student or group of students that quickly accomplished what he had asked of them he asked them to write the steps on the board for the other students who were draggin behind a bit. Even though he may not have known how to do everything he recognized that his students may have a better handle on the computer concepts created an environment where students were teaching other students. I think one of the main issues that hold the teachers back from using the XO’s in their classes is their own comfort level with the XO itself. Using the method of students teaching students that gap in comfort is mitigated.

One of the best moments this week also had to do with comfort. At Rwamagana we conducted teacher training with the presence of a group of Americans from Nashville, Tennessee. The presence of the Americans seemed to motivate the teachers to work harder and be more attentive with the lesson. At the end of the class, Mellissa (who did a great job teaching the lesson, guma guma Mellissa) asked if the teachers had any questions or comments. One of the teachers replied, “No fear”. In my opinion this was a big break through, and illustrated that if we can effectively motivate the teachers to learn the programs we can eliminate their fear of using the XO will start seeing more teachers using them in their classroom. Small victories are sometimes the most savory.

This past week we worked with both the students and the children. What I noticed most about working with these two groups is the similarities in how we approach “training” versus “teaching” and the vast differences in how the two groups receive our efforts. With the students they are energetic, excited and eager to learn. We teach in a very open environment, giving their creativity the most room to expand and grow while directing their efforts and providing support. With the teachers most seem uninterested, resistant, and lack general motivation. With this group, although we try and engage in basic activities, our teaching seems to be more forced and includes less creativity, exploration and self realization. It comes as a strange dissonance the distinct differences and needs of the two sepearte groups and our lack of addressing them. I think some of the practices that we use with kids, trusting them to go above and beyond the expectations, we dumb down to use with the teachers, expecting them to meet the bare minimum requirements (if met at all).

I believe instead of ignoring these differences and trying to engage the teachers in similar ways we engage the students, it would be beneficial to recognize the needs and motivations of the teachers. If we can effectively structure our training around what will actively engage the teachers and can position ourselves as a helping hand rather than an additional burden maybe they will start to recognize the value in the use of the XO. In short, if we can solve some basic problems the teachers encounter everyday by using XO they may be more willing to adopt the use them in a productive manner in their own classroom. For example: In a conversation I had with another intern, he brought up the fact that in most schools daily notes are handwritten on the board. In addition, test’s are handwritten many times over to be able to pass out to the students. If we can show the teachers how to use write to make abbreviated notes and share them with a class through the XO neighborhood to avoid hand writing them on the board or type out tests in “write” so they can print multiple copies and use the same set of questions from year to year to avoid redundant work, then maybe we can achieve the teachers support and inspire motivation to continue to learn the XO. Instead of imposing our training on the teachers and giving them more problems to deal with, I think it would be greatly beneficial to dig into these teachers’ everyday hassles and issues. By developing easy solutions using the XO to solve some of the problems they deal with it may help them realize their value. The main issue I’m interested in is “audience” and knowing their distinct set of needs and issues. To ensure utility maximization and project longevity I think we need to focus on how to satisfy all stakeholders involved, this will undoubtedly require distinctly separate strategies. After all, isn’t technology supposed to make our lives easier?

My Expectations

I have been in Rwanda for a week now and I am finally getting over my jet lag of waking up at 4:30 in the morning. The people I have met so far have been amazing and I am excited for the rest of the experience. My expectations for the internship have changed and evolved slightly since I have been in the country, however the principles remain the same.

I expect to be forced to step outside of my comfort zone and work within the margins of unfamiliarity. I expect to work hard and learn new things every day. I expect that surrounded with an incredibly talented, intelligent, and diverse group of young people people we will be able to initiate changes in the educational paradigm in Rwanda that will benefit the people here for generations to come. I believe that the only way to face these challenges and tasks is to do so in a direct and explicit manner. It is through this that I hope to have a material impact on the OLPC Rwanda initiative, grow personally, and witness small changes in the short time that I am in this country. Oh, and I also expect to eventually accept that when I say "Oh yeah" in English, it means "No" in Kinyarwandan (my inability to make this change has led to many instances of miscommunication).