| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Interview with San Francisco Teachers: Connecting Students to the World; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Page 1 of 2
Harry Kreisler: Welcome. Where did you go to school and get your degree, Gale?
Gale Ow: UC Berkeley, Class of 1969.
Kreisler: And Thais?
Thais DaRosa: UC Berkeley, Class of '69.
Kreisler: Wow. So working with the Institute is coming home in a way.
Ow: It is a homecoming. It's been an amazing experience.
Nanou Matteson: Did you go right into teaching from there?
Ow: No. I spent some time thinking about doing something else. I was fighting wanting to be a teacher because I knew it was going to be a really long, hard road. But I ended up teaching, and teaching at a lot of different schools.
Kreisler: What did you major in at Berkeley?
Ow: Something called Social Science Field Major. I really liked it because it gave me a taste of many different disciplines. That kind of generality really helps in a high school situation.
Kreisler: And Thais, what did you major in at Berkeley?
DaRosa: I majored in History of Art. And also it was interdisciplinary. I love the mix of aesthetics and philosophy and history, and I channeled my interest eventually into those separate fields with subsequent different degrees in linguistics and comparative philosophy, and wound up teaching foreign language, and eventually where I am now, teaching history, focusing on Asian Studies.
Kreisler: How have students changed over the years?
Ow: Well, I think they've changed in different ways. They're really savvy in some things. I think in technology, for example, they're just miles ahead of us. Just yesterday I needed to buy something called a scientific calculator. Did not know what that was. And I just talked to one of the students, and sure enough -- all set. So I would say in this way they're just miles ahead of us in technology. I think they've changed in other ways, too. It's more of a challenge to engage them and to keep them engaged.
Kreisler: Hmm. And Thais?
DaRosa: I think Gale and I came out of a unique period in the history of development of our society.
We were really looking at deeper reasons for existence and purpose. As I recall, back in the '60's, most of my friends were majoring in psychology or art or anthropology and humanistic sciences. And we were looking at larger pictures. I find the students today are looking at the smaller picture. They are looking at very specific goals, which are primarily materialistic, and this concerns me. It conflicts with my own values, and so I'm sure that comes out in my teaching in challenging this.
Kreisler: And what exactly do you teach now?
DaRosa: I teach the state-required course for graduation, that is, World History. That's my primary course.
Kreisler: And students are what level?
DaRosa: My students are 9th and 10th grade.
Matteson: And Gale?
Ow: I've taught many different things. Currently I'm teaching AP psychology, and I'm teaching 12th graders the American Democracy course. I also teach a course called Asian-American Studies, which, of course, comes right out of the '60s movement. So it's really rewarding for me that we're still offering this class.
Matteson: With the technological savvy of your students, has it been easy to incorporate technology into the classroom or have there been challenges?
Ow: It's been very challenging, because we have to find curriculum that can support this. And also, we have to have the technology and the set-up. The students themselves have to understand that oftentimes learning is a process, and not necessarily an end product, so spending time at the lab is an important issue. It's been challenging, but I see that there is movement.
Kreisler: Are you suggesting that the technology, bringing all this information, makes it harder for people to understand what it takes to learn?
Ow: Yes, yes. Because it's so new, and the idea that learning has to be the standardized test. You know, "Read from the book." It's still being defined, I think. And the students oftentimes are the guinea pigs.
Kreisler: Do you think students are willing to study like we imagined they used to be when we were growing up? Thais?
DaRosa: Well, certainly at our school, we're very academically oriented. [The parents are] very supportive of the academic endeavors, so students put in long hours, all of our students. Not always efficiently. We learn that over the years, hopefully.
Kreisler: Is there a problem with the technology in the sense that we imagine that all the equipment and the wiring and all the software is in place because it exists, when in fact the districts are really strapped for resources?
Ow: I think so. It's a very big, big gap. Trying to find sources of funding and support from the community, the University, has been very important, because the San Francisco School District just doesn't have the money. There has to be some way that the district doesn't end up with leftovers, so that when we do get the technology, it's [not] already old. That when we're wired, we have the equipment to match the wiring. That teachers are aware of how computers work, what possibilities there are, before it can be translated to the students. We've had some help and we've worked with different groups. Working with the University was a very good chance to access this new era.
Kreisler: Is there an unevenness among teachers about what they know about the new technology and the opportunities for learning how to use it? Thais?
DaRosa: Yes. There are definitely gaps. Gaps not only in expectations of technologizing the schools. Gaps between one population of students and another. Technology gaps between one group of teachers or one teacher and another. So we have our issue of time, available opportunities, to become updated with technology. I find that what's really, really exponentially opening up is to be able to work with technology directly with students and [having] expectations that they will somehow find a way of accessing the correct technology and producing the given product. I can now give my students a weekly assignment that involves technology, and expect it will be done. And it will be 100% done. This is gradually, over these last few years. Every year I experience a greater access of technology on the students' part. Their equipment is far ahead of the schools, generally speaking.
Ow: Way ahead. Way ahead.
DaRosa: Yeah. And they're instructing me lots of times, because I don't have the opportunity, I don't have the time to become as familiar as they do.
Matteson: You keep mentioning time. What is the teacher's schedule like?
Ow: Hectic. Very packed. And oftentimes very set. So it's quite difficult to incorporate new ideas, new technologies, because it's so geared to the standards, to the textbook, to what the school needs, what colleges ask. When technology can fit into this framework, I think it works much better. But at the same time, you have teachers that need to, want to incorporate it, because it is another thing to do.
Kreisler: So you're suggesting that the technology is introduced in a very complex context, where a lot else is going on. So, Thais, are we taking sufficient account of what new burden is put on the teacher by the technology?
DaRosa: A lot is talked about technology within the school district and within teaching. I'm not sure that there is adequate support for the expectation of what the teacher should do with technology. There are certainly available workshops, district-wide or within the school sometimes. But once again, it's a hit-and-miss opportunity. Our teaching schedule is basically upon arrival 'til the moment they leave, and oftentimes an hour or two hours after our scheduled end of the day are we actively working on just staying ahead. I mean, that's where I feel the teacher, at my particular school, is. I'm just staying ahead. I don't have the time for planning. I don't really have the time for long-range development of my professional abilities. Only during the summer do I have some flexible time. So, yes, it's a very relevant issue, the teacher's schedule versus the development of technological ability.
Matteson: What would be an ideal situation in which to be able to incorporate new aspects into the curriculum?
DaRosa: I think giving the teachers some professional time off. That is, giving a reliable, dependable substitute of the teacher's choice and of her filling in while the teacher goes for professional education to develop the skills.
Ow: And long blocks of time. Oftentimes the attempts at moving us towards technology involve an hour. That's just barely enough time to make the mental shift, to get set, to get started; and you hardly have any time to really delve and to question. Oftentimes, too, the staff that is helping us might be good with technology, but can't teach. Or they're great teachers, but then can' really take us very far with the technology. It's kind of a difficult situation. In addition to help for teachers, I think we need to have the hardware. Our department of fifteen teachers has two measly machines, and we're always running into it.
DaRosa: And we brought them in ourselves. They're castoffs from our personal lives. Mine near my desk is my former-generation hardware from my own personal use at home, as is the other item. So we're not even supplied used hardware.
Kreisler: You've given us a clear picture of the environment in which your students are ahead of the game on technology. The teacher has so much to do already without the technology, and the resources are really very constrained. Now, our project introduces into the mix the whole notion of working with the University. Before we talk about the Connecting Students to the World project, let's talk a little in a general way about working with the University to integrate technology. Do you have any comments or thoughts, Gale, on working with the University?
Ow: Working with the University has been a wonderful experience. PowerPoint was something that [I had] a vague of sense of, that had been floating around my mind, and now I have a very concrete sense about it. I think it's workable. Navigating through the Globetrotter website has been very, very helpful. I think it demystified the whole technology world. And also the fact that I felt that it was quite okay to be not very savvy and to express this and bring it up and not be laughed at. So it was a very supportive environment for me, and I think there has been some movement and some more acceptance of the fact that we are working in the technological world. And that there are possibilities that I can go with in terms of working with my students and projects and integrating it into my classes.
Kreisler: Thais?
DaRosa: Likewise, I feel that working with the University has not only been a breath of fresh air to professionalize what we're trying to do with our students, but it has made concepts, technological concepts, reality. We've actually been able to concretize technology in lesson plans and work on specific projects with our students, very focused ones, rather than open-ended: "Just go to the Web and get your research and let's see what you turn up with."
Kreisler: Nanou, why don't you tell us a little about the Connecting Students to the World project, and then we'll use that as an intro into asking the teachers about how they use the resources.
Matteson: All right.
Next page: Working with the University
© Copyright 2000, Regents of the University of California