No Margins

The 21st classroom: More than a classroom of stuff

2012-01-22T15:46:00.001-06:00

Last week Apple made its Big Announcement. Servers everywhere sagged as cyberspace hummed, chattered, and tweeted and soon began prognostication about implications for education, textbooks, and the future of humanity. Well, maybe not quite the future of humanity. There are some, perhaps even many, who were underwhelmed but the announcement and more than a few who dared suggest this was much ado about nothing. But it's not nothing for us to continue to try to think differently and not just about education but the world in which today's students could be living as adults.

Let's face it, folks. There is a lot of change and churn but no actual sense of direction. We say things like "going forward," but I'm not sure anyone has the vaguest idea where that might lead other than not here at this moment.

Campus Technology recently published an article about the 21st century classroom for colleges and universities. The suggestions look like those I've seen for K-12 classrooms and in a lot of K-12 classrooms.

So I have a few questions:

Is it just me, or does it seem that higher education tends to be several steps behind K-12 when it comes to implementing technology and updating teaching strategies?
Why would colleges and universities, those supposed vanguard of the future, want to be establishing 21st century classrooms this far into the 21st century? Why wouldn't those who should be agents of change for what it means to be "going forward" be thinking the classrooms for the middle of the 21st century?
Why is there so little conversation about "college-ready" or "career-ready"?
Why is it the university and college leadership don't have meaningful conversations with K-12 leadership?
Why is it that corporate leadership doesn't have meaningful conversation with anyone in education, but especially with university and college leadership as well as K-12 leadership?

K-12 schools have been struggling to make adjustments for various federal standards requirements since 2001. Accreditation agencies for colleges and universities have made noise about such standardization for accreditation purposes for some time now, but it's only been noise. I'm not an advocate for having college-level standards, by the way; I think the accreditation process should be sufficient.

I just wonder why organizations such as National Association of Elementary School Principals and National Association Secondary School Principals as as well as The Council of Chief State School Officers don't think about electing a group of representatives to meet with representatives of organizations such The Higher Learning Council, the American Association of University Professors, and the American Association of University Administrators. Here's my current recommended agenda for a 3-day event:

Day 1

8A: Welcome: 15-minute blowhard, bs-free welcome from someone not part of any of these organizations and with no political motivation
8:30A Breakout groups. The intent is to discuss the following questions and come up with specific achievable and measurable next steps.

What are the top 5 things high schools can do to help make sure students are better prepared for college and why?
What are the top 5 things colleges/universities need to do to help make sure students are better prepared for the market place as it may exist in the next 5 years? the next 10 years?
Revisit the top 5 things high schools can do to help make sure students are better prepared for college?
What are the implications of the high school top 5 for elementary schools and middle schools?
What are the implications for schools/colleges of education of the preceding bullets?

The day ends when the day ends. Each group is responsible for its own breaks and meals.

Day 2

Breakout groups regroup for about 2 hours to revisit and review and confirm their proposed next steps. Each member of the group must have a copy of the proposed next steps.
Jigsaw shift of breakout groups with at least one member of the original group staying to present the group's next steps.
Conversations ensue.
Each reconstituted group must come to consensus for next steps by the end of the day and prepared that list for formal presentation the next day.
The day ends when the day ends. Each group is responsible for its own breaks and meals.

Day 3

Next steps lists will be posted on the walls as the larger group reconvenes; copies of the next steps lists will be available for each member.
There will be assigned seating.
Groups will discuss and continue to refine next steps.
Panel presentation at lunch.
Reflection and further discussion after lunch as next steps lists continue to be reviewed and revised.
Banquet celebrating three days of good work.

In other words, not just talk, but some actual action. Ah well, a girl can dream.

A Place for Lecture?

2012-01-18T21:13:00.000-06:00

A recent blogger posted about lectures in the classroom. At first I thought Joan Strassmann, the blog's author, was being sarcastic, suggesting that lectures actually aren't important. One of her paragraphs reads

So explaining helps and that is what a lecture is, an explanation. Is there anything better than a great talk? Doesn’t it tie to the earliest ways we humans learned, from Songlines, to long narratives, going back to before we humans could even write? Aren’t lectures the first abstract step we humans took past direct showing, which even many animals do? So why if we use them all the time, even in workshops about teaching, do we find they so often fail in teaching?

Prior to this paragraph, she made a point of talking about her son's excitement about camp and how much of what he learned was through field work and stories. Stories. Not lectures. Stories.

Strassman later says

So, lectures are great when you want and need the information. They are nearly pointless when you do not. This means our challenge is not to stop transmitting information by lecturing, but to entice our students to desperately want and need that information. . . .

So, lectures are not the problem. Their context is. How can we change our teaching so students want and need the information we give them in lectures? Why would we even want to lecture them on information they do not need?

So, my question is why would we insist on trying to transmit information by lecturing, trying to entice students to want and need information on which we lecture, trying to convince them the information on which we're lecturing is information they need?

I do think there is a place for lecture. I also think far too many teachers lecture--stand up in front of the room to pontificate or drone endlessly--because they have no idea how else to convey information, because they don't trust themselves or their students to learn differently. And I think that when I am consistent in the way I provide context for lecturing, students will understand I'm giving that information to them for a reason. I hope that, more often than not, any lecturing I do is to give them a foundation or baseline so when I let them know what else they need to know, they have an idea how to go about getting it.

I've recently heard reference to riverbanks as a means of describing parameters or constraints. I like that idea because riverbanks help manage the flow and direction of water. A lecture can be part of the riverbank for a student's learning. I can then offer advice, coaching, guidance, and access to tools and resources along with the destination of this particular journey so they can discover the information they need to know and that is the information they will also want to know.

And maybe I have to lecture every now and then to provide explanation, context, foundational information. But maybe, just maybe, I can offer up some of the lecture-oriented content through anecdotes, through illustrations, through story.

Kids just wanna have fun?

2012-01-02T16:30:00.000-06:00

Anyone in the Chicagoland area, or with interest in what happens in the Chicago Public School system, is familiar with the Chicago Teacher's Union opposition to the 90-minute extension of the school day and then the subsequent handling of the issue by Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and CPS CEO Jean-Claude Brizard.

Let's just set aside all of the grandstanding for now because it's well known that Karen Lewis, CTU president, is no slouch when it comes to trying to manage public sentiment and political outcomes. What I really want to talk about is recess. Yep, recess.

As the dust started to settle over the 90-minute extension and people started thinking about the school year 2012-2013, not only did administrators have to start talking about Common Core State Standards, but they had to start thinking about recess. An article in The Chicago Tribune informed its reader that "[m]ost CPS schools haven't had recess in 30 years."

What??? No recess. At all? Of any kind? Not only do many schools not have playgrounds, they don't have people who know how to oversee recess. There is concern that kids don't know how to play.

Think about that. Sure, your kids know how to play. They play one or more sports. They are involved in martial arts, dance, or other kinds of activities. They ride their bikes on a bike path wearing the helmets. Because they go to camp or have access to a parks department, they know how to jump rope and even know some of the silly songs and rhymes that go with jump roping. Maybe they know how to play hopscotch, pickleball, tag, foursquare (the game, not the app), and other kids' games. Apparently, however, there are school districts and neighborhoods filled with kids who don't know how to play those kinds of kids' games or certainly don't know how to play without some sort of electronics.

I do wonder about the kind of impact a day without any kind of recess makes on a kid. Adults don't work without breaks and even if we don't have "recess," there are times we have to go do something different from what we've been doing all day.

This isn't a new issue. It was a topic of discussion in only a few years ago. In fact, an article in The New York Times emphasized the importance of recess. So if recess really is important, how is that Chicago Public Schools hasn't had recess in many schools for 30 years? And just exactly what will CPS to remedy the situation in preparation for the 2012-2013 school year? And how much drama and posturing will there be over providing the resources for recess?

I can hardly wait to see what administrators seem to think is required for recess. Even if kids don't seem to know how to play, I can't imagine it would take them very long to figure it out and my guess is they'd figure out ways to play with whatever they happen to have accessible. Just as they've always done.

Transmedia: Using narrative in school and work

2011-11-11T11:41:00.001-06:00

Transmedia. That's the vision of Michael Grant:

. . . a way to unlock narrative from the constraints of a text-only canvas, and this offered glorious possibilities. Rather than dickering over the rights to a song to include in a book, why not offer the actual song as an audio clip, and layer in video and photos? While he was at it, he could create separate platforms with teeming communities built around a story and create a universe where readers become characters. Suddenly the book becomes a living, breathing, mutable endeavor where each audience member chooses his or her own path through multiple narratives. . . .

A core value in this form of storytelling is that readers become characters tasked with decoding parts of a mystery that may hold the key to saving humanity. These reader-characters can jump into everything or just a few things, although the more they engage with the story, the more they can level up through the material. The author simply acts as a guide but it is up to each participant--each character--to determine his own fate.

Why? Because print books are just too, well, retro. But I think what's more significant is that transmedia offers an approach to the way people learn and do business.

Think about this: transmedia is

an approach to story delivery that aggregates fragmented audiences by adapting productions to new modes of presentation and social integration. The execution of a transmedia production weaves together diverse storylines, across multiple outlets, as parts of an overarching narrative structure. These elements are distributed through both traditional and new media outlets. The online components exploit the social conventions, and social locations, of the internet"

In his article, Penenberg notes Alex LeMay, a TV and film director, believes transmedia

could be incorporated into business and tech books, history, biographies, any work that can engender a large and intricate enough landscape for readers to explore. All it needs is “a puzzle that is too big for any one person to solve, so it forces a community of people to talk to one another to solve the issues and the problems,” he says.

Hmm. I can think of all sorts of applications in the classroom, elementary through higher education: for investigating literature; for exploring history, social studies, civics; for investigating business, economics. Imagine transmedia as a means of working through case studies. Anyone who has already embraced project-based learning (PBL) or portfolio (self-discovery, reflection, etc.) learning may already been en route to a transmedia approach.

As for the work place, whether you work in a matrix environment, one that uses cross-functional teams (CFT), or one that just has a lot of meetings, you know nearly everyone comes to a meeting with a particular perception of the topic at hand, perhaps even with ideas about ways to solve a problem, etc.

Go ahead! Bring your own narrative. Bring your own storyline. Bring your own vision of how you see the plot developing and how each "character" will act and react. We don't talk often enough about those narratives in the work place. Too often we are civil to the point of paralysis. And if those matrix or CFT meetings storyboard the various narratives, I suspect amazing and very positive discovery will occur. Ideas that might never have surfaced might be uncovered and explored. Solutions that were not even vague possibilities might come into sharp focus.

Maybe these characters won't save the world, but they might just save the product line or the company. And for many people, that's as good as saving the world.

Thinking about "design thinking". . .aka PBL?

2011-11-11T09:40:00.001-06:00

I read an article this morning about design thinking and whether or not it is dead. "Design thinking" is a term with which I'm not familiar, so I didn't know enough to know if it was dead or alive. I should say I love to do research; LOVE IT. I love to get lost in the labyrinthine maze of resources and sources. So first I followed the links in the article and then I hung out a bit with my friend Google.

Let me sum up: design thinking, according to our friends at Wikipedia,

refers to the methods and processes for investigating ill-defined problems, acquiring information, analyzing knowledge, and positing solutions in the design and planning fields. As a style of thinking, it is generally considered the ability to combine empathy for the context of a problem, creativity in the generation of insights and solutions, and rationality to analyze and fit solutions to the context. While design thinking has become part of the popular lexicon in contemporary design and engineering practice, as well as business and management, its broader use in describing a particular style of creative thinking-in-action is having an increasing influence on twenty-first century education across disciplines. In this respect, it is similar to systems thinking in naming a particular approach to understanding and solving problems.

See, this sounds like project-based learning (PBL) to me. Messy, ill-defined problems. Acquire information and analyze it. Posit solutions. Reflect, analyze, discuss. Execute on solutions. In fact, based on these oversimplified definitions, PBL may be more rigorous.

One of the main honchos of the design thinking movement, Bruce Nussbaum, has declared it a "failed experiment" and wants to move on, cooking up the next best thing. Apparently what is at fault is organizations working hard to mechanize, standardize, operationalize, and otherwise -ize the process of design thinking. All that formality seems to get in the way of the purist's view of design thinking.

Dr. McCracken respectfully disagrees:

In this world, designers can continue to create extraordinary value. They are the people who have, or could have, the laterality needed to solve problems, the sensing skills needed to hear what the world wants, and the databases required to build for the long haul and the big trajectories. Designers can be definers, making the world more intelligible, more habitable. But this won’t happen if, confronted by the inevitable difficulty of the early days, they take their balls and go home.

Yep, this sounds a lot like PBL. And those "designers"? They sound a lot like teachers.

PD: The conversations go on and on

2011-11-06T12:55:00.000-06:00

We've been talking about professional development for a long time: what it should be, what it could be, what it isn't, what it is. The Herchinger Report tells us that companies are making millions of dollars off professional development, the push for teacher effectiveness and teacher quality. That push comes at the expense, literally, of schools and districts trying to respond to politicians trying to legislate good teaching. Right now the market seems to be enamored with systems for teacher evaluation and trying to develop mechanisms that correlate classroom observation results to student performance.

Charlotte Danielson, who has been writing books and doing "professional development" about teacher effectiveness for years, is further monetized in The Danielson Group, building her education empire as others have, among them Robert Marzano, Richard and Rebecca DuFours, and to a slightly lesser effect Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. They all claim to have answers, programs, processes for which they have workshops and books as well as consultative services. And all of that costs money. But, more importantly, it takes time.

There is the anecdote that the great pianist Arthur Rubenstein was asked how to get to Carnegie Hall to which he is said to have responded "Practice. Practice. Practice." Great, even good, anything doesn't happen overnight. Change takes time. Improvement takes time.

If you look at the Framework for Teaching services, you'll see there are workshops and then more workshops. It's one thing to learn how to do observations, it's quite another to know what to do with the data and the information as a result of those works.

Just as in many fields, it's one thing to diagnose the problem, it's quite another to solve it. Especially if there are several factors contributing to the problem or issue and recognizing that no single solution may help mitigate those several factors and if some of those factors are not the same for every teacher or present differently in different teachers. That is where further consultation comes in or, having targeted some distinct areas for improvement, perhaps using Danielson's Framework for Teaching, identify particular professional development options that may contribute to improvement.

Decades ago, Ron Gallimore and Bill Saunders were doing research on ways to conduct observations and enable teachers participate in the diagnosis of what was happening in their classrooms--the teaching? the objectives? the teacher-student interaction? the resources? the students? classroom management? assessment techniques? time of day? Saunders has always been a huge proponent of the critical outside observer: the one who can observe, consult with others who observe and the teacher, offer objective perspective. All along teaching others how to do those things effectively. Bill and Ron have continued their work with Claude Goldenberg and Brad Ermerling under the auspices of Pearson's Learning Teams. The initial work of Gaillimore and Saunders made it very clear that implementing their program and getting to any kind of success required time.

In 2007 Bill Ferriter published a blog post titled "I Finally Drank the Kool-Aid" in which he remarked on the merry-go-round of staff development initiatives. Ferriter also addresses how and why he became a proponent of professional learning communities and how they began to make a difference in his school. He says

Collaboration done right helps to lighten the load for everyone. In the past few years, I've actually seen the time that I invest in planning daily lessons go down as I've taken advantage of learning experiences and materials shared by my colleagues. We've even gotten creative about regrouping students across classrooms during the school day to provide the kinds of remediation experiences that I used to deliver in after school tutoring sessions.

Now don't get me wrong: Learning communities aren't all sunshine and daffodils. In fact, for the first few years [emphasis mine] I even wondered whether collaborative work in schools was possible. Having spent the majority of our careers working in complete isolation, my team struggled to learn the skills necessary to work together effectively and spent a significant amount of time "storming" our way through meetings.

Ferriter and his colleagues and, apparently, his administration were willing to take the time to do it right and do it well.

Where's the PD? you might ask. Oh, it's in there. Ferriter might not address anything specifically, but there was PD. Let me refer to Kelly Christopherson's blog post "PD shouldn't be an event--ever" and this paragraph:

Professional development is a frame of mind. As a professional, I don’t decide when I’m going to “DO” PD because it happens in many different ways and different times. I don’t look online or f2f or in groups or at school or at a convention because, well, it happens at all of these but can happen in a conversation with a parent or child, reading a book or watching a video. I don’t separate out when I do PD and when I don’t. Because I don’t separate out when I’m learning and when I’m not and PD is about learning [emphasis mine].

Organizations may think it may be hard to make money on a frame of mind, but they would be wrong. Think about this: a framework or mechanism that is already proven, whether the ground-breaking work of Ron Gallimore and Bill Saunders or that of Charlotte Danielson, Robert Marzano, and hosts of others. And then think about Ferriter changing his mind about professional development when something was introduced to him that made sense and to which his colleagues and, we might be led to believe, his administrators made a commitment and for which no one expected overnight results. Think about the Gallimore, Saunders, Goldenberg, and Ermerling five-year study and the "first few years" of the introduction of PLCs for Ferriter and his colleagues. Think about the implied commitment to time and practice in Danielson's Framework for Teaching.

Good professional development doesn't come in a box, a drink, or a pill. PD is not a quick, sure-fire means to an end. In fact, it's a lot like weight-loss programs. Sure, they promise to help you lose weight, but when you read the fine print you'll see you still have to manage your portions, be careful of what you eat, and exercise. There is no quick, sure-fire means to lose weight.

Senator Reed introduced the Effective Teaching and Leading Act, what is being called the professional development bill, in October. ASCD has come out in support of this Act and notes its perceptions of the implications of the Effective Teaching and Leading Act [in all case, emphasis mine]:

would provide professional development to a more broadly defined group of educators, including librarians and other school leaders and instructional staff, instead of just teachers and principals;
more overtly recognizes that educator evaluation must be based on multiple measures that include, but are not limited to, evidence of student learning;
more clearly acknowledges that evidence of student learning must extend beyond standardized test scores to include other measures, such as demonstration of growth over time, parental feedback, performance on formative assessments, and demonstrations of engagement and self-efficacy; and
would better support new teachers, principals, and school leaders during their first two years by providing high-quality mentoring and dedicated time during the school week for meaningful collaboration.

There is no single solution to managing the issues and concerns of effective teaching and leading, or effective learning. I think there are many opportunities to work with teachers, administrators, schools, districts, and parents (we always forget the parents when we talk about professional development) to help them get it right for them, for their situations, for their abilities.

Let me sum up:

Change takes time, and money. Improvement takes time, and money.
The program, mechanism, framework, structure process has to make sense for the educators and take steps to help them understand its value.
Vendors and administrators need to remember that PD is about learning and can happen any time and in unexpected situations.
Evidence of student learning and evidence of effective teaching include a wide range of possible factors and influences of which professional development is one, but that PD may not look the same for every educator.
There is no silver bullet (see #1), but committed educators can effect quality change that makes a difference for the teachers and, more importantly for the students.

Needed for digital resources: An interactive approach

2011-11-05T09:34:00.004-05:00

Good ideas have staying power. Great ideas are always great. In September 2010, Jason Renshaw posted a blog titled "Pondering a more interactive approach to digital course materials." In this post, Renshaw states that digital course materials need to be searchable. When you read the blog post, you'll see that he's thinking more specifically than being able to search for digital materials. He wants to be able to search all of the digital materials used in a course.

It seems to me he might have been referring to an aggregation of that data or a kind of curation of digital resources so that even if they aren't all located in the same library or warehouse or drive, someone conducting a search would be able to find whatever meets specific search parameters. That suggests, to me, some sort of consistency in tagging which begs, I think, for a somewhat standardized tagging taxonomy with enough stretch capability to allow for folksonomies.

Though interest in and use of portfolios ebbs and flows, they make a good counterpoint to having the capability to search accessible clouds and the Internet for resources, information, etc. The results might be even more daunting than they are now, or not. I think that's related to tagging, but I'll digress on that topic in a different post.

Renshaw suggests digital content should be interactive inthat students should be able to record or store elements of what they areusing—put them in their portfolios or whatever they’re using and probablywithout the highly plagiaristic approach of cut and paste—so then students canwrite or record their responses into the content. I think there’s some interesting potentialwith that depending on the content and, of course, the learning objectives orintent of the students.

A really cool concept is having a system that somehow trackswhat students search and use, tracks to what they respond and how, andgenerates options for homework as well as builds a bank of test or assessmentitems based on what the student does. I’d go further and suggest the system has to begin with the way theteacher has constructed the assignment, the standards to which the learningobjectives have been aligned, and the learning objectives themselves. Then, based on the student’s work and degreeof proficiency, recommend homework options (beginner, intermediate, advancedand let the student choose how hard he wants to work?) and similar assessments. Grading would then be based on the optionschosen. So maybe I choose theintermediate option for homework and then the beginner option for mytests. Though I might get an A on thetest, the weighting would put me in a lower percentile because I chose thebeginner option. Talk about personalizedlearning and assessment!

Building on another of Renshaw’s ideas, let’s say theteacher has an interactive whiteboard (IWB) in her room and wears a wirelessmicrophone. Kids have laptops or tabletswith webcams and microphones. Talk aboutsome potentially interesting classroom management challenges there. Anyway, the classroom teacher needs to set up the lesson so she does somelecturing, demonstrating, explaining; she periodically asks questions to makesure kids are on task and no one is too lost. Occasionally she has them work individually, in pairs, or in smallgroups. She moves around the roomchecking on students, answering any questions. Perhaps she has them work on mini-presentations using their laptops ortablets and webcams; there is no need to assign a recorder or presenter for anygroups and it’s more difficult for someone not to participate. All of the day’s work is uploaded so studentsand the teacher can review the day’s work as well as the presentations. The students tag their work at the end of theclass, using whatever taxonomy the teacher has created and perhaps within thatoverall digital tagging taxonomy.

The teacher can give the system some parameters to createoptions for assignments or exams, but she can also mine the system more easilyto see if they are light on any of the standards or haven’t sufficientlycovered any of the learning objectives as well as offer students opportunitiesto prepare appropriately for summative, cumulative, and/or standardized tests.

If the day’s lessons and work are particularly good, she canupload them to a shared resource and set access levels (e.g., school, district,everyone) and because of the digital tagging taxonomy, anyone can find not onlyher lesson plans but examples of student work as well as assignments andassessments. Students have access to aggregated, tagged, and curated resources. Learning and teaching continues to take place across time zones and continents.

And it's entirely possible that as a result of this intentional collaboration and required independent work, students just may be more likely to become those independent critical thinkers and learners.

Digital curation: A reasonable concept, not yet a practice

2011-10-31T13:29:00.003-05:00

Friends and colleagues of mine have recently returned from the annual AASL conference. Obvious topics for the gathering of school librarians included assessment, 21st century skills, mobile learning, and, of course, the implications of a digitally connected world. Macey Morales reports:

Best-selling author Nicholas Carr served as the keynote speaker for the Opening General Session. Carr discussed how the Internet may be shortchanging students' brain power. Before an audience of more than 1,800 attendees, Carr emphasized the key role that school librarians hold in supporting 21st century literacy skills. "As school librarians you are at the epicenter in times of change as we see this wave of digitization," stated Carr. Carr shared the pitfalls of information overload and his concern about how the mass amounts of digital information are taking society away from social interactions. [italics mine]

As I nonchalantly click the "Read It Later" icon on my browser, I'm only vaguely aware of how bloated that list might be getting. Even with the sidebar viewing capability, I can't see what might be scrollable beyond the viewed page, so it doesn't really exist for me until I scroll down. I have an old Diigo account and a Google Reader account, neither of which I've reviewed in months. I used to have a delicious account, but I don't know if that's even active any more.

I started thinking more concretely about the cyberethereal resources after I read Bob Sprankle's blog post, "Are We Digital Hoarders?" Just say "yes." Go ahead. You'll feel better and admission of the problem is the first step to recovery. Maybe.

But then I also started thinking about how I wish I had folders in my list of things to read later because then I could organize them by subject or topic which would, in theory, make me better organized when I try to read and actually use any of those resources. I am so easily distracted--and always have been--by the idea, concept, or factoid that someone grasps the edge of my attention and gleefully takes it in another direction. I rarely resist; I seem incapable of it. I was, after the all, the kid who get distracted when looking up something in the encyclopedia. The big ol' print version and while sitting on the floor in thestacks until my neck started to ache from bending over to read.

Then I started thinking about Finding Dulcinea which billsitself as the "Librarian of the Internet" which made me think againabout librarians and curation and made me wonder if the librarians at AASLtalked much about being curators and what it might mean to be a digital curatorand how to approach being a digital curator when there are hundreds ofthousands of digital flotsam and jetsam, many of which should be culled asdigital detritus, on the ocean of digital information.

If librarians thought managing challenged and banned books washard, imagine being responsible for curating that which appropriate in themelange of digital resources.

Doing a bit of research on digital curation, I discovered The Digital Curation Centre anda blog inspired by said centre, the aptly named Digital Curation Blog. The idea of digital curation is a reasonable one and there should be, as the good folks at The Digital Curation Centre suggest, a process for managing one's collection of all things digital. But then there are those of us who, like Bob Sprankle, collect and hoard because of the "what if" that careens through our brains whenever we thinking about hitting the delete key. Why do you think I have stacks of books I'll probably never re-read lying around and next to the stacks of books I have yet to read?

Nevertheless, this idea of digital curation is something to take seriously. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 98,817 schools in the 2009-2010 school year and over 49 million students headed to school at the start of the 2011 school year and roughly 3.6 million teachers started the 2010 school year. I know those doesn't represent the same school years, but they give us interesting benchmarks.

So let's just say we have 49 million students and 3.6 million teachers. And let's assume that each classroom teacher gathers or somehow marks or stores an average of 5 digital resources each day or 25 each week. And let's assume each student gathers or somehow marks or stores the same number. Keep in mind we're working with averages here. For teachers: an average of 90 million digital resources each week. For student: an average of 1.275 billion digital resources each week. And that, my friends, doesn't count the stuff everyone creates.

I think Carr has a point about the massive amounts of digital information, but I disagree with his concern about reducing social interactions. What I worry more about is the increase in ADOS--"attention deficit ooh! shiny!"--because we are so easily distracted by the pings, dings, bongs, and bings that attract our attention to various posts, tweets, texts, and other information that sends us scurrying to our devices to discover the latest which may or may not be worth our time and attention.

In the writing of this blog post, though I did some "serious" searching to confirm links and re-read articles, I was distracted only about 10 times, which isn't bad for me. Still, I have to think more about this notion of digital hoarding vs. digital curation and what that might mean for me.

The visual and the words

2011-10-20T12:54:00.002-05:00

I love elearnings, videos, whatever you want to call them. I love the combination of words and images; I like being able to incorporate a variety of approaches to show, not tell which is such a critical element of good writing.

I'm not convinced we are a more visual society these days, but I do know the visual has a lot of appeal. I learned from a good friend of mine that the visual cannot always stand alone. We've all watched commercials we've really enjoyed but have had no idea what product was being promoted. That's a big oops for someone.

I've also learned from another friend and colleague the power of storytelling through visual media. We know we like a good story and we can all be enraptured by a really good storyteller. The digital storytelling movement has been around for a bit now and it is one that combines images and sounds with words. We shouldn't be surprised that kids appreciate that approach to learning. Comic books and now graphic novels help us see what the author wants us to see. Digital storytelling gently directs learning and helps those who might struggle with certain concepts.

How many times have you gone to a movie based on a book and disagreed with a character's look or the setting or something else because it wasn't how you imagined it? Because though you read words on a page, your brain naturally (and this is an opinion based on experience and not confused by fact or research) seems to need to create its own images for those words. Some would argue our ancestors began with pictures on cave walls because they had no words so pictures came first and the words to describe them came later.

We all know the cliche that a "picture is worth a thousand words." Maybe. Sometimes no more than a few hundred, but sometimes an idea or concept is so complex it is more easily conveyed in an image.

I've been in numerous meetings when I've had to jump up and scribble something on chart paper or a board because it was easier to convey what I was thinking by drawing, even badly, what was in my head than trying to describe it. And those of us who speak loudly with our hands are often trying to present an image because our words may seem insufficient.

How many times have you been confronted with a large document--strategic plan, annual report, grant proposal, etc.--and sighed in relief at the first graph or illustration? Something to anchor the words; something to help us navigate the ideas, the concepts, the facts and figures.

So words and pictures, my friends, are not just for kids. They are an integral part of how we work, whether in the classroom or in the corporate space.

For a sample of something I got to do for a social media presentation, check this out. And here's another one for Twitter.

Reading. Camp.

2011-09-26T22:39:00.000-05:00

"Texting Makes U stupid." Now that's a headline designed to get a reader's attention. Check.

In the September 19 issue of Newsweek, Niall Ferguson asserts that the "U.S. is producing civilizational illiterates" and then asks "How will they compete against America's global rivals?" So far, so good. That, of course, is in the teaser excerpt that follows the attention-getting headline.

Later in the body of the actual article, Dr. Ferguson notes that

Half of today's teenagers don't read books--except when they're made to. According to the most recent survey by the National Endowment for the Arts, the proportion of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 who read a book not required at school or at work is now 50.7 percent, the lowest for any adult age group younger than 75, and down from 59 percent 20 years ago.

Well, it's no shock to me that students don't read for pleasure. I was still teaching when I came across the misbegotten experiment of Great Expectations in graphic novel form. It was horrible. Not just because of the way the story had to be chunked and scarred to fit in a graphic novel, but the graphics were an abomination. Clearly that attempt at getting kids to read Literature was not going to be successful.

Back to Dr. Ferguson. He then asks, and rather snottily I might add, if the reader has all--"better make that any of the books on the Columbia University undergraduate core curriculum?" Then he lists the 11 books on the syllabus for a Spring 2012 course. Ready to check your shelves?

Virgil, Aeneid
Ovid, Metamorphoses
Saint Augustine, Confessions
Dante, The Divine Comedy
Montaigne, Essays
Shakespeare, King Lear
Cervantes, Don Quixote
Goethe, Faust
Austen, Pride and Prejudice
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
Woolf, To the Lighthouse

Okay, well, that's very 19th century. Then Dr. Ferguson suggests that the reader order the books not already on one's shelves and to get War and Peace, Great Expectations, and Moby Dick as well.

He goes on to suggest that the reader basically kidnap their own children and take them where there is no wifi and no cell phone towers so they have to be cut off entirely. . . and then make them read.

Where do I begin? Okay, first, let me point out that Dr. Ferguson is not some old frumpy guy as I would have expected. He is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard and William Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School. He's got an impressive academic biography.

Let me start with the list. I have all but one of the books Dr. Ferguson recommends; I've even read them. In fact, I've even taught some of them. I do not have Moby Dick. I used to have that book but I could never get past the first one hundred or so pages and so gave it away or threw it away or something.

So here's my theory why kids don't read: 1) their parents don't read and don't encourage them to read; 2) teachers want to force them to read and require them to read a lot of books that make no sense to them; 3) when teachers force them to read books that make no sense to them, the teachers don't take the time to explain why the books might have any value to them--the teachers don't help the students see any kinds of connections; and 4) after teachers make students read books that make no sense to them and for which the teachers have provided no reasonable connections and have just forced them to try to memorize whatever the teacher learned was important about the book, the teachers make the students write inane book reports or stupid research papers just to prove the students read the books.

I do think there is value in the classics. I'm an English major; I have to say that or they'll take away my undergraduate and my Master's degrees. Seriously, though, I do believe there is value in the classics. And I think there are wonderful books that anyone and everyone should read. But I respectfully disagree with Dr. Ferguson in that I don't think that a) trying to force kids to read is going to be remotely successful and b) that trying to force them to read the classics without some kind of guideline is just going to frustrate them and make them hate reading even more.

It's hard to choose books for a semester when there are so many outstanding choices. And there are plenty of students who will dive into the Western civilization canon with enthusiasm. But if I were designing a literature course for the reluctant reader in the hopes of igniting some interest in reading, I would toss out the canon. Even my beloved Chaucer and Shakespeare, and that hurts me. But I would include some classics. Herewith a possible selection of books for my Literature for the Reluctant Reader class:

Homer, The Odyssey War, adventure at sea, jealousy, power-grabbing, and a latch-key forced into manhood to make decisions to protect his mother and his family's name.
John Milton, Paradise Lost. The battle between Heaven and Hell from Satan's point of view that also, like Dante's The Inferno, manages to incorporate politics and other difficult ideas of the 17th century. How much has changed and how much is the same only dressed differently?
Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels or Tale of a Tub. Satire is hard to write well and Swift was a master. In a time without democracy as we know it, without political correctness, without calls for "tolerance," Swift addressed some knotty problems of his time. how would such a text read today? Or could it even be published without controversy?
Students choice(s) with professor's approval from: Austen, Eliot, Bronte, Dickens, Chopin, James, Scott, Shelley, Stevenson, Twain, Trollope, Wordsworth, Wilde, Tennyson, Thoreau, Keats, Hopkins, Emerson.
A play by George Bernard Shaw
Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man
Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart
Allende, The House of the Spirits

Well, this is the list for now. Until I start thinking about other books and other titles drift back into my consciousness. Or maybe I'd give students a list of 50 titles--with some representation from past centuries because I do think it's important for them to learn to make some connections and have some respect for the past--and let them choose their own books.

As for assignments, students would keep a journal of their reading. They would be free to write whatever they think, whatever they've discovered or thought as they've read. But it would be a double-column journal so I could write some sort of observation in reply, but not as an assessment of their thinking. Perhaps to challenge them to think differently or from a different perspective. No tests. No quizzes. They'd be graded on participation and their journals and a final project. The final project? Something they choose to create that explains to me in what ways one or some or all of these books have moved them, or not. At the end of the term they may still hate books and reading. And that's fine, they would just have to explain why none of the books or characters made any impression on them and why they still hate books and reading. If they choose to do their final project as a writing project, they must use good grammar and mechanics and all those persnickety fundamentals of writing (which is what they really hate, by the way). But writing a paper would not be required. They would be free to express their ideas as articulately as possible through music, art, film, etc.

Let's understand that a purpose of literature is to communicate ideas, perspectives, and more of a particular time and place. Reading literature should not be a chore, but a form of entertainment that happens to be educational and informative. So if those students are no longer reluctant to read by the end of the term, the very best I might do is offer to make recommendations for other books they may find interesting and keep offering courses that will lure them into reading for the purposes of discovery. . . about themselves and the world in which they live.

If you've found this remotely interesting or entertaining, you might also read "The Purpose of Literature--and Who Cares?"

Come the revolution!

2011-09-09T08:45:00.001-05:00

Recently published in Forbes was this article title "Social Power and the Coming Corporate Revolution". In it we are reminded that the social media revolution is upon us. Now. Right now.

As we have seen in recent history, social media empowers individuals in remarkable, sometimes frightening, and often unexpected ways. Egypt. Libya. Tunisia. Perhaps Syria. Even in China the revolution continues to simmer and occasionally erupt in cyberspace.

We know that many K12 students prefer to text than talk on the phone. We're aware of the annoying and often distasteful anonymity that cyberspace allows so individuals using pseudonyms can post scurrilous broadside attacks. We have seen and heard of individuals exposed rightly and accused wrongly through the power of social media: Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and more. Social media tosses aside any old school thinking about communication protocols; it gives new, different, and perhaps slightly disorienting meaning to "transparency."

There is an interesting new development called "techonomy" and it makes sense to think about the economy through the lens and influence of technology. We are more connected even as we scramble to make sense of all of the information deluging us (I've another article on that I will share.)

Post enough information on LinkedIn and get pinged by people who are interested in doing business with you. Make enough connections through LinkedIn and you may find opportunities you never knew existed.

Social media has changed the pace at which we might do business.

Social media may force higher education to change its pace and its thinking because business school curricula have to adapt; I can't imagine they have a choice.

Social media should force teacher preparation programs to make changes. I'm intrigued by what I'm hearing and reading about the metaversity and hope to conspire with some university colleagues to see, just see, what we might propose.

Social media has already changed the way many teachers teach and not just because students were already adept with and responsive to social media. Some of them actually got it on their own! ;)

IMO, anyone in the business of education needs to be thinking about how we can use social media to build relationships and partnerships, to affect the change we want to see in the world. Come the revolution! Methinks it has already begun

Selling Books Selling Out?

2011-08-29T09:21:00.000-05:00

I've always loved books and libraries, so it should be nirvana that I work for Follett Software. Naturally my interest was piqued when I saw the teaser in Inside Higher Education that UC San Diego is selling books.

Yes, UC San Diego is selling books. Yes, budget cuts mean that the university has to make some tough decisions. And sure, I get that creating a provocative headline so people will read your stuff. It worked for me, and I kept reading even though the article isn't very well written, in my opinion. What I found interesting is:

The real potential "scandal" is that the library authorities tried to hide the culling of books and tried to prevent an unhappy student from taking pictures.
Because the unhappy student gets to tell his side of the story, the library administrators have to scramble to tell theirs and still look like they're hiding something.
Books and journals with low circulation and/or with a digital option and/or available elsewhere are being culled.
The books are being sold because that is a viable and practical option (my local library has a book sale each year) and books aren't immediately relegated to the shredder.

So the library staff is culling books. With low circulation. And/or that may be available through another UC library. And/or that may have a digital option.

Because the library is facing a budget cut.
Because the library is running out of space.
Because the books aren't checked out very often and students can get them through inter-library loan (ILL) or digitally.

Laine Farley, executive director of the UC's California Digital Library, said the UC system has had shared library services for decades but that the streamlining of print collections has now become more dramatic because of budget and space constraints.

And Farley further notes that librarians tend to be pretty conservative about how they approach culling a collection.

The upshot? The UC San Diego library staff and the UC library system might have little choice but to cull and it's entirely possible they haven't weeded their collections in years. Because of the way they approached the project--concern it might stir controversy--it has created controversy so there is still yet a lot to learn about being forthright and honest about particular actions.

Apostrophic!

2011-08-26T09:15:00.000-05:00

Seriously, people. The apostrophe. Not that hard and yet apostrophic conditions are everywhere. What's so amazing to me is the number of resources available and the fact that people still cannot get this right.

The story about the Michigan t-shirts is a classic example. I found only 10 stories about this grammar faux pas, but the fact that it got this much attention amid the Libyan revolution (my descriptor) and Hurricane Irene is pretty impressive.

TIME posted an article as did a number of bloggers. The failure is, of course, Old Navy's because it is that organization's promotion. So you'd think the folks who double-checked the number of exclamation points would have checked the rest of the grammar. Or not.

I have to chuckle, though, wondering how closely those writers had their own work proofed just to make sure there were as few grammar errors as possible.

I passed a new billboard this morning advertising specials on "Bloody Mary's" and "Mimosa's." Sigh.

Okay, don't take it from me, though I'm happy to offer pointers. I can give you a one-stop shop. The Online Writing Lab at Purdue is one of the best ever resources for grammar and much more related to writing and research. Go to the OWL. Bookmark this site.

Specific help for the apostrophe? Right here.

Interested in some help with research, writing, and/or proofreading? Right here.

Remediating the so-called "career ready"

2011-08-17T19:44:00.002-05:00

With NCLB came the concept of students being college and career ready when the graduated from college. That doesn't seem so complicated; after all, that's what is supposed to happen in school: kids learn how to read, write, think, and solve problems. They might even learn good study skills and reasonably good time management skills. With that skill set, they should be prepared to do well in college or even in the American work place. Right? Not really.

But making sure America's students are "college and career ready" is the goal of NCLB and has been enthusiastically seconded by the Common Core Standards and every educator endorsing and/or promoting those standards.

Writing in March 2010 for The Christian Science Monitor, Amanda Paulson noted that being "college and career ready" means "ensuring that students are prepared for college-level courses upon matriculation, or for a job that can support a family." Okay, so that doesn't seem so tough. Except that roughly 40% of all students need at least one remedial course when they get to college; I think Amanda's number is low because I remember reading 60% somewhere but can't find the source. So 40% it is. Whether 40% or 60%, students who take those remedial classes are just catching up.

Generally speaking, such students shouldn't take any more than 12 credit hours and if it happens they have to take a developmental or remedial reading or writing course, the likelihood is that at least one of their general education courses is going to seriously strain the student's ability to practice what he or she is learning in that remedial course. Inevitably the student is also taking something like History of Civilization I or something else that requires a LOT of reading and almost as much writing.

It should come as no surprise, then, that about half of all students who start college never finish.

But it also should be no surprise that American businesses find that too many of the high school graduates who apply for a job don't have the skills they need to do their jobs well OR to advance beyond entry level. If 40% of high school graduates need remediation, you can only imagine the dire straits of the kids who figure they can't get into college or couldn't get into college or just didn't want to go to college.

There is a flip side to some of this and that's my next blog post: who will train the plumbers?

Minnesota published Measuring College and Career Readiness: The Class of 2009. Interesting stuff. Regarding the state of college readiness and looking at the percentage of ACT-tested graduates meeting the College Readiness Benchmarks: English math, reading, and science. All four benchmarks: 24% of the nation's ACT-test graduates met the College Readiness Benchmarks. Twenty-four percent. Read it and weep. FYI: The state of Minnesota scored 32% on all four benchmarks.

The Alliance for Excellent Education believes the common core standards will help accelerate college and career readiness. I have a question: who is making sure the classroom teachers are being prepared to teach students so they are, indeed, college and career ready? And who is paying attention to the absurdly wide divergence between expectations for success in college and expectations for success in the work place? And, if anyone is paying attention, who is helping whom make sure that both high school and college students and teachers are really prepared for the world in which students will have to be able to live. . . and work? Because it isn't most high school teachers and it certainly isn't most college professors and I have my doubts about far too many work/corporate organizations really being ready for what the 21st century work place might become. And soon.

There is a growing body of research and there are more conversations talking about school reform and innovation in context of being college and career ready, but no one really seems to know what that means other than to be able to pass some college courses and/or hold down a reasonably paying job. Meh. That's work-ready, not career-ready.

So here's what I think (and I reckon you care about that if you hung with me this long): the high schools and universities that get it right with online and blended education will be able to a) make the most impact on teacher preparation; and b) lead the charge in preparing today's students to be the generation of leaders, managers, manufacturers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, landscapers, graphic designers, programmers, chefs, etc. we're going to need. And I think that the organizations, especially businesses and larger corporations, that tap into those initiatives—helping to inform them by sharing trends, perspectives, what’s really happening in their industries, partnering with universities, offering internships for college and high school students, etc.—will only help themselves by making sure that graduates are better prepared for the work world they enter. And I think the truly successful and impressively inventive universities and job prep organizations will be those that look to what businesses and corporations are doing to remediate graduates and take steps to prevent the requirement of such remediation AND provide that remediation in artfully innovative ways; that work with businesses and corporations of all sizes and kinds, whether local or global; that strive to be learning organizations themselves and partner with thought leaders in the various content areas to help shape and inform the dynamics of the conversations as well as their outcomes.

Maybe a plain ol' definition of being "career ready" means being able to hold down a job, but wouldn't it be cool if "career ready" actual means 1) be employable; 2) know what you enjoy doing and what you're good at doing; 3) be able to make decisions so that you continue to grow and improve beyond high school or college so you get to do what you enjoy doing and what you're good at doing?

Thinking & Learning, Part II

2011-08-07T13:14:00.000-05:00

In the past few months I've talked about toppling paradigms and smashing boxes. And just recently I made a comment to colleagues about how tired I am of the word "innovation." When I met with my team recently to brainstorm about different ways to design and deliver a webinar, of which I'm also weary, I used the word "reimagine."

A while ago I broached this topic of thinking and learning and talked about Levine's 2006 report and "the skills and knowledge the promote learning." Then I was going to talk about the alleged two camps that see teaching as either a craft or a profession, but whatevs because I saw a film the other day titled Chalk (2006) and I'm still processing.

When Chalk first started, I was under the impression I was watching a documentary because of the way it was shot. A new administrator talked to a colleague about trying to figure out how to make the transition from teacher-as-colleague to assistant principal. An obviously brand new teacher, Mr. Lowrey, stumbled through classroom rules and his first day of class. We got to watch other interactions; some painful, some surprising, some a little shocking, some pushing the boundaries of believability. But I was making notes and thinking about ways I might use this film.

One of the critical moments is whether or not Mr. Lowrey, the stumbling first-year history teacher, was going to sign his contract for the next year. He was encouraged by the assistant principal who was beginning to come into her own as a principal. Three things really got my attention. First, Mr. Lowery said he wasn't sure he was going to sign the contract; he wasn't sure he had the ability as he saw teaching as an art. Second, one of his colleagues said, "I'd quit if I had the guts." And the transforming assistant principal said in her webjournal that she thought teaching wasn't the top of the list for student success. This is a great sequence by the way as she pushed teaching down the list of things important for student success and finally said something like, "57. The first 57 are family. Teaching is 58."

I'd love the randomness of the numbers, but really loved the emphasis on family as being key to student success.

Mr. Lowery's comment that teaching is an art. Yes. It requires a body of knowledge; an ability to shift gears at a moment's notice and a deft touch to make that shift look seamless, transparent. Teaching requires incredible almost superhuman skills in improv, situation analysis, decision-making, empathy, discipline, authority, humor, creativity.

His colleague's observation that he'd quit if he had the guts is disappointing, but not surprising. Just recently some of the members of my PLN have been talking about the sniping and petty jealousy of their fellow teachers, the way some of them have been attacked because they have dared to try new things, embrace new pedagogies, experiment with technology, challenge the status quo. Apparently their fellow teachers are threatened by all of that newfangled thinking, by change. And worse, they do not feel supported by their administrators. And just wait until school actually starts!

There is just so much going on in the world of education today. Educators who are passionate about their craft, their art, their profession are trying to do the best thing they can for their kids. They seem to be getting technological whiplash trying to keep track of all of the stuff coming at them as they worry about keeping up, about being relevant, about being valued, about being respected. No one helps make it easy.

Where am I going with this?

Chalk was a faux documentary, a semi-improv acted movie. Weird. And we are left not knowing if Lowrey signed his contract...and not caring or hoping he didn't. We are left uncertain of the point and purpose, though a determined person can learn something from most things.
Family really is important to a child's success in school.
There are hundreds if not thousands of educators trying to do their best for their kids and their most difficult barriers and challenges are other teachers.
New teachers need to be coached and encouraged because teaching is hard. Most of what they learned in university isn't useful nor practical.
Good teachers keep trying. Great teachers persevere in spite of all of the bull shiitake (see Guy Kawasaki, Enchantment).

Why just shift the paradigm?

2011-06-26T08:27:00.002-05:00

As we hear and even participate in discussions about education reform, we hear a lot about "paradigm shift." Two things occurred to me at TEDxPhillyED yesterday as I was listening to some remarkable speakers and being challenged by even more remarkable students. First, I think we may use "paradigm shift" without really thinking about what it means.

We all know that a paradigm is an example or pattern of some sort, right?. The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines paradigm as an archetype. And we understand that a pattern is something that can be followed, but doesn't have to be followed precisely.

Let's go to our friends at Wikipedia where we learn that "paradigm shift," also known as "revolutionary science" was "the term used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. According to Kuhn, 'A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share.' (The Essential Tension, 1977)."

Apparently Kuhn believed that "'a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself.' (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, reject the germ theory of disease to posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or reject modern physics and optics to posit that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt an array of stances (e.g., Marxist criticism, Deconstruction, 19th-century-style literary criticism), which may be more or less fashionable during any given period but which are all regarded as legitimate."

Our friends at Wikipedia go on to point out that the phrase has a variety of contexts and, as a marketing buzzword, tends to be overused. Yes, it tends to be overused. We speak of shifting the paradigm, but so often, I fear, we simply shift whatever we're doing at the moment a little to the left or the right without really knocking anything truly awry.

So here's my second point. If we're truly agents of change and if we truly want to knock something awry, if we really want to re-form education, we have to think about how to do that constructively, but understand we may have to do a little deconstruction first. We can refer to Gladwell's The Tipping Point or Blink, Berkun's The Myths of Innovation, and a whole host of other resources including Pink's Drive as we think about what we might need to do.

The more I thought about this last night, the more convinced I became that while great teachers are doing great things in the classrooms, and while those educators are truly being agents of change with their students and in their contexts, the paradigm that's being shifted may be limited to that classroom. . . and for a variety of complex reasons I wouldn't try to address in a blog post.

Is it "bad" that such change is limited to a single classroom? No, of course not. That's how grassroots change begins. One person discovers something who shares it with another. That's the story of Edcamp. And the story of Edcamp (more to come on that some time) is the kind of story that gives me hope that we're beginning to see not just the shift of the paradigm, but the toppling of it.

What also gives me hope is that while educators are exerting to effect change and doing so by actual doing the change rather than talking about it, they are also talking about how to effect change productively, effectively. They are also talking about how they are re-forming and want to re-form education. They are recognizing, little by little, that they have to do more than simply resolve the crisis of the symptom, but they are working towards the root of the problems. Gradually we are going to see that this is way more than tilting at windmills. One of these days we are going to wake up to recognize a dramatic transformation has taken place.

The next challenge will be not to embed that new paradigm in concrete, which we seem to do. I think we have to explode the notion of the paradigm--or recapture it's meaning as a "pattern or an example," and realize that we have to make sure we understand the fundamentals of what works in education, that we remember that works exactly for you may not work exactly for me but that now that I have the pattern for what can work, I can adopt and adapt as I need for my students. And we have to remember that what works for this group of students might not work for any other group of students, or just because it works for one student doesn't mean it works for every student. And we have to stop trying to institutionalize or standardizing a paradigm.

And we have to think bigger than the classroom. I'm still working on this, but as we re-form education we have to think about implications for the work place, we have to think about implications for teacher preparation, we have to think about implications for parenting students, and so much more. But as we think about those implications, we have to be wary of trying to firmly establish what "ought" to be as though it must be some commandment for every teacher, every administrator, every student. Guidelines, yes. Hard and fast rules that must not be broken? Not so much.

Waiting for Superman

2011-05-29T14:38:00.000-05:00

I've finally watched Waiting for Superman. The delay hasn't been for lack of interest, but time; well, maybe a little lack of interest. From what I'd heard, there wasn't anything in the film I didn't already know, that didn't already enrage or depress me. I took a lot of notes. My initial and somewhat random thoughts follow.

One of the opening quotes of the movie is that the teachers of the first documentary "embodied a hope and carried with them a promise that public education could work." Most teachers do embody a hope; most teacher do carry the promise that they care about their students, that they want their students to learn.

Charter schools, KIPP schools, magnet schools, reform. Tenure gets its share of bashing as do unions. I'm not a fan of unions, I confess. I understand there has been and can be some value, but, based on what I think I know of unions, I fear they have lost sight of their purpose. I'm not a fan of tenure either. I've seen the negative results of tenure at the collegiate level and we know the results at the K-12 level. But I also believe that teaching is not a right. As with any other work, especially a profession, there is some degree of privilege of being able to do that work, of being able to demonstrate some mastery of that craft.

We know the number of teachers who leave the profession in their first few years and generally because they are ill-prepared to be teachers and/or they haven't sufficient support. So the survivors get tenure. If they still aren't given the tools or means to continue to improve, to do well in their jobs, they will get just as beaten down as anyone else and then they won't care or can't care because there is no point in caring. They will not be able to see the damage they're doing or they won't care about the damage they're doing.

Dance of the lemons. Turkey trot. Pass the trash. How pathetic we have a system for moving bad teachers around in the hopes that someone else's bad teacher, someone else's trash is somehow better than what they had before. Of course, some teachers may blossom in some schools because of the culture of that school. Regardless of where one works or in what capacity, there is always politics and personalities and cultural considerations. Why should be surprised that's the case in schools?

"We've made it complicated." Oh yes we have. Federal, state, and district laws and regulations. Board of Education and school boards intent on wrangling power or whatever, often working at odds with their own agendas.

But it's not just the schools and the district offices and the bureaucrats and others who know nothing about education but think they're somehow experts because they went to school once. Part of our problem are the teacher factories: colleges and universities who are turning out poorly prepared teachers.

And it's the race to the top or to the technology or to whatever people think might be the silver bullet to solve the problem of education. Yet what was very clear in this film is that the teachers make a difference. In fact, it's not the building and its facilities; it's not the location; it's not the socio-economic demographics of the area or of the parents.

What makes a successful school is a sense of community and family. Dedicated educators who ask themselves each and every day if they've done the right thing for their students, if they did enough. Those are the educators who are checking in with their students late at night, maybe even prompting them to get off Facebook to go to bed or finish their homework. Engaged and committed parents who, even if English is not their first language, even if they work hard at two or three jobs, know there is value in education and are willing to work their kids' teachers.

What makes a successful school are bureaucrats who really understand that teaching is hard work and value it, who don't try to manage to success in a year or less but make sure their teachers have the time, the resources, and the support they need to become successful. Those same administrators have to be willing to remediate teachers who are not successful and, just as college teacher preparation programs should do, advise those who do not show sufficient potential to find another career path.

If we are to have teacher unions, rather than seemingly protecting teachers at all costs, unions need to protect the quality, the vitality, perhaps even the sanctity of the teaching profession. Unions should be at the vanguard demanding that teacher preparation programs do what is necessary to insure candidates are really ready to be teachers and then working with federal and local governments to demand and insure that teachers have the resources, the professional development, and more so those teachers can continue to improve their craft. Rather than pitting themselves against bureaucracies, unions should, I think, find ways to cultivate collaborative partnerships to make sure the right people are in the right jobs doing the right things for our students. . . as though our future depends on it.

Thinking about teaching & learning: Part I

2011-04-13T12:59:00.000-05:00

Just recently I have a presentation titled "What it means to teach." The audience was my colleagues at my work place. We are going through an exciting and challenging transitional time, so trying to provide some insight into the K-12 teaching world has been fun for me and, I hope, useful for them.

Though this isn’t relevant to what I want to say, I gave everyone a survey so they could go query teachers about teaching: how long they’ve been teaching, how much time they spend working on lesson plans, how much time they spend grading, challenges that make them crazy about teaching, what they still like or love about teaching, what they’d want non-teachers to know about teaching. When I’ve collated the "data," I’ll share out.

But in the process of preparing for this presentation and thinking about digital learning and teaching, I harkened back to Educating School Teachers by Dr. Arthur E. Levine, former president of Teachers College at Columbia University. The opening line of the Executive Summary of this 2006 publication reads: "The nation’s teacher education programs are inadequately preparing their graduates to meet the realities of today’s standards-based, accountability-driven classrooms, in which the primary measure of success is student achievement."

Further in the Executive Summary is the following:

The report identifies several model teacher education programs at the nation’s 1,206 university-based education schools.

But the study found that too often teacher education programs cling to an outdated, historically flawed vision of teacher education that is at odds with a society remade by economic, demographic, technological, and global change. Equally troubling, the nation is deeply divided about how to reform teacher education to most effectively prepare teachers to meet today’s new realities.

Levine says there is a schism between those who believe teaching is a profession like law or medicine, requiring a substantial amount of education before one becomes a practitioner, and those who think teaching is a craft like journalism, which is learned principally on the job. As a result, there are conflicting and competing beliefs on issues as basic as when and how teachers should be educated, who should educate teachers, and what is the most effective way to do so.

The report was not without its critics, of course. Levine’s methods and intentions were questioned, though even his critics had to admit, even as they grumbled, that he makes some good points. As reported by Education Week,

the overall picture he paints is not a cheerful one, of programs that teach outdated curricula and have failed to keep pace with demographics, technology, global competition, and pressures to raise student achievement.

Meanwhile, universities have exacerbated the situation by continuing to treat teacher-preparation programs as "cash cows," leading them to set low admissions and graduation standards for their students. . ." (p. 2).

Education Week concludes that Levine "calls for rebuilding teacher education programs around the skills and knowledge that promote classroom learning, and making five-year programs the norm" (p. 4).

As a good friend of mine is wont to say, "I have issues."

That last sentence in the Education Week article is worth a few blog posts, but I’m also interested in the camps that see teaching as either a profession or a craft. So in the next episode, as it were, I’ll talk about that. Then I want to explore this idea of the "skills and knowledge that promote classroom learning."

Some time ago I might have agreed that a five-year program makes sense. Pre-service teachers already cram a lot into even an outdated curriculum. Maybe an updated curriculum would clear out some of the educational detritus that lingers; maybe not. So the next next blog post will be exploring this notion of the five-year program.

In the mean time, as always, I'm thinking about professional development (or educator growth or professional learning or educator learning or. . .) and that a local university is requiring its student to take a Personal and Professional Development course and that it really is true that everyone is co-opting the phrase "professional development." And I just want to smash the box of how we think about whatever we end up calling helping teachers refine and develop skills and knowledge that help their students refine and develop skills and knowledge.

Subject to Change

2011-04-03T17:45:00.000-05:00

I read Subject to Change: Creating Great Products and Services for an Uncertain World about three years ago, so probably not too long after it first came out. I loaned it to my then boss who read it almost as fast as I did and was as enthusiastic about it as I was. He shared it with some other executives and, well, nothing. We were all dutifully reading about purple cows and elephants as well as how to be great rather than just good and that everything we thought was bad is actually good for us. We read others, of course. There are many of us who have many of the popular work-related non-fiction titles and we proudly display them in our offices so people know we've read them. But what concerns me is how rarely anyone seems to manage to act on anything they've learned.

Just recently I suggested that some of us get together periodically to discuss the enormous amount of research we're all sharing. If we were to draw lines of email paths, we'd see all kind of reports and articles crisscrossing cyberspace and we share things we think others might find interesting or valuable. I'm guilty of it. But then what do we do with all of that information? I imagine some of us read the reports and articles, perhaps even every word. But then we don't compare notes. We don't discuss what we've read and how it has affected our thinking or influenced our decisions. We don't talk about how any of what we've read or learned should or could impact our strategic or even tactical approaches to anything. We just share stuff.

No one responded to my suggestion that we meet, but I may just schedule a meeting and see who accepts. We don't have an information vacuum, but we do have a vacuum of discussion and sharing of ideas.

What does that have to do with Subject to Change? Good question. I can't sum up the book easily because I've marked too many pages. On re-reading, I've wanted to mark more. The organization behind the book is Adaptive Path. Their work statement reads: "We help companies deliver meaningful experiences. Our passion for tackling the toughest problems and our desire for design solutions that improve the world are the keys to our success."

So when Adaptive Path refers to "design," they mean that it is an activity that incorporates empathy, problem-solving, ideation and prototyping, and finding alternatives (p. 9-10). In this case, "design" is a verb. However, the crux of this book for me is the following:

We live in an increasingly uncertain world, where the tools that served us well for so long no longer do. Technology isn't sufficient; we can't simply add features to attract an audience. There is no more efficiency to squeeze out of our operations, nor defects to remove from our products.

How do we deliver great products and services in an uncertain world? The thing to keep in mind, not just in the abstract, but truly and viscerally, are your customers and their abilities, needs, and desires. When you do that, when you truly empathize with the people you serve, you'll realize that for them the experience is the product we deliver, and the only thing they truly care about (p. 12-13).

Now I know a whole of people would disagree with elements of this quote, and that's fine. So do I. Perhaps there are still efficiencies to gain and defects to remove or correct or improve upon. But that's not really the important paragraph or the most important idea. The most significantly important idea is the last part of the last sentence: for your customers, whoever your customer might be, the most important thing is the product and their experience with that product. That's all they truly care about.

I've rented a car for a business trip. It's a nice car. It took me 20 minutes to figure some things out because of all of the technology. It handles nicely and the sound system is wonderful. But I can't change the clock. I've followed the directions and changing the clock isn't hard. But the time will NOT change in this car. And you know what? I really hate that and it makes me really dislike this car. My experience with this product is definitely influenced by the simple function I cannot do that I need and want to do. Yep, there are all sorts of cool gadgets and capabilities, but big whoop. I want to change the clock and this stupid car system will not let me do it. And for a lot of customers, it may be the seemingly insignificant that colors the rest of the experience for that particular product.

I have a note on page 16 on which I've also underlined this sentence: "The experiences people have with your products and services is the real differentiator, a strategy that must be explored and embraced in our changing world." The authors go on to say that an individual's experience with a product or service emerges from specific human qualities:

motivation: why they are using the product and service and what they hope to get from it;
expectations: preconceptions of how things will work (I'll tap the MENU button and the CLOCK button and adjust the time with the + or - signs and all will be well. . . or not);
perceptions: the ways a product or service affects the individual's senses (not emotions, mind you, just senses, though my sense of humor was sorely tested);
abilities: the ways an individual is able to interact with the product or service cognitively or physically (for a while I assumed I was a technology moron because I could not change the clock);
flow: how individuals engage or interact with a product or service over time;
culture: "the framework of codes (manners, language, rituals), behavioral norms, and systems of belief within which a person operates (p. 16).

"When someone says they've had a good or bad experience, what they're talking about is how a product, service, or environment did or didn't satisfactory address these qualities" (p. 16).

Again, you might not agree, but there is something worth considering, I think, especially for those of us who design products and services.

My note? "Globalization has made the world smaller; the Internet and other technology put that world at our fingertips. Each one of us has an enormous reach to products and services around the world. Just imagine how that should change the way we design our products and services, the way we think about our customers."

Yes, just think about it. And then figure out in what ways your design work might need to be subject to change.

IPads for every student impact learning. . . or not

2011-01-11T21:24:00.000-06:00

Cost for an iPad: $750 per student. Cost for textbooks per student varies depending on what has to be adopted for the school year, but there are also costs associated with inventory and distribution of textbooks. That would be personnel.

In the January 4 article by Winnie Hu, Larry Cuban, a professor emeritus of education at Stanford University, states that "[t]here is very little evidence that kids learn more, faster or better by using these machines." He goes on to state that "iPads are marvelous tools to engage kids, but then the novelty wears off and you get into hard-core issues of teaching and learning." In these days of technology and education, such could be the stuff of educational heresy.

The day after Hu's article was published, Cathy Davidson posted a response. If you're not sure who Cathy Davidson is, she was the Vice Provost at Duke University in 2003 when that institution gave a free iPod to every first-year student. 2003. Before iTunes and long before, as Dr. Davidson notes, anyone "had thought of one, single learning application." In her current role, Dr. Davidson is the co-founder and co-director of the HASTAC/MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Competition. So she's got some skin in the digital technology game.

But Dr. Davidson, like Larry Cuban, believes that it's not just about the technology. Dr. Davidson states, quite strongly: "If you change the technology, but not the method of learning, then you are throwing bad money after bad practice."

If you give one of today's kids an iPad, will they figure out how to use it? For more than playing Angry Birds or Cut the Rope? Maybe. Giving kids a digital device may not be that much different from sitting kids in front of a television: it will keep them entertained for a period of time. Will they learn anything? Um, no. Not on their own.

Cathy Davidson asserts the Duke experiment with the iPod proved to be successful and opened the door to creating, developing, identifying ways to use the iPod as a teaching and learning tool; you can read all about it in her book Now You See It.

When overhead projectors were introduced into classrooms, teaching was supposed to improve. When PowerPoint was introduced into classrooms, students who were visual learners were going to be much more engaged and teachers would be able to hand out copies of their presentations so students could take notes right on the copy. Or teachers could email their presentations to students who would then have them along with their notes. Or teachers could upload their presentations to an LMS. And kids were going to learn better and test scores were going to skyrocket. Except the teaching didn't really change. Teachers made adjustments to incorporate PowerPoint, but the way they delivered instruction was fundamentally the same.

While introducing students to forms of digital media isn't a bad thing, it's not as though simply using an iPad is going to prepare students for the world in which they will live and work. Davidson states, "If your school district has embraced student-centered learning, if it has redeveloped its curriculum, and if it no longer thinks that End of Grade testing measures what students today do learn and need to learn, then computer-aided learning and digital learning and learning as play are wonderful."

I've said this more than a few times and will say it again: a good teacher can teach anything with three novels. That's what a facilitator said at an innovation forum in 2004. The point, I think, is that a good teacher doesn't need accoutrements, doesn't need props. But digital content and digital media connect kids to their current world and help establish an understanding of the world in which they live and, perhaps, begins to help kids think about how their worlds will continue to evolve and what life might be like when they are in college, when they have graduated. And even if they don't think too far into the future, helping kids learn with digital content and digital media just makes sense given the current trends.

In some ways, though, I think teaching kids with digital content and media is a lot like teaching writing or math. It's important to teach students the fundamentals and to teach them the rules. Once they understand the fundamentals and the accompanying rules, they can figure out how to bend or break the rules and do so effectively. So perhaps I'd go ahead and teach students how to do research using some school databases and I'd make sure they learn how to analyze a source to determine its quality; how to document, maybe even how to annotate that source; how to find other sources based on that source discovery. Once they're confident they know how to do research using a fairly limited selection of resources, I can let them conduct their research however they want. . . because they know the fundamentals and they know the rules.

A friend of mine is a basketball coach. Any athletic coach will understand this: the players have got to have the fundamentals. The layup isn't falling any more? Back to the basics and review the fundamentals. Maybe then it'll be easier to spot how the player tried to get a little too fancy with a finger roll or taking off too soon or had gotten in the weird habit of a stutter step. Same thing is true with shooting a free throw. Some players get so wrapped up in their ritual, that they forget something basic, like using their legs as part of the fundamentals of free throw shooting.

So the teaching isn't just the application of the digital content or media, but it is making sure students understand the fundamentals and the rules of that digital content or media. There is, of course, more to that story which involves teaching the teachers how to use digital content or media, how to think differently about their teaching and their students' learning to use digital content or media, how to encourage their students differently in their learning.

A speech I'll probably never give

2011-01-02T16:46:00.000-06:00

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is pleasure to be with you today and to have the opportunity to talk about education.

I'd like to start by saying two things: first, there is nothing new under the sun; and two, innovation is a myth. The first lurches somewhat erratically toward the second, but let me speak first of the second. Are you still with me?

In 2007, Scott Berkun published The Myths of Innovation. Mr. Berkun has leveraged his book quite successfully and he's been taken to task a bit for not really defining that word "innovation." In fact, in an interview he says "In my book, I'm deliberately sloppy with the definition. Invention, discovery, innovation, creative thinking, and progress are all in the same ballpark and that's the field of myths the book explores." But most of us understand that "innovation" refers to something new--an improved or different or better or other or novel approach to something we've seen or done before. Please note that those words are not synonymous in that "different" or "novel" is not necessarily "better." While Mr. Berkun spends quite a bit of time debunking some myths, he also spends quite a bit of time explaining why chasing so-called innovation may mean missing the best option or opportunity. When asked why innovation often fails, Mr. Berkun replied that there are two main reasons:

. . . 1) a failure to let ideas grow and 2) an unwillingness to take risks. In the first case, ideas are like plants - the seeds don't look much like the final flower, and need time and nurturing to blossom. If there's no incubator in an organization, there's no way for new seeds to develop, and therefore, not much innovation is going to happen.

In the second, innovation is change by definition [emphasis mine] No matter how you define it, it means doing something different. This demands risk. The bigger the innovation, the bigger the risks. Any organization that claims they want innovation but isn't willing to take risks is lying to itself.

In other words, innovation is only the implementation of change. Perhaps that's oversimplying it, but we all know how hard change can be. Spencer Johnson made fortune with the "Who Moved My Cheese?" movement and we now have coaches and courses on managing change because change can be hard and difficult and risky.

Now I'm a product of the so-called factory model of education. We sat in rows and often in alphabetical order, which, if you think about it, was a marvelous classroom and time management tool because a teacher could tell quickly who was absent and it made learning student names easier. Yes, we did worksheets and had vocabulary tests and worked, or tried to work, an infinite number of the odd-numbered problems at the back of the book. But I remember a travel journal project for social studies the 5th grade and having to write a play about an historical event. I remember doing a mock trial in 6th grade. And I have recollections of other learning experiences, both good and bad, that were not quite the norm for that time. And yes, we learned to memorize, but we also learned to analyze. We learned to synthesize and we learned to summarize.

I remember being b-o-r-e-d in high school. Bored, bored, bored. Had I lived in a later time, I would have had early enrollment in a college because I needed only 1/2 a credit to graduate from high school and could have finished in summer school. But early graduation wasn't possible, certainly not for a girl. So I had something like 3 assistantships and took as many literature classes as I could. I played hookey for first, and only once, my senior year in high school. I did okay, but having all those literature classes wasn't hard for me. I loved to read. That year nearly ruined me for my freshman year of college, though; well, it didn't help.

Anway, I think about the educational changes we've seen over the years; I won't call them innovations because I'm not convinced they were or are. I'd like to share a rather lengthy excerpt from an article. Please be so kind as to indulge me.

What can we do in a situation which is, in any way, poor for children? Know in what ways we would like it to be better and why we consider these ways better for children and learning. Make the most of what we have. Hold to the dream of what and why. Know where and how to seek help in making the most of what we now have and in achieving realization of the dream. Each of these is a challenge. Each is exciting. Each is exploration.

. . .There is nothing beautiful in the room. There is nothing alive except tired, dull, unhappy children. It is crowded, stifling, dark and smelly. . . . The walls are not all that bear scars; there are spirits of the children--imagination snuffed out, resentment, mean words, harsh acts pressed in. . . .

What are the needs of the people who live here? How is this schoolroom to function in meeting these needs?

They need to feel a sense of rightness and beauty about the world--their world; a sense of just enough relaxation plus just enough stimulation to produce that balanced tension which creates. They need a sense of external and internal balance, stability and organization which facilitates concentration yet never becomes a fetish.

They need elbow room, space to move and work easily, space joyously to skip a bit when creation is achieved. Space to sit on the floor in a group and plan, dramatize or experiment. Space now and then to lie on one's tummy and read with heels kicking excitedly through climaxes of adventure. A little space here and there where one can slip away awhile to be with oneself, to work things out inside.

They need color--raw color, brash color, vibrant color to splash in, mix and fling against paper, clay, blackboard--while in the room, creating the atmosphere in which they breathe, they need subtle color, color harmony, color for the growing mood and tempo.

They need aliveness--their own, accepted and enjoyed--and other live things to watch, touch, caress and care for. It is poor space, indeed, which does not nurture liveness.

They need to feel identity--this is my schoolroom--our schoolroom--teacher's with us. And identity only comes for children, parents, teachers, community as we do something about this place and share the doing.

. . . The adventurous leader is not afraid of movement and change. We can explore, experiment, discover new ideas in this way, too. We will try out varied arrangements to learn which ones function best to derive some freshening of interest when we need challenge, to help us all learn useful and artistic ways of arranging a living place.

Finally, we will ruthlessly, but with sensitivity to human values, eliminate unwise extras, avoid hoarding of ephemeral things and discard the old, dusty, dead holdovers which every teacher is so prone lovingly to cling to year after year. They are no longer valuable when living children connected with them have moved on. Discarding them leaves us space for new growth, room for new adventures and explorations with each year's new crop of pioneers.

There is some truthiness to much of this. Some of it, no doubt, sounds quite familiar, even contemporary. And yet it was published in February 1954 in Educational Leadership, written by Lucy Nulton, then a teacher in the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School.

You see, I think we misunderstand the process of education. Sometimes kids learn in spite of their environment and in spite of their teachers. A lot of times, though, kids learn because of the way teachers help them kick down doors, find ways around or over barriers.

I transferred to a new university my sophomore year, mostly because I was at risk of getting kicked out of my first school for, shall we say, lack of academic performance. I was motivated to do well my sophomore year because while a miniscule number of credits transferred, my grades did not. Now I had never been good at math and I could place blame in a lot of places: teachers, parents, me. I'm sure it's some combination of all of the above, though not all of my math teachers were horrible. I had two very good ones that I can remember. Anyway, I was staring down Fundamentals or Foundations of Math I and II as the courses to fulfill my math requirement. And I was flailing. Badly. Finally, my math teacher, a graduate assistant, invited me to her home for tutoring. To. Her. Home. I was desperate. I went.

We sat at her dining room table and she reviewed fundamentals or foundations, or both, of algebraic stuff with me. I spent time at her place a couple of nights a week. For two semesters. I passed each course with a D and I was never so grateful for a D. I'm sure my instructor was desolate that she worked so hard with me and I was so dense. But my motivation was to pass, not to learn. I figured I would never, ever need that stuff again because I was an English and American Studies double major planning to go to law school.

Fast forward a few years. I find myself having to take a calculus course as I contemplated a Master's in computer science (that's a long story). Just for the record, prayer does NOT help you pass a course, but it just might help settle your mind long enough to concentrate. So I passed calculus, barely, and decided math really, really was not my thing.

Fast forward several more years; this is It's a Wonderful Life in reverse. Sort of. Anyway, I'm teaching full-time in a small liberal arts college. For the past 10 years of so, I'd been working as a computer programmer and systems analyst. Yes, you heard that correctly. It happens. And then I got a gig as an adjunct and discovered I loved teaching and got a full-time job teaching. . . . not English, but computer science. And then I had to teach--drum roll, please--math. Seriously. Math. My first math course was finite math, which was cool and I really dug it. Then they needed me to teach Basic Math. Oh my. I had a serious flashback moment when I met my first Basic Math students. They were desperate to pass to move on to complete their math requirements, but they were not really interested in learning math. And I remembered the hours I spent with my college math professor--and I wondered if I actually thanked her as much as I should have and figured I didn't--and just laughed out loud.

I didn't remember any of the ways she tried to teach me, but I did remember her attitude and her patience. So that and my own mathphobic experience made me the practically perfect Basic Math teacher ever. Because it wasn't tricked out technology or cool gadgets. It wasn't about standards. It was about respecting my students' panic and desperation; it was about making sure they had opportunities to lie on their tummies, to have space and opportunity, to try new things, to let each student find his or her own way rather than insisting each student learn exactly the same way. It was about making sure that each student knew what he or she had to be able to accomplish to pass and letting them work at their own pace. It was about being willing to be silly when that was warranted and serious when that was necessary.

I've told this next anecdote a few dozen times, at least. I was privileged to go to an Innovation Forum some years ago. The organization behind the forum content was SIT: Systematic Inventive Thinking. One of the SIT presenters stood in front of this group of people from a leading educational publisher and said, and I no doubt paraphrase, "Any good teacher can teach anything with three good books."

I'm not sure if the three books was a requirement, but the point he went on to make--though I missed a few paragraphs as I started thinking about which three books I might use to teach literature, math, or computer science--is that any good teacher can teach anything regardless of her resources. It's not about the resources. It's about the teacher and her approach to her students. It's about her approach to learning and how she seeks or creates opportunities for her students to discover the pleasure of learning.

We have to understand that we won't make learning pleasurable or exciting or inventive or even innovative all of the time. Some students will simply not like one or more subjects. But we can help them find ways to make the process of learning less painful, even moderately engaging. And perhaps we can help them learn to like learning rather than striving only to pass.

So, what have I tried to accomplish here? There are three things I want you to take away from this ramble are these. First, we can innovate and implement change and more change, but that does not change the significance and importance of a good teacher because innovation, invention, and anything else make no difference without a good teacher. Second, teachers don't need stuff. They need support, collegiality, and encouragement though stuff can sometimes make teaching and learning easier, even better.

Last, but by no means least, whether in a one-room schoolhouse, a 1954 classroom, a 2011 super-charged spiffed-up technology-filled classroon, the most significant or differentiating factor is the teacher because whether 1911, 1954, or 2011, the difference in the classroom is the teacher--her attitude, her passion, her energy, her desire to help students find their way and their own passion for learning. That good teacher reiterates Ms. Nulton in thinking about ways to improve teaching and learning and knowing why the different ways are better for children and their learning. That good teacher knows how to make the most of what she has, but also to "[k]now where and how to seek help in making the most of what we now have and in achieving realization of the dream." Dream on. Teach on and, with props to Kevin Honeycutt, help kids learn to love learning.

Thank you.

It's not about the technology. . . or is it?

2010-11-22T18:45:00.008-06:00

I was supposed to deliver a presentation for the 2010 Global Education Conference, but I have trouble telling Greenwich Mean Time. Well, I have trouble telling time, but that's a different issue. So first things first: if you didn't know about the conference, following the link and you can enjoy the recorded sessions of those who actually knew how to tell GMT and showed up.

Second, I've decided to offer up the key points of my session, just in case the idea matters to anyone. The session description read thus: We talk about infusing technology in our teaching. We attend myriad conference sessions on technology. The emphasis so often is on the tool, on the technology, on the resource. But it’s really NOT the technology that makes a difference in the classroom. It’s the teaching. Good teaching that results in quality, sustainable learning can occur without a speck of technology. If we don’t understand or have forgotten certain concepts of teaching and learning, then the technology may only make the situation worse. Bad teachers aren’t bad because they’re not using technology. Bad teachers are bad because they don’t teach well or don’t know how to teach. Let’s revisit ways to improve the actual teaching and then enhance that improved teaching and those opportunities for learning through the informed use of technology and other strategies.

I don't really think my observation is that bold. There is plenty of discussion about what constitutes good teaching which is why we have methods classes for pre-service students and why we have accountability measures for classroom teachers. But many of us believe that those accountability measures tend to focus on whether or not a student passes a test.

I was at iNACOL recently and there was a lot of discussion about competency-based learning as well as individualized and/or personalized learning. There wasn't too much mumbling or grumbling about the inconsistency of standardized testing as a mechanism for testing students who may be taught via a competency-based model or through personalized/individualized learning, which puzzled me.

On the other hand, I've always been a proponent of figuring out the learning objectives and the approach to teaching and the checking to see which standards are being met. I believe the thoughtful teacher who focuses on what she wants to her students to learn and why she wants them to learn those things will achieve the standards. And I believe that the teacher who focuses first on what she wants her students to learn and she wants them to learn those things can then think about the ways for students to achieve those learning objectives.

Because we talk about student-centered learning, but then we focus on the teaching. But if we're really interested in student-centered learning, we begin with the student and, with a nod to UbD, with the objectives or end in mind for that learning experience. . . . which may take a class period, a week, a month.

There is something to beginning with the end in mind. When I plan a trip, I think about my destination. Then I think about how much time I have to travel and how much money I want to spend. That helps inform how I will try to get where I'm going.

Many of us have planned activities for a group of people and have tried to plan a vacation for a diverse group of people. So something has to be planned or available for most or all interests. And what about the people who don't like to fly or have specific limitations or requirements for travel or food or whatever.

Preparing for students to learn is different than planning a vacation for a group of people, but many of the principles are the same. I know I want everyone to get to the same place and I know that each person may travel at a different pace or in a different way.

As a former literature, computer science, business communication, and math teacher, I think there are far too many ways to help students accomplish learning objectives, but let's just say, for simplicity's sake, I need my students to write an analysis on a topic of their choice. The focal point of the assignment is that it must be an analysis, perhaps of a body of research or of a particular case study or of a formal report, etc.

An approach is to craft a description of the assignment, trying to anticipate all of the questions students might ask and fully accepting the fact I'll miss something or state something in a way that someone doesn't quite understand. Once the assignment description is done, which could be a few or several paragraphs, I might craft a rubric for that assignment which serves to let students know how they will be assessed on that assignment and, I hope, further clarifying my expectations for their work. So between the two resources, students should know the parameters of the assignment: when it is due, if there is any length requirement, if there are any formatting constraints or requirements, what the assignment needs to accomplish, etc. And, if the assignment warrants it, I might them any situational or audience constraints.

I might want them to create a rough draft or an outline for me to review or for them to review with their peers, or both and so if this is an elongated assignment, I need to give them due dates. Maybe I want them to work in pairs or in groups, so I create a mechanism for them to be assigned or choose their partners.

And then I let them do their work and I become a facilitator and a coach. I haven't mentioned technology. I may distribute the assignment via email and/or hard copy and/or Google Docs because I believe that students might need to get the assignment more than one way to minimize excuses for losing it. We discuss in class; they ask questions. Done. They then will choose to use whatever technologies seem most appropriate for them based on their approaches to the assignment. I'd probably ask them to send me an "abstract" or a description of how they plan to approach the problem so I can help redirect anyone who may be taking a route that's too difficult or simply not appropriate for the expected outcome. As part of that "abstract" assignment, I can ask the students to explain why they think their particular approach is a good one, which does a good portion of my job for me because they are likely to discover for themselves if their approach makes sense.

So you're saying that will work for a college student and probably even a high school student, but not necessarily an elementary student or a middle school student. Balderdash!

Let's say I want my 5th or 6th graders to do a biographical sketch on a particular person in the historical period we're studying. I create a description of the assignment and I create a rubric. I might create a list of people from which my students can choose: scientists, writers, inventors, mathematicians, etc. Because they have the rubric, they know what the assignment has to do. How they choose to do it--create a video, write a play, create a museum display, write a paper, etc.--is completely up to them. As long as they meet the fundamental requirements of the assignment and the rubric, it doesn't matter how they accomplish the learning.

Now let's just say that I know that Elspeth likes to do a puppet show. In some cases it works well, but in other situations it might not be as effective. So before students start each assignment, I ask them to give me a brief description of how they plan to approach the assignment: they can do that via email or the class wiki or some other technology we might have available. But then I can reply individually to students and suggest that Elspeth try something other than a puppet show for a particular assignment and make some recommendations for similar but different approaches. Or, if I think Elspeth has competencies and capabilities she's not using or stretching, I might suggest she take a particular approach that's a bit out of her comfort zone.

My point is that while technology is not marginalized, it is not the main event. Learning is the focal point. Sure, we'll use technology as part of our communication process, but it's just there. No big deal. And yes, I can suggest an array of possible technologies for students to use, but I can also give them the freedom to find others about which I might not know. And then I can encourage them to share what they know about those technologies with their classmates.

A brief digression: "technology" need not be limited to electronic or mobile devices. You might want to check out the etymology of the word "technology" or check out some definitions of the word "technology" to get a different perspective of the word and how it can be used or applied.

So another point is that a good teacher can't be afraid to fail, can't be afraid to say "I don't know," and must not feel as though she must know everything about everything because then she will most certainly fail.

We talk about teachers being lifelong learners, yet too often teachers seem to be afraid to show they are still learning, are still open to learning, delight in learning even from their students. How encouraging it is to students to be able to show their teachers something new. How gratifying to students when a teacher congratulates them on what they have discovered and taught the class as well as the teacher. How energizing to a student to know that discovery and sharing of learning is not limited to the teacher; that it is, in fact, the purview of any learner.

Legitimizing informal professional development

2010-10-08T13:17:00.003-05:00

Years ago I was part of a task force to reconsider how faculty were evaluated. We talked about flexible allocations for faculty so they could decide if in a particular year they might be evaluated more one criterion than the others; in other words, faculty would have the option to determine the weight of each criterion for that evaluation year. One of the criterion that generated a great deal of conversation was publishing and what constituted "legitimate" publishing.

This was, mind you, well before blogs and wikis were as commonplace as they now are. Electronic journals were just beginning to make inroads towards legitimacy, even if the ejournal was the virtual version of the print version. Administrators looked askance at something they could not hold and touch.

I heard Steve Hargadon speak today of his daughter's digital portfolio. Anna Hargadon has a blog in which she documents her theater projects working with autistic children. Steve suggested that her blog might serve her better for getting a job than a typical resume. And why not? Her blog conveys considerably about her work and herself than a resume. The blog is, in some ways, multidimensional where a resume is not and cannot be.

During this one-day conference sponsored by Education Week--Unleashing Technology to Personalize Learning--we've discussed personalizing professional development which led us, of course, to talk about online professional development.

So just as my task force of some years ago wrestled with what constituted legitimate, verifiable publishing, school and district administrators are wrestling with what constitutes legitimate, verifiable, and valid professional development. We've heard discussion of informal professional development, the kind that teachers get through their professional or personal learning networks, through their social media connections and relationships.

Why might so-called "informal" professional development be less valuable than the one-size-fits-all PD day scheduled by a school or district?

And what just popped into my head is all the controversy that surrounded learning portfolios submitted by adult learners for college credit. It look a while for faculty and administrators and accreditation agencies to accept that an adult could provide documentation and various artifacts that reasonably and suitably demonstrated particular learning for a particular course. Over time, universities and colleges developed criteria for students creating such portfolio and rubrics for faculty examining them.

So there are two small steps for administrators to take: 1) Establish parameters for informal professional development; and 2) Establish rubrics for evaluating such professional development. And the steps could be even that much smaller because most districts probably already have mechanisms for professional development portfolios, so it should be a relatively simple matter to modify or expand the parameters to allow for or accommodate informal PD.

Given the preponderance of teachers who are already pursuing informal and, therefore, personalized professional development, and given the relatively short runway to insure that informal PD can be a legitimate and valid part of a teacher's professional development portfolio, what are we waiting for?

Implications of "Gainful Employment"

2010-09-19T17:06:00.004-05:00

I don't know of anyone who would say that being "gainfully employed" is a bad thing. There were a number of ads in today's newspaper that caught my attention. For those of you distracted by "newspaper," stay with me. Yep, it's archaic for some, but I do like the smell and mess of newsprint and reading a paper while drinking coffee.

So, gainful employment. According to Ben Miller, a policy analyst, what is at "the center of the proposal is a rule called 'gainful employment' that would penalize for-profit colleges and other vocational training programs for saddling students with more debt than they can pay back."

Miller goes on to say

For-profits have grown by leaps and bounds in recent years, largely free of federal regulation. That freedom would be significantly curtailed if the gainful employment standard takes effect. Vocational training programs would be judged by the ratio of the debt that graduates assume relative to their current earnings and the rate at which they are able to repay it. If programs offered by for-profit colleges exceed certain thresholds on those measures, they risk losing eligibility for federal student aid. Given that many for-profit colleges receive close to 90 percent of their revenue from federal grants and loans, losing access to these dollars would be a death sentence.

Miller's full report can be downloaded from here.

Given the state of the economy and given the state of the job market, and given that even professional economists aren't too sure what the current states of either really might be or what realistic steps might be, it probably is a good idea not to let student incur too much debt.

According to the DOE,

Congress specifically authorized the Department to set different rules for occupational training and for-profit colleges because federal student aid may, by law, account for up to 90 percent of their revenues. The need for new rules has become especially acute in recent years as enrollment, debt loads, and default rates have grown rapidly at for-profit colleges. The median federal student loan debt carried by students earning associate degrees at for-profit institutions in 2007-08 was $14,000 – almost double the median debt for their peers at non-profit institutions. The majority of community colleges graduates during the same time period did not borrow. In addition, while 88 percent of recent borrowers from nonprofit institutions and 80 percent of borrowers from public institutions were able to pay down the balance of their student loans in recent years, only 55 percent of borrowers attending for-profit institutions were able to pay off more than accrued interest.

The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators suggests that there could be
some legitimate concerns regarding training programs, especially in areas in which there are already shortages.

I wonder how many people will really pay attention to this issue because the focus is on for-profit institutions and vocational programs and schools. I wonder how many people will react with immediate suspicion as I did, which seems to be the mark of a very good ad. I wonder what kind of difference the "gainful employment" rule will really make. . . for students and for their potential employers.

What box?

2010-09-12T12:36:00.004-05:00

Some time after I'd finished my doctorate, I was talking with someone who knew my dissertation chair, Dr. Dwight Allen. I loved working with Dwight because of the way he challenged me to keep thinking differently about the status quo but not to challenge it just for the sake of challenging it. The comment made about Dwight went something like this, "The great thing about Dwight is that he doesn't really think outside of the box because he isn't aware there is a box."

When I first starting working for Pearson, I was invited to go to an Innovation Forum. That was, I learned later, something of a big deal, but what has stayed with me are comments made by one of the presenters. This comment was made, mind you, to a large roomful of people involved in educational publishing and the participants included some then-impressive bigwigs in the Pearon hierarchy. The comment was something along these lines: "A really good teacher can teach anything with just three novels." Novels. Not textbooks. Not basals. Novels. I missed a lot of what he said after that because I was trying to decide which three novels I might use if I were able to teach a course that combined much of what I'd taught in the past: math, computer science, writing, and literature. But the comment isn't just about the novels, it's about what it means to be a "really good" teacher and what it means to teach. It's about what it means to engage students without technology, without black line masters, without textbooks, without anything other than, perhaps, three books purchased at a used bookstore. It's about what it means to teach and what it means to learn.

I'm reading Kieran Egan's The Future of Education: Reimagining Our Schools from the Ground Up. Egan also wrote Getting It Wrong from the Beginning, which I adored. I'm also reading Diane Ravitch's who recently published The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. By the way, I'd just like to note that the cover art for Ravitch's book is the same as that on Ivan Doig's The Whistling Season. I'm increasingly fascinated by the weird intersections of these books, one non-fiction, the other fiction; one directly about education and the other indirectly so, but more on that in a different missive.

Educators talk a lot about testing, assessment, teaching methods, professional development, student engagement, student motivation (see Robert Samuelson's "Why School 'Reform' Fails" in the September 13 issue of Newsweek), teacher unions, parental involvement, administrators, etc. The recent issue of TIME is all about teaching and schools; the title on the cover is "What Makes a School Great." There is even an article on Waiting for 'Superman' with speculation that this documentary/movie can do for education what An Inconvenient Truth did for climate change. But I also saw a little article about how most adults can read the fine print in an insurance policy. As someone who wears reading glasses, my first thought was that it had to do with the size of the print but, no, the article was about reading level and that the fine print is written at a 12th grade reading level and approximately 47% of the adult population reads at a 9th grade level or below.

So what's this all about? There is a lot of activity around educational reform as legislators and educators revisit No Child Left Behind but with the impact of the Race to the Top program, national common core standards, etc. One thing I learned a long, long time ago is that when a project is behind or somehow in trouble, the worst thing to do is simply add more people. The reality is that sometimes the product has to be dismantled and the project begun again. I can't imagine that we can completely dismantle our educational system, but I don't think we're making a great deal of headway by slapping a bunch of patches on it. On the other hand, maybe the system isn't as broken as some people seem to think it is. Samuelson observed that the student-teacher ratio in 1955 was 27 to 1 (Newsweek, pg. 21). But a lot of things were different then so comparing the 1955 classrooms to the 2010 classroom is ludicrous, and yet. . . and yet. . . .

Teachers will continue to need professional development, and not just because they need clock hours for recertification. But teachers, really good teachers who really care about teaching and their students, tend to be insatiable learners. Recognizing that there are state and district restrictions and constraints, recognizing that there are funding issues and concerns, recognizing that teachers still need to be able to color within the lines for a variety of reasons, I want to rethink professional development. I know I'm not the first, but somehow PD keeps coming back to be and look like the same ol' thing. How can we create a standard or core professional development experience that allows for individualization? I think it's related to PBL and action research, but I also think video plays a big role in this experience as well as multiple voices. A further catch is, of course, I work for a for-profit company, one that's willing to take a bit of risk and provide funding for this grand experiment but one that can't afford not to make some money so it can put more money into this research and development of professional development.

I don't think my current ideas are at all ground-breaking, but perhaps there is potential for something profound, even extraordinary. We're building PD booklets written by current and practicing educators. The booklets are on particular topics, some related specifically to education though we're getting requests to do some on topics such as project management and change management. The booklets, available in print and eventually electronically, will provide information about a particular topic and include teaching tips or strategies for implementations, resources, etc. Some topics, such as educational technology, require a series of booklets. Because these can be in a series, the writers can take into account the wide divergence of classroom possibilities and teaching scenarios. For example, a series on the writing cycle can be geared towards grade levels as can a series on conducting effective research. The purpose of each booklet is to provide context and information as well as strategies and resources to become a timely, at-hand resource for teachers and/or administrators.

We don't need any more communities, which is one of the next logical steps--creating communities around topics so that teachers and administrators can collaborate. Ideally we'd aggregate communities so that using a single search or collaborative mechanism we can pull from existing communities and resources. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't possibly be a part of one more social media or professional community. But we can create connections to and with communities that already exist, helping educators locate resources and helping them make the best use of those resources.

But the next thing I want to do is build a series of professional development options using the booklets as a starting point. I want to have PD options that include self-paced elearnings for individual teachers who do their PD on their own time and dime (which is the case for most teachers, by the way), but also blended and on-site options. I'd like to be able to organize regional institutes that have an individual to help facilitate the PD but mostly relies on crowd-sourcing. And those PD options need to include video of real teachers working with real students in real classrooms. My preference is that the video be produced professionally for a lot of reasons that have to do with legal and production stuff, but that may not preclude using other video in some situations. And my company is, so far, willing to pay for that video. And if a district or state understands the importance of PD but doesn't have money or time for outside PD? Fine, we'll have pacing guides, facilitator guides, participant guides, and other resources available. That is, we can put the package together for them to deliver, though I'm cautious enough to want to build a coaching & observation service because we know that the PD is only one tiny part of the puzzle. Too often districts/states wonder why PD hasn't been successful, but then complain about not having the time or money to observe teachers, to provide them with coaching, and to provide them with additional assistance, a teacher-focused personalized learning.

The guides, though, have to have some flexibility, an awareness that the teachers I teach may not want to teach the way I do, may build different relationships with their students than I do, may require more flexibility or may require more specificity. And I want the video that accompanies the PD to reinforce that thinking and still provide a sort of safety net for the teachers. Ideally they'll be able to use the booklets, the participant guides, the PD content, and/or the video over and over and over again to be sure they have the confidence and the resources they need to begin to be successful in the classroom.

My next goals are to use professional development at the higher education level to start to change the way university programs think about education, especially teacher education, and to build a variety of "certification" specialist programs in a variety of areas that will have graduate credit attached to them. I've got a few folks connected to universities who have expressed some interest.

Maybe this isn't "out of the box" thinking. Maybe I'm still clawing at the sides of the PD box, but maybe as we continue to try to find ways to break down the box, we'll be able to create some options and opportunities for those who don't realize they're stuck in a box with the lid closed and taped. One thing I know for sure, this effort can not be limited to a few people. If a series of booklets is a collaborative effort, that would be outstanding. If most of the PD work is the effort of one or two people who are really good at what they do, that's superb as well. It's not as though we can't revise and refine anything we do.

For those who know me, I'm not a patient person. I've been with my company for nearly nine months now and it's taken a while to get this stuff going. Once we begin, and if we're successful, the demand for more or other may grow in ways I've not yet considered or imagined, which is great. The wheel seems to be starting to turn now. We're going to do a soft launch of this PD concept October 19-22 at NSBA T+L. I'll be doing some presentations and hope I can coordinate with some folks who've already started some work with me to get to a clean prototype type or two in time for that show as we want to be able to distribute some of the early work at the show.

If any of this sounds interesting, perhaps you'll consider joining me. . .if you haven't already. I'd be happy to share a version of the PD brief I've prepared, though I'll have to ask for a non-disclosure if you already work with a corporation that does this kind of work. Please feel free to share this with any classroom teacher or administrator, or even university education faculty.

When you have ideas for improving any of this, please let me know. If there's anything that can improve any of this, I welcome any ideas at any time.

So thanks for your time and, if you're still reading, for staying with me for this ramble.

It is, you see, all about the learning.

ISTE2010 Reflections

2010-07-05T09:50:00.003-05:00

It's been a few days since ISTE ended, since my newfound colleagues and my "old" Plurk/Twitter/Facebook buddies and I parted ways. There were lots of hugs and promises to stay in touch, which, unlike other promises to stay in touch, are much easier to keep because of Plurk & Twitter & Facebook & LearnCentral & FourSquare & a host of other communication technologies.

It's hard not to think about ISTE and what I learned there, what I have yet to learn through further discovery. (Disclaimer: I work for Follett Software and, as Director of Professional Learning, my lens tends to be how I can build better professional development and/or how I can recruit talented educators to help me build better professional development.)

There was a lot of conversation about personalized learning and individualized learning, though there were several educators who used those terms synonymously and there are a lot of corporate vendors trying to figure out how to build software or other tools to help educators do whatever they need to do for personalized and/or individualized learning as soon as people figure out what it is. Which means I'd be wary of any vendor who claims to do something for either unless I'm really sure I know the difference and that the vendor knows the difference.

Still there was also some discussion of the difficulty of classroom teachers trying to implement personalized and/or individualized learning and still accommodate standardized tests. There was considerable discussion about AERA and a variety of other government-imposed expectations including the emphasis on college- and career-ready and how often educators (and vendors) tend to forget career-ready.

I loved the discussions about Web 2.0 tools and options, but can't imagine trying to find the time to sift through all of the options to determine what might be best for me in my classroom. The options and possibilities are quite dizzying, and the tools just seem to keep coming. Which is good, but would throw me into paroxysms of panic for fear I'd miss something, but also that I'm not using the best possible tool assuming there is such a thing any more as the best possible tool.

I heard a lot about "best practices," a phrase that continues to grate on me simply because there is no "best" practice. We overuse that superlative which means "surpassing all others" or "most excellent," etc. We use "best in class" with the expectation that whatever we're using is The One, but we also talk about "best of the best" and "creme de la creme" because we want to make sure that whatever we use or discuss or know is the absolutely most superior whatever possible. Which is possible only for a period of time. . . until something else better comes along. So "best practices" is a false construct and we have to remember that our practices are probably very good, possibly even superior to others but, like sharks, we have to keep moving or die. Perhaps that's too extreme, but my point is that educators continue to strive to learn and to grow, to improve their practice and their knowledge about their content area as well as their practice. So today's "best" could easily be tomorrow's reasonably good.

There was considerable conversation about professional learning networks, PLNs, and their power because of what we can share about teaching and learning and instruction and reaching kids and working with parents and handling/working with administrators.

There was additional conversation about constructivist practices, about building bridges so kids can learn--finding ways for them to get from where they are to where they need to be with safety nets so there is less fear, less intimidation, and more likelihood for success even if taken in very small steps.

There were conversations about mobile learning and what that means for teaching and learning; about online learning options and what that means for teaching and learning. Some educators embracing the possibilities with enthusiasm and many who are wary of what that could mean, of the implications for students if they struggle, of the problems with bandwidth.

Karen Cator's presentations were well-received, but over and over and over again I heard that infrastructure is the most important step that needs to be taken, and fretting that time is a-wastin' as the government tinkers with an education plan.

There was, as is always the case, considerable passion about teaching, about learning, about helping kids find their ways in this increasingly complex and mobile world. "I want to make a difference" is often tinged with naivete. It is a tired phrase, too often overused in situations that seem somewhat inappropriate. And yet the classroom is a place in which hundreds of thousands of underappreciated and underpaid men and women are, in fact, making a difference. A huge difference, just as though differences were made for each of us in school.

We all have memories those special teachers. Those who caused us shame or pain, but those who caused us to sit up a little straighter and try a little harder. And that's life: taking the good with the bad, enduring the difficulties and learning from them, embracing the good challenges and allowing them to overshadow the negative life and earning situations.

I was and am reminded again and again how much I love being with educators, how fortunate I am to know some truly remarkable people who are doing some truly remarkable things in the classroom and in working with teachers to continue to make a difference.

Mon, June 28 @ ISTE

2010-06-28T22:01:00.004-05:00

There is nothing like a great education conference to get the motivational juices flowing. I got to go to some great sessions today, meet with some of my PLN buddies--folks I rarely see f2f and many of which I knew only virtually, listen, learn, exchange ideas. The cool thing about the PLN meet-up is that I knew some of those folks pretty well through online exchanges. What a thrill it is to meet someone f2f and already know so much about what that person thinks about topics that are of mutual interest. It is amazing and gratifying.

So what did I learn today? It's so hard to sort out all that one encounters in a conference like this. Thousands of people. Hundreds of possible sessions. Just. . .so. . .much. . .to. . .do and see and think and feel.

I didn't go to the opening keynote. I've heard little about the man's presentation, but quite a bit about the unconscionably unprofessional behavior of far too many people. When I'm less tired, I want to think about this shift to believing we can say anything we want in cyberspace, even if it's not anonymous. And we wonder about kids and their cyberbullying? From what I've read in others' blogs and posts, the behavior in the Twitterverse seems to have bordered on cyberbullying if not landed smack dab in the middle of the field.

What I did see and experience, however, is a lot of people talking about education and about teaching and about learning and about technology. I heard people talking about Karen Cator's presentation on the DOE's technology plan, about the importance of infrastructure and how very important it is we work towards equity of access before we worry about digital content.

Through a presentation about Project Tomorrow, I learned some fascinating statistics about perceptions about technology, about usage of technology, about the barriers that exist and for whom. I learned a bit more about what students and parents think about what it means to be a 21st century learner.

From the incomparable Kevin Honeycutt I learned about tradigital education. Ways to think about traditional learning and teaching through a digital lens. We talked about encouraging kids to learn by respecting them as learners. We talked about encouraging teachers and students to try new technologies by helping them build a bridge between that which is comfortable or familiar and seemingly safe to that which will become comfortable and familiar and is safe.

Some time ago I got to share my idea of student achievement because there were conversations about student achievement being measured by test scores and other performance-based metrics. This is what I wrote:

We have to understand that student achievement is not about passing tests and/or making good grades. If we believe it is just passing tests and/or making good grades, we may as well give up our K-12 ambitions right now because we will not connect with the majority of educators who do what they do for much more than the money. Sure, some district and state officials think that's what student achievement means and yes, Arne Duncan seems to think that's what it means. But teachers KNOW that student achievement is about that moment when the kid who cried because he couldn't figure out how to solve a problem finally got it. Teachers know that student achievement is that moment when the student who had just ripped up her paper because she couldn't figure out how to say what she wanted to say in her language let alone English finally relaxes her shoulders and unclinches her jaw as the teacher slowly and patiently coaches and coaxes her through the first small steps building her confidence and being at her elbow until the hardest part of the task is done and rewards her every single step of the way. Teachers know that student achievement occurs in small often barely perceptible events throughout the day and are often easy to miss. Teachers know that student achievement is that moment the kid who sits in the back of the room with his arms crossed across his chest as though daring her to teach him anything blinks and sits forward just a little bit. Sure, he might catch himself and try the tough act again, but she knows and he knows that she knows and she will move heaven and earth to build on that microsecond of discovery, of realization, of whatever it was that just hooked him and just changed for him, and they both know his life will never be the same again because now both know, one eagerly and one perhaps reluctantly, that learning, achievement, is possible.

Today, my colleagues reinforced this for me. For the majority of K-12 educators, it is always, always, ALWAYS about the kids and their learning.

Mobile Devices + Web 2.0 @ ISTE

2010-06-28T11:51:00.001-05:00

Mobile Devices + Web 2.0 = Engaged & Empowered Learners

Karen Cator @ ISTE

2010-06-28T10:19:00.001-05:00

Karen Cator @ ISTE

No need to teach naked

2009-08-18T18:42:00.002-05:00

You know how you collect stuff throughout the year and make mental notes, maybe even written notes, to remind yourself of things you want to do differently the next time you teach a particular course? Well, I've been collecting articles about technology in the classroom because I want to think as broadly and deeply as possible about ways to integrate technology in my classroom as transparently as possible. I have a few challenges: I'll be teaching a new course with a completely new prep at a university at which I've never taught before. Eh. No biggie.

So something that caught my eye in July was an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education by Jeffrey Young titled "When Computers Leave Classrooms, So Does Boredom" (p. 1). Young writes that José A. Bowen, dean of the Meadows School of the Arts, challenged his colleagues to "teach naked" or without technology. Shocking, you say? In the 21st century, a dean challenging teachers to teach without technology? But then a few sentences later we learn that Mr. Young was simply being provocative, as was Mr. Bowen, because the challenge really was to discourage teachers from relying on PowerPoint. To that I say, "Hear! Hear!"

We all know plenty of teachers who believe that using a PowerPoint (PPT) is integrating technology. Once upon a time, it was. But then PPT became commonplace and some teachers were using it in every class and then it was no longer innovative. Too often, too, it was badly done: there were too many lines on a page, the font was too small, and way too much information. Students had no idea how to take notes from a PPT deck and copied everything off the slide which meant that anything the teacher was saying was like Charlie Brown's mother--indecipherable noise. PowerPoint has led to terrible teaching and missed opportunities for learning.

Young also reports that the British Educational Research Journal published a study in which 59% of the students reported at least half of their lectures were boring. My thought? Only 59%? But I read on and learned that the classes students enjoyed most were those that involved group discussion and practical sessions. That is, classes with PPT or computer-assisted activities were deemed boring. Ergo, "tech-free classrooms were the most engaging" (A13). Call me crazy, but I think that's a huge leap. I've watched plenty of video with students truly engaged in computer-based activities, but what I've also noticed is that there was also plenty of interaction--kids with kids, teacher with kids.

Let's fast forward through a few more paragraphs in Mr. Young's article and there it is, near the top of the 2nd column on page A13. The paragraph that makes reading this dreck worthwhile: "In short, don't be boring." There you have it. You want your students to learn? Don't be boring. You want your students to dredge up even the minutest interest even enthusiasm in your content area? Don't be boring. Think of all of the teachers you thought were best and why. I'm guessing they weren't boring. Think about your audience--your students--and don't be boring. They have had to endure a lot of passive learning. If you want your students to be engaged in their learning, then implement ways for them to be engaged. And don't be boring.

In the end, even Mr. Bowen didn't really want his teachers to "teach naked." What he really wanted was for his teachers to think differently about using technology and get out of their PPT rut. Mr. Bowen took desks out of the classrooms and put in tables and chairs so teachers could reconfigure the classroom. That doesn't always work, by the way. I've taught at a school with tables and chairs that were so crammed in a funky shaped classroom that moving anything around was next to impossible. And it was the main classroom for the college's Department of Education. Go figure.

So, the point is that it is perfectly fine to use PPT if it makes sense and when it makes sense. But teachers should also use podcasts that are supplemental or required, that can amplify any reading assignments, that can prepare students differently for class. Rather than lecture in class--because, let's face it, podcasting is a form of lecture--teachers will have more time in class for discussion and more time for review. All the resources made available to students outside of class can also be used in class for lecture, discussion, and/or review.

Down side for teachers? Way more preparation. Up side for students? They might be more involved in class. Up side for teachers? You don't actually have to be naked. . . and your students might be more involved in class.

Do Teachers Need Education Degrees?

2009-08-17T18:06:00.007-05:00

"Do Teachers Need Education Degrees?" is the title of a rather provocative opinion piece published in the August 16 edition of the New York Times. I was intrigued it was titled in such a manner because we could parse it so as to argue that the author acknowledges that a degree of some sort is necessary, just not necessarily an education degree.

So let's think about this for a minute in this context: I was allowed to start teaching at the collegiate level simply because I had several years of experience. I started out teaching computer science courses; I had 12 years of experience by then but did not a Master's degree in that content area. While I had done some corporate training and taught a few computer courses for BOCES, I was woefully unprepared to teach. I knew nothing about pacing and even less about assessment. Over the years, I figured it out. I talked to a lot of colleagues, I read a TON, and I was willing to change practice whenever something didn't work. But that's just me and maybe I have a talent for teaching. So what is the big deal about a degree in education?

After teaching computer science courses for a while, I started teaching in my content area, which is English. After a change of institutions, I was in a position to work closely with the Teacher Education department. Now I was one of those who had had an elementary education major when I was an undergrad. While I wrote research papers, she worked on creating little games or arts and crafts. Like many people, I thought anyone who was an education major was getting a fluff degree. But in working with my Teacher Education colleagues, I learned that wasn't necessarily the case. After working with a number of folks involved in teacher education, I learned that the quality of the program was incredibly dependent on the quality of the teacher education faculty and the quality of the framework and program they designed. I gained a much better appreciation for and understanding of certification requirements, but also why accreditation visits were so important.

Basically, though, a teacher education program can do no more than suggest the kind of educational experience the teacher candidate has received. Even if a teacher candidate completes the most comprehensive and rigorous practica experiences possible, there is no guarantee he or she will be a good classroom teacher. On the other hand, anyone in teacher education knows that the true professional is going to continue to learn how to improve his or her craft and not just because teachers tend to be passionate about learning. So even if the first year isn't great, the dedicated professional will find ways to improve; will seek out a mentor; will find those who have different skills, knowledge, or abilities and learn from those folks. And, from my observations, the truly dedicated professional continues to learn even after he or she has been tenured.

The article includes guest commentaries of administrators and college faculty, each of whom discuss what they think should be the hallmark of a classroom teacher or be exemplary characteristics. There are some who believe the university from which a teacher graduate matters. They are some who believe that educational capacity matters. What was striking is that there was little consensus and that seems to be a problem. If we're going to reform education and educational programs, there have to be some fundamentals on which everyone agrees. I fear we're a long way from that.

However, just for kicks, I think K-12 classroom teachers need education degrees. There is too much at stake for teacher candidates NOT to have some sort of preparation and to learn how students think and how they learn. Of course, I think university faculty need more than a graduate degree in their disciplines. I think all first-year university faculty must have a mentor who works with that first-year teacher to assess their fundamental teaching skills and develop a professional development plan (PDP). Even better, I think all first-year faculty need to have a reduced teaching load and be required to be involved in workshops or classes--online and/or face-to-face--to learn how to teach, how to assess, how to design instructional objectives, and all of the other things that K-12 teachers begin to learn in their educational programs to be able to complete that professional development plan successfully. And I think first-year faculty should not become second-year faculty until they have demonstrated a specific level of capability by completing at least 90% (that number is somewhat negotiable) of their professional development plan with an evidenced-based degree of satisfaction. That professional development plan doesn't have to be complex or rigorous, but it should help the first-year teacher be successful as a teacher, regardless of the institution from which the faculty graduated. Because just because someone has graduated from a top tier research institution doesn't mean the person can teach.

My PDP would not be easy to implement for a number of reasons. It's hard to find senior faculty who can or will be mentors let alone help those first-year faculty develop a solid professional development plan, then help them find ways to complete it successfully. It would take a lot of time on the part of the mentor. Unfortunately, most universities don't see that kind of time and effort as an investment in its faculty or its students.

But imagine what kind of a difference that could make for teacher education programs. Imagine if all of the faculty throughout the university--any faculty with whom a future teacher might come in contact--modeled good even outstanding teaching habits, modeled what it really means to continue to hone and refine the craft of teaching. Imagine how much easier it could be to refine or even reform those teacher education programs in such a way that classroom teachers graduated with that much more capability, competence, and confidence. Then not only would they be reasonably well-educated and well-prepared, they might even succeed extraordinarily well in those first few years, not lose their joy and their passion, and stay in the profession. Imagine that.

Longer School Days Coming?

2009-08-02T22:38:00.003-05:00

It's not a new debate. This conversation about longer school days and longer school years has been going on for, well, years.

President Obama reignited the conversation in March 2009 when he spoke not only of longer school days and school years, but supported charter schools. Arne Duncan has also made it clear he supports longer school days and school years as he has pushed to support national reform in America's schools.

Well, TIME Magazine took up the conversational thread in the July 27 issue with a story titled "Summer School: What? No More Vacations?" Gilbert Cruz reports that Arne Duncan "views today's standard six-hour, 180-day calendar as way too old school, a holdover from not only 19th century agrarian society but also mid–20th century Donna Reed–style parenting" (¶ 3). Cruz also reports that Senator Ted Kennedy is a strong proponent of a movement to extend school hours in "underperforming urban districts" and championed the idea through his Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act" (¶ 4). The focus of the TIME Act is to offer federal grants to schools that are high poverty and high need so the schools can extend their learning time.

What educators know, of course, is that it's not just the time. It's how that time is used both in the classroom and out. It's how involved parents or guardians might be. It's how much time teachers really have to improve their own learning and refine their practice and their content knowledge.

Researchers talk about summer learning loss. The concern about summer learning loss seems to be so acute that the White House proclaimed July 9, 2009 as National Summer Learning Day. Day? Seriously? If research is suggesting that middle income and above students do better because they have tutors, band camp, summer camp, sum mer sports leagues, and many more opportunities to retain and reinforce what they learn, then how in the world can a single day replace 4, 6, 8, or however many weeks kids are involved in these summer activities? And it's not just about summer activities. It's also about after-school activities: band, theater, athletics, dance lessons, karate or some other martial arts class, and so much more.

I know eons ago when I was in school our school day was longer as were our class periods. Was it any better? I dunno. Everything was different then so trying to make the comparison between my educational experience and that of today's kids is pointless and absurd. What I do know is that a longer school day and/or a longer school year had better keep in mind summer camp, band camp, dance camp, Girl Scout or Boy Scout or other such organization camp, summer sports leagues, and a whole lot of other things that even middle and upper income kids don't get in school any more.

I'm not against longer school days or longer school years; I work year-round anyway. But I am against hoping against hope that somehow a longer school day or year will make a difference. Curricula need to be re-evaluated, standards may even need to be reconsidered, and classroom teachers as well as school staffs and administrators have to be better prepared to think differently and with the long view about improving the educational experience for students.

KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) schools typically start at 7:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. five days a week. KIPP also has class time every other Saturday as well as three weeks of mandatory summer school. But KIPP does a lot more than have long days, required summer school, and Saturday meetings. KIPP personnel work hard to build relationships and rapport with students' parents. As KIPP states on its web site:

One of the reasons that KIPP is successful is because of what we call the “joy factor.” In order to motivate kids to be in school for the KIPP extended day, there needs to be an extra hook in there to keep them interested. At KIPP, teachers often use techniques such as singing, chanting, and movement to make classroom lessons engaging. By making learning both relevant and fun, teachers greatly improve their ability to reach students.

At KIPP, we are not only trying to develop better students but also better citizens as our kids head off to college and life beyond. School culture is something that begins from the first day at KIPP, and is the “be nice” part or our “Work Hard, Be Nice” philosophy. We measure success not only by increased test scores but also by how students relate to the world and the kinds of citizens they become.

So once again, it is not about the length of the day, it's not about the length of the school year, it's not about the textbooks, it's not even about the classroom layout or technology or anything else. Quality teaching is about quality teachers. Quality teaching is about outstanding administrators who do the best they can to support their excellent faculty and who provide coaching and professional support or training for their struggling teachers. It's also about practical administrators who are willing to do the right thing to get rid of poor teachers who, for whatever reasons, seem not to improve or unwilling to improve. But even that oversimplifies something that has become and is extremely complex.

I hope the discussion about education reform does not get mired in specific class issues free lunches, after-school care, and more, but I know it will. And I know the unions will further complicate the conversation. I just hope that in the cacaphony of the debate that is likely ensue that someone remembers to ask the primary question, loudly and often: how does this help the kids? And while they're asking that question, I hope they'll be asking "How does this help teachers do their jobs better? How does this help teachers get the training and/or resources they need? How will this help students be more successful in school each and every day?"

Reflections from NECC: About Sat and Sun

2009-06-28T11:52:00.015-05:00

NECC has been incredible this year. . . aside from the problem of getting wireless at a conference for educational technology. Some time around 10A today (June 29), the wireless went down in the conference. Morose people sat in the Bloggers' Cafe and stared at screens though there were a lot of conversations going on as well. There were a few somewhat frantic folks who had probably planned to use that time to review for their presentations, and I saw at least one person scrambling for a Plan B in case the wireless wasn't available for her presentation.

We were chatting about the BYOL (bring your own laptop) sessions and how incredibly aggravating it must have been in one of those sessions when the wireless went down. Rumor had it that the conference people were unfazed when they were told about the problem; apparently they didn't think it was much of a big deal. Wow.

So, let me sum up. Saturday was EduBloggerCon. It is the unconference during which people gather to talk about teaching and learning influenced, flavored, and nuanced by technology. It is informal, conversational, collaborative. Yes, there are sessions, but there's a fluidity to the scheduling and the topics. I got to sit on the PD session with Liz Davis. There are a number of folks doing some very interesting things with professional development in their districts.

I was particularly interested in the teacher/researcher idea. As I understand it, a group of teachers pick their own research topic. That way they get to shape their professional development learning as they explore the big ideas in their content areas, perhaps their content areas/grade levels AND how best to integrate technology. Then it's not about the technology; it's not about the tool. BTW, I've heard that about a zillion times so far.

There was also considerable conversation about the use of backchannels in the classroom. If the teacher uses a backchannel, whether coveritlive or IM or any other mechanism for students to converse during class, there have to be some ground rules and perceptual changes. The teacher has to adjust to the possibility of talking and having no eye contact with their students because their students are staring at the screens. But students also have to be aware of the fact that the teacher is in the backchannel, so even if the teacher isn't participating at the moment, the teacher can eventually see what was written.

I was also intrigued by the conversation about tech-savvy people and those who are less so. Perhaps those who seem reluctant to use technology are uncertain how to make it meaningful and purposeful in their content areas, which suggests that tech-savvier folks need to be able to come alongside or occasionally get behind and push the reluctant as opposed to trying to lead all of the time. It's also possible they don't follow because they can't see teaching their content area any other way. I suspect that's true for many college faculty, too.

In the afternoon session I attended, Wes Fryer talked about the K12 Online Conference (spread the word about this if you've not already done so!). THE CALL FOR PROPOSALS JUST WENT OUT, SO CHECK IT OUT AND SUBMIT!! The topic for the upcoming conference is Bridging the Divide, and that divide could be a multitude of things including technology, language, demographics, and so much more.

Peggy George promoted LearnCentral as a means of promoting the online conference as its a growing professional learning community. Someone suggested districts being encouraged to build reflective teacher cohorts to follow-up or build on the online conference learning; that's a great idea.

I did some walking around on Saturday and discovered the Trapeze School. They have 2-hour lessons, but I also discovered I can do a Segway tour. Also 2 hours. There are trapeze schools in Boston, NY, and LA. I'll be there will be one in Chicago some time; otherwise, maybe the next time I'm in Boston or NY. Maybe. So I'll opt for the Segway tour.

Saturday night was an informal gathering at Regional Food and Drink. I met some new folks, but also got to see some colleagues I met last year at NECC including Cheryl Oakes who, along with some others, you should get to know through Seedlings.

I went to two sessions on Sunday. The first was sponsored by KnowledgeWorks Foundation and the Institute for the Future to discuss "2020 Forecast: Creating the Future of Learning." The people at my table were interesting. Some of the links in the 2020 map were interesting. I'd give the entire session a B. At the top of the session we were asked what we think teaching will look like by 2020. There was a bit of interesting discussion, but we never got back to that question or our answers. And the main presenter did himself a disservice by telling us a couple of times that he'd thrown the slides together the night before AND that this was only the 2nd time he'd given this spiel.

The topic for the second session was the 21st century technology leader. One of the key questions was this: If your technology budget were reduced by 15%, how would you decide what to keep and how would you keep technology integration growing and improving? There was a lot of interesting discussion about the value of textbooks and about how the technology leader has to balance the needs and expectations of the faculty, students, and administration. The opening address was by Dr. Max Frazier who used Edward Bono's concept of the 6 Thinking Hats to talk about the complications of the tasks of the technology leader. There was a very, very brief panel discussion that included Lisa Parisi, Nedra Isenberg, Lori Feldman, and Michael Smith (I think I'm forgetting someone). I was fortunate enough to sit with these folks and Lisa's colleague Christine Southard. We talked about what company's like Pearson could do differently in the way of digital books including making sure that there were levels of textbooks (maybe three levels)--same content, just written a bit differently to be more accessible to different readers' capabilities. I think that's a very cool idea and promptly sent it to the president of the textbook side of our business.

Then I got to spend about 90 minutes or so talking with Rushton Hurley who is the guy behind NextVista for Learning. Not only is Rushton a very fun guy, but he is very passionate about education. I'd love to see some synergy between his company and Pearson, so I promptly sent his contact information to the VP of Technology.

Sunday night was the opening keynote with Malcolm Gladwell, but that requires its own post. So let me just say that I'd learned quite a bit by Sunday afternoon and was quite jazzed up about some possibilites for my own teaching this fall.

Being Innovative in Education

2009-06-10T12:11:00.003-05:00

In this difficult economy and in these disruptive times, even the largest and most successful companies must be nimble and willing to change or at least make adjustments to strategy as well as implementation as quickly as possible. In many corporate cultures, “change” and “quick” are not generally uttered in the same sentence.

I was drawn to an article in the May 20 issue of Education Week because of its title: “’Innovation’ Push Raising Questions.” We know that nearly everyone is chasing the next innovative idea, regardless of the industry. Ms. Gewertz, the article’s author, reported there are number of experts who wonder if innovation is what schools need or who wonder if innovation is really possible in education. I suspect both sets of experts are correct in that the most urgent solutions necessary may not be what some might call “innovative” but practical. The frenetic chase for stimulus money makes the likelihood of true innovation even less likely because really good innovation that will be more than the latest and greatest fad takes a bit of time.

However, I should also say that "innovation" doesn't have to be big and dramatic. Innovation can be as simple as making a single minor change to a product or service that still offers something unique. I could on and on about that, but will refrain from that digression.

On the other hand, there is a sense of urgency to make profound changes in education and I believe that the organization that makes a concerted effort to work closely with the United States Department of Education as well as the significant thought leaders in key industries and the most robust and, dare I say it?, innovative professional organizations will be the organization that helps move education, on all levels and in all content areas, to a new and important place.

That is, of course, no small task and means that the organization must have a shrewd strategic plan in place yet be willing to make adjustments as needed, but with thoughtful and targeted discourse to make sure the course correction is reasonably proactive instead of strictly reactive. But I also think that the organization that realizes that content area silos are a strategy of the past will also be able to make huge inroads in the way that today’s K-12 students think and learn, and today’s K-12 students are tomorrow’s undergraduates.

Because my passion is education and most of my experience is in higher education and how to influence changes in the behemoth that is higher education, with all of the conflict and professional antagonism that accompany the disparate thinking and approaches of institutions which are influenced by the political leanings and age of their faculties as well as their faculties' thinking about academic freedom, instruction, professional development, etc., including the relationship of the academy to the professions for which university prepares its students. As the professoriate ages and younger faculty are hired, all of that thinking will gradually change, but wouldn’t it be cool to be one of the influencers of that change in thinking and in practice? Yea, I think it would.

Though I'm moderately certain the trickle down effect has been disproven to be effective in economics, the cyclical and relational nature of education means that what students learn in their colleges and universities will eventually play out in the so-called real world, as though somehow being at university is "fake life."

And if faculty at institutions of higher learning have strong and collaborative relationships with those outside of the academy, then the academy will be in an even better position to prepare its graduates for the world in which they will work and live. And if those better prepared, more intellectually engaged graduates who have been exposed to a collaborative educational process and taught to work and think both pragmatically and creatively are in the real world teaching and working, then the cycle will not only continue but be able to evolve in very profound ways. At least that's true in theory. . . and in my head.

4 is new A, or not

2009-06-07T19:56:00.005-05:00

One of the headlines in the Friday, June 5 edition of the Chicago Tribune reads "At some schools, 4 is the new A+ (except when it isn't)." The subtitle is "Letters losing ground in elementary schools' grade game."

The story cites schools that have switched from the more traditional A, B, C grading system to numbers or even other letters. Wilmette School District 39 is using a different letter grading system for students in kindergarten through 4th grade: M for "meeting standards," W for "working towards standards," and E for "experiencing difficulty." I can see some value to this sort of grading system with our schools' insistence on aligning everything against standards. I confess that I'm still not confessed that aligning the entire academic world to standards is the best idea, but I don't have an alternative so I won't climb on that soapbox. And there are plenty of people who see the value of standards-based grading, which has been around, by the way, for longer than many of us realize.

The reality is that any of us who come up with rubrics and try to define them with any degree of concreteness have established some sort of standards by which we assess student work, so I'll just be quiet now about the validity of standards-based grading.

So I get the idea of finding something other than the more conventional A, B, or C, though I do find it odd that schools slip back to that grading system for 5th graders. But I was also intrigued that Roosevelt University education professor Tom Philion was quoted as saying that if a standards-based system is used "I'm not comparing them to each other. I'm comparing them to a criteria I have. . . . there's not a bell curve." I wish I knew the entirety of that quote and it's context because, at its face, I'm appalled that an education professor would suggest that classroom teachers compare their students' work to each other when most teachers I know assess their students' work by rubrics precisely to minimize the subjectivity that so often accompanies grading efforts.

But I was most troubled by his statement there is no or should be no bell curve. Now I'm steppin' up on the soapbox. Of course there should be no bell curve. Eons ago someone seemed to decide that grade results should result in a bell curve which meant that some students had to fail, which meant that students were being compared against each other. Are we still learning that we shouldn't and really can't compare student work and have any information that's meaningful? Are we still learning that good rubrics, rather standards-based or not, offers more substantial information about student capability and capacity as well as the validity of the assignment or assessment? Apparently, or an education professor would not have made any reference to a bell curve.

Well, I'll be interested to know if these standards-based grading systems begin to gain more traction across the country and if they begin to expand to upper grades. I'll also be very interested to see if this grading system makes any kind of difference in providing information and enabling teachers to differentiate. As with most things, time will tell.

Reinstituting recess

2009-04-05T18:42:00.004-05:00

The Sunday Tribune included a letter to the editor written by a 4th grader, Laura Acevedo of Melrose Park Elementary school. In her letter she wrote, "Every day we enter school at 8:25 a.m.; we get out at 2:40 p.m. During that time we get a 25-minute lunch and a five-minute recess. Then it's back to work." She wondered why her school didn't get more recess time, but she also wondered why they didn't get more stuff to play with during their recess: chalk, jump ropes, balls. Nothing fancy; nothing expensive. Her argument is that they should get more time to play together and "promote good sportsmanship," but also to be more active at recess.

There are several things about this letter that fascinate me. First, a 4th grader seems to know how to use a semi-colon effectively. Second, she's smart enough not to argue just for more time to play, but for time to play to "promote good sportsmanship." Okay, she may have had help from her mom or dad, which is fine.

As I read her letter, I envisioned the 4th graders dashing to the playground to stand around and do nothing. Or perhaps they trudge out the playground for their 5 minutes of yard time knowing they barely have time to get out before they have to go "back to work" again.

Then I thought how terrible it is that kids thing about learning as work, though I know it can be work, but there seems to be no sense of adventure about learning. I know, it's a short letter and her purpose is to talk about getting time and stuff for recess, so give her a break.

But here's the kicker: the first line I didn't share with you. Laura writes, "This year I am writing a book about recess and the lack of playground equipment at our school." Not an article, not an essay, not even a blog post, but a book. You go, Laura! Write your expose. And I do not mock. I mean it. Write a book, Laura. That is outstanding. And mostly because I think she has a point.

We all need to play more, to relax more. Studies have chosen that physical exercise does a lot of good for our hearts and our minds. Those of us who work at computers most of the day are encouraged to take our kinds of recess, though I might be angling for some sidewalk chalk, balls, and jump ropes myself. Nothing like a few games of four-square or pickle ball! So why shouldn't kids who are more naturally wiggly and active be encouraged--not allowed, but encouraged--to participate in recess.

I loved recess. We'd walk calmly to the edge of the field and the head out to the swings, the jungle gyms, the teeter totters, or grab a ball for games of kickball and yes, dare I say it?, dodge ball. We'd organize races, games of Red Rover or Statue Maker or something else. Groups of kids were mostly involved in playing. We burned off excess energy and then went "back to work." Perhaps we were more docile. I don't know, but I do remember recess.

I think kids aren't allowed recess because parents are afraid their kids will get hurt--so many of those things I listed aren't allowed or available in any playgrounds any more--and schools are afraid of the liability of lawsuits in case parents forget that falling off a swing and breaking something isn't the worst thing that could happen to a kid. I don't want to minimize playground injuries as I know they can be very real. But I also know that a school friend of mine broke her leg when she slipped in the shower after gym class when I was in junior high, and I broke my leg in 8th grade when we were playing soccer. And jammed my finger when I fell badly on the trampoline during gym class. Of course, I'm clumsy. And true worst part of the broken leg was getting caught having crutch races in the hallway. Apparently that was really dangerous.

I can only imagine that teacher vigilance was one of the reasons few of us got hurt on the playground during recess. I do remember they passed a rule about fighting and were quick to pounce on any kids involved in or near a playground fight. Of course, I'm old enough that spanking was still allowed in school--a few quick swats with a paddle or a ruler. A deterrent, though certainly a problem if abused.

I know there is the potential for a slippery slope jsut about everywhere. But I really think, Laura, that one of the reasons you don't have time for recess and don't have any playground equipment even if you had time for recess is because of zealously overprotective parents and cautious school and district administrators.

But I also agree with Laura. While we are busy overhauling our educational system, perhaps we should also rethink recess and allowing kids to just play before they get back to the work of learning.

Thinking about the impacts of digital media

2009-04-01T23:48:00.006-05:00

I've been thinking a lot about digital media--ebooks and more--and their impact on student learning. There are several complicating factors and I'm sure I've only begun to scratch the surface of my thinking.

Let me start with ACU which launched a very cool initiative: they've handed out iPhones to all of their students. Check it out. No doubt ACU Mobile will make a difference in many ways, for both students and faculty. I set aside my immediate concern of having to replace iPhones for most of the freshman class some time throughout the year as I'm sure they've planned for that. I was impressed when the demo video showed a student connecting her iPhone to her laptop and the system automatically syncing for her classes which also meant automatically downloading any ebooks for her.

I've listened to some friends and acquaintances talk about the Kindle and how fabulous it is. I've heard rumor that Apple may have an i-something response to the Kindle and then I may be more interested.

Then I've thought a lot about leveled readers, about the problems of getting kids to read at all, the theories behind reading strategies, the digital divide, and, of course, the impact of growing interest in and capability for books on students, teachers, parents, and publishers. Though those are really just the beginning.

In the Chicagoland area, we've got wonderful examples, sad to say, of socioeconomic extremes. We've got the very well-to-do in the suburbs and some high poverty schools in the city. So the kids on the upper end of the scale already have iPhones and may even have a Kindle and, like the Socs in The Outsiders may behave badly because they can though they have no reason not to do well in school.

The kids at the lower end of the scale may be lucky to have printed books and certainly won't have a 1:1 student-to-computer ratio. It's already difficult for these kids to succeed or have hope or have interest. A dismaying series on Chicago Public Radio ("50/50 CPS Pilot Project Attacks Dropout Rates") simply reinforces my tendency to worry about how middle class and lower class students can be prepared. I know that's not all about digital media, but the digital divide seems to be growing ever wider and I just wonder if there are ways to bridge these issues successfuly.

More to come.

Not Quite Right about Determining Comprehension?

2009-03-21T10:13:00.003-05:00

For some reason I was thinking about students reading and how we think about comprehension. I'm not going to pretend to be a reading specialist because I'm not. And I've done only a smattering of research on the topic of reading comprehension just to get some context for my own thinking about the topic.

I found an interesting article about reading comprehension by Dr. Michael Pressley which I'm using as a starting point. He states

Reading is often thought of as a hierarchy of skills, from processing of individual letters and their associated sounds to word recognition to text-processing competencies. Skilled comprehension requires fluid articulation of all these processes, beginning with the sounding out and recognition of individual words to the understanding of sentences in paragraphs as part of much longer texts. There is instruction at all of these levels that can be carried out so as to increase student understanding of what is read (¶ 7).

Pressley goes on to discuss the skills of decoding, vocabulary, and world knowledge as some of the skills necessary for quality comprehension. I don't disagree with any of those. I know that it's important for readers to understand the words they read to understand the text. I know I've been in situations in which I've guessed the meaning of words I don't know based on the context. Sometimes it hasn't mattered and sometimes I've had to go look up the word because my guess didn't make any sense. So, yes, there was work I had to do to comprehend the text reasonably accurately.

Pressley also notes that

[r]eading researchers have developed approaches to stimulating active reading by teaching readers to use comprehension strategies. Of the many possible strategies, the following often produce improved memory and comprehension of text in children: generating questions about ideas in text while reading; constructing mental images representing ideas in text; summarizing; and analyzing stories read into story grammar components of setting, characters, problems encountered by characters, attempts at solution, successful solution, and ending (Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pressley, Johnson, Symons, McGoldrick, & Kurita, 1989) (¶ 19).

No doubt strong readers use a multiplicity of skills and strategies to make sure they comprehend a text as they are reading and do so without realizing it. So it stands to reason that teachers of all grades, perhaps even including college, should model strategies for their students and teach or reinforce the means by which readers of all abilities can improve their comprehension of a text.

One of the strategies frequently mentioned in any of the reading instruction literature I've read is the idea of generating questions about the text. But I've also noticed that a lot more books geared towards adolescent/teen readers have "study questions" in the back of the book. It's sort of like a test bank, though it could be that the author wants to make sure the teacher asks the right kinds of questions about the story.

I wish I were able to do a study of particular books used in school, say 3rd grade through 7th grade. The upper grade is somewhat arbitrary because I think ideally we'd research through 12th grade and I could be easily convinced to move 7th up to 8th grade, but I think these grades could be the most illuminating. I'd love to gather the questions that teachers ask of their students about those books and then, if there are no study guide questions in the back of the book, ask the authors to write the questions they would have liked teachers to have asked of their students. But then I would love to know the questions the students were asking of the text and what they were thinking about when they reading the text. What kinds of connections did the kids make (world knowledge) and why? What words did they struggle with and how did they manage? If part of the study was that they would look up the words with which they struggled, I'd love to know how the definition helped or hindered (I'm sure you've read some dictionary definitions that left you more puzzled than helped) and if a definition changed their perception of the text at all and why? Most importantly, though, I'd want them to know that there is NO RIGHT ANSWER.

You see I've been thinking about being the student who is asked to write down the questions I was generating about the text. As a student, I'm going to try to guess what the teacher wants me to be thinking about the text OR I'm going to try to be incredibly lucid and erudite OR I'm going to try to be irrepressible or incorrigible, depending on my rep in school and my attitude towards grades and my impression of this particular teacher. In other words, I think student honesty about a book should often be in doubt.

My assumption at this point is that decoding is not necessarily an issue and vocabulary is not necessarily a problem; that is, the teacher has managed to select a text that is accessible to all of her students.

So this is what I really wonder about the work towards comprehension: are we even asking the right questions? or we even encouraging students to ask their "real" questions? What if the author study guide questions or the teacher-generated questions seem to demonstrate that the student doesn't comprehend the text simply because they aren't the "right" questions? What if the student, because of his or her experiences and approach to the text, had a completely different way of thinking about what he or she read?

But if there is no "right" answer, perhaps the approach of the student would be different. If there is no "right" answer, the teacher is more interested in learning how the student thinks and processes information, how that students puts ideas together. In other words, evaluating or assessing a student's comprehension is also about understanding how that student thinks critically.

Perhaps if teachers had a better grasp of their students' critical thinking skills and processes--an important 21st century skill we've been told--then perhaps teachers' perceptions of their students' comprehension might change and perhaps how we monitor or measure students' comprehensions of text might change.

Issues of reading? What has happened to the desire to learn?

2009-03-01T19:05:00.004-06:00

I'm currently teaching an online class in Children's Literature. My students are all practicing teachers in a variety of grade levels and content areas.

For one week's assignment, they were asked to talk about barriers for their struggling or reluctant readers. A few of them talked about the problem of technology; that is, their students are adept at using their tech gadgets and gizmos and are reluctant to read a textbook. There were a few comments about students being unwilling to read any kind of directions and finding it easier simply to ask someone else what to do. They also commented on students not wanting to be bothered to figure out assignments, but just asking what the teacher wanted, just wanting to be spoonfed.

I had several thoughts about that, most of them even printable. My first reaction was to the concern about technology and textbooks. Most of us are aware of people talking about kids having to "turn off" when they walk into a classroom and for a variety of reasons. And not just because teachers haven't learned or figured out how to use the technology in their teaching but sometimes because using technology isn't the right tool.

I work for an educational publisher and I know how hard our teams are working to incorporate a variety of technologies and tools for students and teachers. I think that's great because a variety of avenues to learning enables students to work to their strengths.

But I'm also very concerned about teachers wanting to make learning "fun," about kids who shut down when asked to do schoolwork, about kids who just want to know what's going to be on the test or what the teacher wants, and kids who seem to have no desire to learn.

I just keep wondering how these kids are going to fare when they get to the work world. Oh, I know the work world is changing and will continue to change. I know that kids have to be trained for jobs that don't yet exist, but I have to wonder how many things will change. I mean, won't tomorrow's workers be held accountable for their responsibilities? Won't tomorrow's employers expect their employees to be able to follow directions? complete tasks on time? problem solve on their own? think critically?

So I have to wonder if some of today's reluctant readers or struggling readers are really reluctant learners or struggling learners because they don't understand the value of learning, because something in our society, in our educational system suggests that learning isn't important, that schooling isn't of value. If that's the case, then we need something other than more standardized tests. We need to rethink our educational system and purposes altogether.

Choose to Give

2009-01-30T19:03:00.005-06:00

I saw an ad for an interesting site DonorsChoose.org. The guy behind it was a social studies teacher for five years. In the ad he notes that teachers were always buying their own school supplies and often buying resources for their students. The ad gives the impression that kids aren't able to do certain things in schools because they don't have composition books or recorders.

The sad truth is that many teachers do buy their own school supplies and do buy resources for their students so their kids have pens or pencils, have paper, have recorders, have art supplies, have books. And they do so from meager salaries, but do so with passion because they believe in the work they do.

The way it works is pretty simple. DonorsChoose.org is a not-for-profit organization to which teachers submit a project proposal. Individuals, called Citizen Philanthropists, search through the project proposals and choose projects to fund. Donors are to receive a thank-you notes from the class, classroom photos, and a letter from the teacher describing the impact of the project on the students and their learning. You can find more about how you can participate through the site, of course.

This reminds me of Kiva, a microlending web site. Again, you can search for projects you want to help fund and help empower low-income entrepenuers from the around the world.

Like John F. Kennedy before him, Barack Obama has encouraged Americans to invest in the country through community service. Though his symbolic efforts the Monday before he was inaugurated had nothing to do with money but, like working on a Habitat house, one of time and energy, the point is that we each have plenty of opportunities to contribute in very profound ways to the improvement of our communities and our world. Perhaps giving of your time and energy is more difficult. Perhaps logging on to a web site and contributing to someone's business in a far-flung country is easier. Perhaps contributing to a school project so kids can learn in really cool ways is easier. In this case, easier may be best and certainly far better than doing nothing at all.

DonorsChoose.org. Kiva.org. Go to one or the other. Go to both. But go.

Not teaching, but delivering instruction

2009-01-05T20:13:00.003-06:00

While I was in one of my PLNs today (could have been Facebook), someone asked when teaching had become "delivering instruction." I thought about it for a split second and realized I have been hearing that nomenclature for a while now.

I'm not sure when "teaching" became passé. But it also seems to me that “delivering instruction” delivers the wrong message about what we want classroom teachers to be doing. We don’t want them to deliver instruction, do we? Don’t we want our classroom teachers providing learning opportunities for our students so they are actively engaged, so they are encouraged and challenged to push themselves, so they encouraged and allowed to explore learning in a variety of ways? If we’re delivering instruction, we can’t be doing any of those things. We’d be standing at the front of the classroom yammering about whatever was supposed to be covered that day and our kids would be bored to tears.

This language reminded me of an article I’d read in The Chronicle about literary studies by Rita Felski (http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i17/17b00701.htm; requires subscription). The title of the article is “Remember the Reader: A manifesto.” Felski certainly has her own perspective on the wandering vagaries of literary theory. When I first jumped into that scene in the early 90s, I struggled to catch up with terminology and concepts. Silly me. I’d just been reading books, learning a bit about the author, and talking about how the story moved me. . . or not. But suddenly I had to learn about new historicism, deconstructionism, and a whole bunch of other –isms. I worked hard to try to understand Derrida and Foucault, gamely participated in conversations about meaning and signs, vigorously engaged in arguments about canon, and diligently investigated a variety of literary theories meant to be inclusive, iconic, and provocative. After a while some of us. . . okay, after a while I simply threw up my hands and said “Enough. I’m just going to read the damn book and try to enjoy it.”

Why do I mention that? Because it seems to me we are working to hard to make teaching more complicated. The moment we try to start dressing it up with political doublespeak we begin to lose sight of what anyone is trying to accomplish in the classroom.

I work for a company that designs and delivers professional development. We talk with districts about “building capacity.” We use all sorts of business-related terms that evolve in eduspeak that evolve into using “delivering instruction” when we really mean “teaching.” And because we start dressing up language, we distance ourselves from the pure simplicity that can be teaching. We’ve already duded it up with standards and assessment requirements, and we just seem to be looking for more ways to make the work of a classroom teacher as difficult as possible and student learning as complicated and dull as possible.

The irony is that while all of the professional development we currently design has a sharp eye on standards and is acutely aware of “authentic assessment,” we have worked to make sure that the act of teaching which leads to acts of learning are first and foremost.

Once upon a time I heard someone say that if a teacher designs a really good lesson with very clear objectives for what she wants her students to learn, and if she does a good job of making sure that all students can be successful in learning because she’s incorporated active learning for a variety of learning styles, and if she’s tried to design a lesson that enables students to make connections with prior learning and with their own perspectives of life, and if she’s given students opportunities to check themselves and measure what they’ve learned and how, then she’ll be able to evaluate that lesson later to see how many standards were met. In other words, she said, if a teacher is allowed to do her job without interference and with appropriate resources, the standards will be met.

It just seems to me that teaching is hard enough without the various encumbrances. And it want our teachers to teach, well then, let's just call it what is it. Teaching.

Maybe next year, this year

2008-12-31T14:41:00.002-06:00

I enjoy reading the lists recounting 2008. Time had an entire issue dedicated to its various Top 10 lists: Top 10 buzzwords, series, discoveries, Olympic moments, iPhone apps, etc. I just re-read some of the editorial responses/comments about Michelle Rhee and the work she's trying to do in DC. Which reminded me of a recent article in Education Week (subscription needed) about the challenges Arne Duncan faces as the incoming Secretary of Education. I know there is a LOT of commentary about Mr. Duncan and certainly not just because he is most recently chief of Chicago Public Schools and Illinois has had the dubious distinction of being late night show and editorial comments fodder thanks to our governor.

There is always so much expectation about a new year, but this one is different because of the Obama administration and its promises of change. We all think about change in a new year. That's the stuff of resolutions. This year, though, it feels as though people are trying to pack away the detritus of 2008 and make sure every surface as possible is clean and buffed to a high shine for the miraculous changes that may come tumbling forth on January 21, 2009 after Barack Obama is inaugurated as president. I worry about their expectations, but I applaud their hopefulness.

There are many, though, who are considerably more practical about a new year and what it might portend. Wailin Wong, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, wrote about her 2009 social media resolutions. Note she categorized them, but likely because she writes a column about living in a digital world. Maybe these are the only resolutions she made, though now I'm distracted by thinking about all the categories of resolutions one might create. I'm back.

So, Ms. Wong said she might try to use Facebook a little less and try using the phone more. I think that's a great idea, one I might try to emulate in some instances. I always want to be even less techy and write letters. You know, by hand. With pen and paper? Preferably a fountain pen, like my cool retractable Namiki or my refillable Pelikan or my cool sort-of-new Lamy. I'd use my favorite Cross fountain pen, but I think I busted it. I can only write with one at a time, so I'll deal. But I do like to write letters; they're just so time-consuming and that's why we like Facebook. We can share our status with all of our friends and their friends in a matter of seconds. We can write on others' walls, we can post notes in their Inboxes, so it's not exclusively "all about me." Taking the time to write a personal email or a personal FB note can also be time-consuming, but well worth the connection. It's all about the relationship.

Ms. Wong also thought she might use more Twitter. I've got a Twitter account (elainej), but don't use it very often. I spend way too much time on Plurk (peregrinator). But I do like microblogging and I absolutely love having international connections. Yes, there are lots of conversations about weather, about family, about excursions, about vacations, but there are also conversations about teaching, about learning, about professional concerns or problems or needs or just about anything else. Time and time again I've seen people appeal to their Plurk buddies for assistance and draw from their expertise and experience. I've learned a lot from being a part of Plurk--resources, ideas, and more. It's very cool.

Another resolution is to ignore the trolls. I love this. Blogs allow people to comment anonymously. I've seen people on Plurk talk about be "de-friended" when someone drops them as a friend and usually about a difference of opinion. Plurk is generally a very egalitarian place. It seems that if someone disagrees with a post, they simply don't respond to it but don't condemn that individual for that one thought. We seem to agree to disagree. And there's plenty of other stuff to read! Ms. Wong notes that "[s]ocial media is often about knowing what level of dialogue and civility to expect from site to site." I think she could have said that social media is know that there are people all over the world with varying opinions and perspectives participating. Open your mind, but you don't always need to open your mouth (virtually speaking).

Finally, Ms. Wong recommends taking a Cyber Sabbath or Cyber Shabbat. Basically, take a break! Folks in Plurk often announce when they're "deplurking" and if they'll be off-grid for a while. But she makes a good point. Social media can be addicting and it's hard not to want to keep up with what everyone in all of your networks are doing, but it's not possible. And sometimes it is good to step away from the keyboard and do something else. Read a book. Watch a movie. Call a friend. Write a letter.

As for me and mine, I just hope to stay better connected with my friends who aren't on Facebook or Plurk or Twitter or who don't/won't read my blogs. It'll be good to hear their voices when I Skype (ej_roberts) them. Or maybe when I just pick up the phone and settle in my chair for a nice chat.

Here's to better conversations in 2009. May they lead to better relationships, whether virtual or f2f.

Killing Learning? Stifle teachers' authority

2008-11-26T07:37:00.006-06:00

Some time ago I wrote about one of Dr. McNeil's ways that schools can kill learning. In the October 29 issue of Education Week, he listed five of them. The tyranny of the urgent is a very clear way to stifle a lot, but I've got to manage that myself to make sure I don't become a victim of such tyranny. But I digress.

One of the other ways that schools can kill learning is to stifle teachers' authority and Dr. McNeil notes that is especially true when it comes to selecting content and "deciding how that content will be presented to students." Now he takes a big ol' swipe at publishers when he states that "[p]rescribed textbooks that are oriented to 50 different sets of often-questionable state content standards, together with weak teacher preparation in subject matter makes it difficult for teachers to exercise intellectual authority." It's important to continue that quote to allow for Dr. McNeil's notion that "[s]uch authority includes both the ability to identify the powerful knowledge worth centering on and the freedom to exercise a variety of pedagogical skills in making the key concepts of that knowledge meaningful to particular students." Hmmm. Let me break this down a bit.

Prescribed textbooks oriented specifically to states. Yep. Publishers are obliged to orient textbooks specifically to states because states require their standards be referenced in the textbooks. Dr. McNeil suggests that all textbooks are prescribed. While I know there is an increasing tendency to have scripts in teacher's editions, the textbooks themselves--geared for the students, mind you--are not necessarily prescriptive. Of course, Dr. McNeil may be referring to prescriptive in the sense that the publishers choose what to include and what to exclude though that is often determined by the publisher's understanding of those "often-questionable state standards."

State standards. I'm not sure how McNeil uses the word "questionable," but I believe the standards are often derivative of professional organization standards, but also occasionally over the top with degrees of detail. It's as though the state standards folks are afraid that if something isn't explicitly defined, it can't be learned or taught.

Weak teacher preparation. This is nothing new. There have been oodles of articles written about the lack of teacher preparation, the failure of teacher preparation programs, the abysmal state of professional development, etc. Is it likely that some teachers are NOT prepared to teach certain content areas well? Absolutely. Is it possible those same teachers rely too much on those prescriptive teacher's editions (TE)? Yes. Is it likely that if a student asks a question that is beyond that TE and the teacher's own scope of knowledge that the potential for a number of problems exists? You bet. Does a badly prepared teacher need as much assistance as possible? Yes, and she may have few options other than the TE.

But it was his definition of authority that really intrigued me. Let's say that the teacher is reasonably well prepared and is working hard on her own to improve her craft, which is the likely case, by the way, of most teachers. They don't have time to wait for their districts to help them improve their teaching. And let's say she's made peace with the often-stifling state standards and may not be thrilled with the state-adopted text, but knows she has to figure out how to work with it. Now, McNeil suggests that teacher authority has to do with the identification of the "powerful knowledge worth centering on" but also on using her skills to make those concepts meaningful to her students. Stop. Stop right there.

See, the really good teachers aren't limited by state standards or by textbooks. The really good teachers haven't been encumbered by weak preparation because they've figured out how to improve their teaching in their own ways. They've built their support networks, they've signed up for classes, they've done a ton of research on their own. Even if they graduated from a supposedly weak teacher preparation program, the really good teachers have found ways to move beyond the limitations.

But here's the most important thing: the really good teachers use their skills to help their students identify the powerful knowledge worth centering on and the really good teachers use their skills to teach their students how to make that knowledge meaningful for themselves.

My point is that if even if schools use those terrible prescriptive textbooks and if those states have questionable standards, the really good teachers will not permit their pedagogical authority to be limited because they will find ways to teach their students. More importantly, they will not limit themselves to teaching their students content that aligns to the standards, but they will teach their students how to learn, how to make meaning of what they are learning, and how to discern what may be most important for a particular learning moment. In other words, no one can limit the intellectual and pedagogical authority of a really good teacher.

Killing Learning? Abolish Grade Levels

2008-11-06T23:31:00.005-06:00

The title of an article in the October 29 issue of Education Week stopped my mindless flipping of the pages: "Five Ways Schools Can Kill Learning." Right? As an educator, you have to stop to read that article.

Dr. John D. McNeil is a professor emeritus at UCLA. While Dr. McNeil seems to believe that schools do not kill education intentionally, there are five particular harmful practices in many American schools. I'm quite certain there are more than five, but his five are pretty significant.

The first is this: "Placing students of a given age together in a classroom, and sequencing classes by age as grade levels." I'm not sure some of the developmental theorists often touted in teacher preparation programs would agree with McNeil, but he boldly states that kids don't develop in the same way at the same age. I think most parents would agree with that. And I think many practicing teachers would agree with that.

In a CITE journal article published in 2000, T. G. Carroll asks "If we didn't have the schools we have today,would we create the schools we have today?". Good question. Would we have grade levels the way we have them today? Or would we, recognizing that many students have varying capabilities in different content areas, create schools with significantly more flexibility?

For example, would we let the 8-year-old, a 3rd grader by today's standards, work at capabilitylevel and use grade levels only as that kind of an indicator? So if that 8-year-old, Max, read at a 6th grade level, did math at a 4th grade level, struggled with science at a 3rd grade level he would work with other students who were able to read at a 6th grade level, do math at a 4th grade level, and work in science at a 3rd grade. And then, if with that focused educational approach Max were able to become more confident and learn more efficiently with focused and targeted instruction that matched his abilities, perhaps he'd be able to accelerate his learning in his weaker areas and "move up." Or maybe, just maybe, after 12 years of school, Max might graduate reading at a college level (and maybe even have completed a few college English classes), doing math at an 11th grade level, and struggling less but still struggling with science at a 9th grade level.

States would very definitely have to revisit state standards, but if Max struggled that much with science, then it stands to reason that Max is not destined to go into science. Perhaps standards help define a certain level of competence rather than what students really need to know by grade x. That is, to be a reasonably well-educated individual capable of contributing to society in some fashion, students need to know at least some number of things in some number of categories in each content area. Perhaps the standards would vary based on whether or not a student thought he or she was inclined to go into a particular field of study for a career.

So then Max might be able to achieve the minimum in science required of a reasonably well-educated individual who is capable of contributing to society, but because he was not able to achieve the next level or levels of science standards, he should rethink that career in medicine.

The scale of ability and performance would be different. Let's say, for example, that students must have a minimum of 9th grade capability in any (or most) subject areas to graduate from high school. Regardless of what they think they want to do with their lives because they're high school kids and will change their minds a few dozen times. Students who graduate with an 11th grade capability or higher likely have a strong aptitude for a career in that content area. And students who graduate having been able to take college-level classes in a content area clearly have an affinity for something in that content area.

AYP would have to be measured differently, but maybe it's all of the students tested at the grade level of each content area in which they are learning. It may be that a few kids who are working at an 8th grade English level will learn that they really should revisit or retake 7th grade English.

This sort of a school would certainly be a challenge for teachers which mean we would have to further rethink teacher preparation programs. But the idea intrigues me, so I'll have to think about it a bit more.

Online Networking for Staff Development, Part II

2008-10-26T17:56:00.005-05:00

I've spent a bit of time lurking in and rummaging around a variety of networks. A lot of the conversation is fairly random, but there are plenty of teachers asking specific questions about specific things and getting assistance. There is a very collaborative spirit in cyberspace.

But it's one thing to be willing to help your colleagues and quite another to have something akin to formal staff development. One of my Plurk colleagues asked a question about formal and informal staff development. Without question, the majority of the respondents said that most of their staff development is self-directed and informal. That's not to say these folks aren't experiencing formal professional development, but it seems clear to me that they have found those experiences to be less than rewarding. If this very small subset of teachers are taking on responsibility for 75% to 100% of their staff development, what does that suggest about formal staff development?

One of the other Plurk colleagues asked about their involvement with different online groups: nings, wikis, blogs, microblogging, etc. The average seemed to be about 7, but I don't have a link to that Plurk so I can't defend my number and my recollection may be faulty. I do remember double digits for some of the participants (and I can't but help wonder how they remain involved in all of those kinds of online networking and do anything else). But one of the reasons they have multiple network connections is that one size does not fit all.

I'm not saying that any online staff development has to have a rigid or concrete structure, but I do think that, for example, elementary math teachers want to talk with elementary math teachers. What I would love is if the elementary math teachers would also talk with elementary reading and social studies and science teachers for some really profound cross-curricular work. And I know they do, but perhaps they struggle to find each other in all of the many sites across the cyberuniverse.

I'm also not saying that any online staff development has to have rigid or concrete direction or prompts, but I do think some parameters help the participants have an idea of how they can use that network and their time effectively.

In my imperfect concept of online networking and staff development, there is a single entry point to a large community of practicing teachers, pre-service teachers, administrators, and administrators-to-be. There are some private spaces for practicing teachers--no students and no administratos allowed, just as there are private spaces for pre-service teachers and for administrators. There would be rooms for various affinity groups, but also rooms for grade level teachers regardless of content area or for grade ranges regardless of content area. As members come in the front door, there would be a list of announcements, as it were, of interesting things going on in each room at the time and coming events. Sort of like the electronic boards at conferences so you can find which session you want to attend today or tomorrow.

Presenters can post their topics for the virtual presentation and, just like a conference, indicate for whom the presentation might be geared. Presenters could present in the public rooms and could be invited to present in the private rooms.

With sufficient credibility, this might be the kind of thing that districts would be willing to use for its teachers and be willing to integrate it into their staff development system, complete with the awarding of points or hours.

I don't know if this kind of network community would work. I doubt that it would encourage teachers to forsake all of their other networks, but perhaps it could become a more central locations for teachers to come together to talk about their craft, their passion, their desire to improve their teaching and their students' learning. And that could be a very cool thing.

Online Networking for Staff Development, Part I

2008-09-02T20:20:00.004-05:00

In the August 27 print version of Education Week is an article about social networking sites being set up for staff development. The title is intriguing: Sites Mimicking Social Networks Set Up for Staff Development.

Tom Carroll, president of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF), is quoted as saying: “In the 21st century, no teacher should have to say he feels alone. These teachers grew up connected. They have Facebook, they’re texting, they’re e-mailing. It’s time for us to bring their schoolwork into this environment." Just to be contrary I'd dispute his assertion that all teachers in or of the 21st century have grown up connected. I know plenty of teachers who feel very disconnected from 21st century expectations of digital literacy and for technology. They may be on Facebook, but they are a bit baffled by the why and how of it. And they are relatively clueless about Twittering and Plurking. They are somewhat dazed and confused by the vast array of widgets and are often surprised to learn that "widget" is a real technology tool as opposed to a term once used to describe something that did not exist.

But NCTAF has launched a teacher-version of LinkedIn which was created to enable business folks to create their own extensive electronic network of contacts. Much easier to manage and more transportable than the Rolodex. NCTAF's version is Teachers Learning in Networked Communities (TLINC) as is touted on the NCTAF web site:

Programs like TLINC represent a major systemic change from the standard practice of preparing teachers in isolation from the schools where they will serve, and then placing them as stand-alone teachers in self-contained classrooms. TLINC provides a professional learning community that expands and enhances face-to-face mentoring. The online community capitalizes on the expertise of people with a variety of skill levels: pre-service teachers can collaborate with their university faculty as well offer insight to their peers. Providing teachers and teacher candidates with the support they need, whether it be in problem-solving, classroom management or curriculum design, is one of the keys to moving our education system into the 21st century.

The Education Week article makes it clear that there are several states trying to make use of the social networking concept, trying to emulate the "learning teams" concept virtually, perhaps when f2f meetings aren't possible.

However, the TLINC sites have had decreased usage over time even though there are incentives for participation. Illinois launched its Illinois New Teacher Collaborative (INTC) and have not tied any incentives to it. They have 978 registered users, but only 50 logged on in July. Of course, that's in the middle of summer, but perhaps INTC officials hoped new and returning teachers would already be thinking about getting ready for school.

The article closes with this quote: “If [network participation] is required for something—a grade, a certification, a stipend—people will participate. We know that,” said Ms. Clift, the director of the Illinois collaborative. “What we don’t know is what are the triggers that will encourage people to get as much professional satisfaction out of a space like this as they are personal satisfaction using Facebook and MySpace.”

Though the article suggests there is staff development involved in any of these network sites, I see no evidence of any kind of structure for staff development or any kind of incentive to use these sites for what most teachers consider staff development. I can imagine teachers asking if they can get CEUs or CPDUs or any kind of credit for being on a network. And if it's touted as a social network, why would teachers perceive it as a professional network.

I wasn't surprised to see a comment from John Norton who is co-founder of the highly successfuly Teacher Leaders Network. TLN has grown a lot over the years and more teacher leaders find their way to this online collaborative and collegial group of professionals. It used to be considerably more convivial and grassroots. Now it has sponsors, but it also promotes the publications and professional efforts of its participants. It's not as groovy as it once was, but commercialism yet hasn't wrecked its focus.

I remember when MERLOT first launched. It was a seriously ugly listserv when it first started in 1997, but it has grown dramatically. But the individuals behind it were not dissuaded and finally found some stability for what it could become. Ten years later it is a much stronger collection of catalogued, searchable, peer-reviewed resource. The vision is "to be a premiere online community where faculty, staff, and students from around the world share their learning materials and pedagogy." But the initial product was designed with the hope that teachers would upload and download resources. So it was never intended to be a social networking site, but a form of an educational resource network. There are many such sites in cyberspace; some as or more successful than MERLOT; some easily overlooked.

Back to NCTAF and its TLINC and these other sites mimicking social networking for staff development. My thinking is this: why not take advantage of technologies that already exist rather than create new ones? There are lots of possibilities for using technology for actual professional growth opportunities.

More importantly, though, why not put some thought behind how to use any of those technologies for professional growth as opposed to creating a network and hoping incentives of some sort might entice people to participate. If administrations, districts, and states want teachers to be involved in some sort of virtual learning team, then there has to be a structure, there have to be protocols, there has to be some sort of focus. Clearly the hope that "if you build a social network, they will come" is not working. And that reminds me. The lead article of a newsletter I've not yet read has the title "Hope Is Not a Strategy." More on online networking and staff development to come.

21st Century Literacies

2008-08-27T11:49:00.003-05:00

Another Plurk buddy shared a noodletools link for 21st Century Literacies. Have I mentioned you should really join Plurk? Really. You should join Plurk.

Anyway, the 21st Century Literacies link is a very nice collection of links and information related to 21st century literacies based on Howard Gardner's Intelligences Reframed, complete with definitions and activities.

I know there has often been talk about Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences. Some of that "talk" has been productive, collegial, collaborative; some of that talk, well, not so much. Whatever you think of Gardner and multiple intelligences or the concept of learning styles (you may find this YouTube video by Dr. Willingham interesting; he asserts learning styles don't exist), any educator knows there is validity in differentiated instruction. Students learn differently. Students mature at different paces. One size does not fit all for instruction (or for professional development). I'm now stepping away from the MI/learning styles discussion to get back to 21st century literacies.

What I found interesting about this particular web site are the links that Debbie Abilock, the mind and talent behind noodletools, includes so anyone visiting the site can understand the thinking behind the terminology. Just go visit the link for "understand." I mean, seriously, a link for "understand"? Surely we understand "understand." We know where it is in Bloom's taxonomy and we might even know about Bloom's Digital Taxonomy, which seems to reflect some of that 21st century literacies thinking. But maybe we don't and maybe we need to have some of those maps and linkages so we understand the connections and intersections and really do "understand" and are thus able to interpret, classify, explain, and maybe even exemplify.

It's about context in some respects and I believe that this site helps us contextualize our thinking about literacies, what that word "literacies" means as we are thinking about the multiple literacies in which students and educators have to be fluent.

I've been in a lot of meetings in which one of the agenda items is to make sure we are using similar terminology; that is, that we develop a common language. That gives us the context in which we are working so that we minimize, we hope, confusion. I've worked with educators who have talked expansively about "assessment." But they often get a little tongue-tied when I ask them what they mean by "assessment" because I need to make sure we're running on the same track. So we will spend the next several minutes talking about kinds of assessment and defining categories and parameters so that we have a common language when we speak of "assessment."

I have a content developer who is working on a course in 21st century literacies to help K-12 teachers understand (there's that word again) what 21st century literacies are and how a working knowledge of and experience with 21st century literacies will help them improve their teaching because of the ways they will be able to connect with their students and, of course, differentiate instruction. So I have sent this link to my developer so she can use it as a resource because it's all very well and good to know the lingo, but it is a very different thing to understand/define/interpret/synthesize the lingo and then make use of it and make connections between the variety of literacies. I'm excited about what this course may be able to offer the K-12 teachers who take this course and what I shall learn from it in the process of my review of it.

Not only, though, do I have to do some re-reading of Gardner, but now I'm thinking about how his work complements Now, Discover Your Strengths and what difference it might make for educators and students to be aware of their strengths in a more concrete fashion. But more on that later.

New Discovery

2008-08-22T11:37:00.004-05:00

Wordle. One of my Plurk buddies uses some Wordle art in her blog so I had to explore and "play." Herewith the end result.

.

Go. Explore. Be creative. Have fun.

Be advised there is no way to delete your creation, though I suspect there may be a way to do that in the future. If you select the PRINT button below your creation, you can print to a PDF to save it for later use. Very cool toy, I mean, tool.

The Case of Connie Heermann's Students

2008-07-21T12:49:00.006-05:00

Anna Quindlen's The Last Word in the July 21 issue of Newsweek focuses on the case of Connie Heermann. So have a number of people. Let me add my voice to the outraged chorus.

I'll sum up the situation. Connie Heermann, a 27-year veteran teacher who was teaching at Perry Meridian High School, decided to use The Freedom Writers Diary with her students who are much like the students of the book and film fame. Heermann persuaded a local businessman to pay for the copies of the book, but she was asked to wait until the central office could review the book. Quindlen tells us that Heermann started the year with Grisham's The Street Lawyer, copies she paid for herself, invited a lawyer to come to class, and had her students write letters to the author. The kids were reading! The kids were reading ahead!!

Heermann sent out permission slips to the parents, the majority of the parents signed the permission slips, she told the central office she'd be distributing the books on November 15, she was told to collect the books and then she was told that if she didn't resign, she'd be fired. She was also told to keep a list of the kids who kept the book. Most of them did.

The position of the school board is that she passed out the book before she had the permission of the board. But teachers use additional materials all of the time. For some reason, Heermann's principal aksed Heermann to wait to let the central office review the book. Perhaps she should have checked with the central office because it's possible the request to review got stuck on someone's desk. But there is that question of why she was asked to wait at all.

What is so threatening about encouraging kids to enjoy learning? What is dangerous about teaching them to read and write, to think critically?

So Heermann, apparently a good teacher, is no longer in the classroom. She's been suspended for over a year. But the kids kept the book. Of course the book is written by urban kids who don't speak like suburban kids. It's full of "language," much like The Catcher in the Rye.

The aftermath? There is blogs by outraged parents: Take Back Perry Schools. Yesterday's post includes a TV broadcast that includes a comment by the new school board president, Steve Maple, who claims she was suspended for insubordination. As Quindlen notes, "The members of that board were outraged by alleged insubordination when they should have been outraged by the glacial pace of decision-making by their top administrators" (p. 68).

What Mr. Maple doesn't seem to understand is that this thing has already gotten larger than Perry Meridian High School or that right now, based on that newscast, he sounds like a bit of a dork because he doesn't seem to understand the consequences of the lack of decision-making by the board, of the principal's actions.

While many are outraged about what has happened to Connie Heermann, and rightly so, she's landed her on feet. She's working on a follow-up project; she's getting emails from the around the world; she's featured on the Freedom Writers Foundation web site.

But what has happened to her students? What does all of this say to the students about their worth? about their education? about what the school board and the media really care about? Did they seem to lose a good teacher? You bet. Will the school board change? Apparently not much. Are the kids being empowered to read and write? Are they enjoying learning? Are they being encouraged to see themselves differently?

Here Comes Everybody

2008-07-18T04:40:00.007-05:00

Some interesting intersections, perhaps even parallels between Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds and Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. But now I have to go back and re-read Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, which was first published in 1990, and Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education (2000).

But as for Shirky, well, to be honest, I didn't really read the thing. I read the first chapter, but then I skimmed a lot. Not too much new, at least to me, and just repackaged for the web world, at least for me. I did like revisiting the idea of the group organization and social tools in terms of sharing, cooperation, and collective action (p. 49).

Shirky notes that sharing places few demands on group participants. In fact, it's easy to share in the web world. Various apps enable us to share our thoughts and our pictures universally: witness blogs, Flickr, Bubbleshare, and lots and lots of others. We can't possibly know how far our reach or with whom we share as we don't aggregate the groups.

Cooperation, of course, is a different story. The word comes from the Latin co- and operari means people are to work together, that there is to be some sort of common effort. Well, that means something different than spending time with a keyboard at odd hours of the day or night. Shirky suggests that a form of cooperation is conversation (p. 50). I've been in some conversations, f2f and electronically, that haven't been very cooperative, but his point is that conversation can create a sense of community if the conversation remains on topic and on task. Details.

Shirky states that "collaborative production is a more involved form of cooperation, as it increases the tension between individual and group goals" (p. 50). Effective collaboration, from the Latin com- + laborare, means that no one individual gets credit; that the work doesn't get done without the involvement and engagement of all of the participants. Of course, that's not necessarily true. The work can get done, but then it might no longer be a collaborative effort. I wonder if that's why truly successful collaboration is such a celebrated event--because it's such a surprise to the participants who managed to pull it off.

Then Shirky moves on to collective action (p. 51) which he claims is "the hardest kind of group effort, as it requires a group of people to commit themselves to undertaking a particular effort together, and to do so in a way that makes the decision of the group binding on the individual members" (p. 51). If that's the case, you can understand why the Supreme Court and Congress have so much difficult coming to any sort of agreement. He further notes that "whenever a decision is taken on behalf of the group, at least some members won't get their ways, and the bigger the group is, or the more decisions are made, the more often this will happen" (p. 53). And here's the really important point: "For a group to take collective action, it must have some shared vision strong enough to bind the group together (italics mine), despite periodic decisions that will inevitably displease at least some members" (p. 53).

A quick aside: who determined that things have to come in three? Aside from the divine and superstitious elements of the number three, there has to be some other research somewhere that suggests something about the number three that makes anything of three memorable. Okay, so let me fast forward to the last chapter of Shirky's book where he talks about three things: promise, tool, bargain.

"Promise is the basic 'why' for anyone to join or contribute to a group" (p. 260). The individual buys into the shared vision. "The tool helps with the 'how'--how will the difficulties of coordination be overcome, or at least held to manageable levels? And the bargain sets the rules of the road: if you are interested in the promise and adopt the tools, what can you expect, and what will be expected of you?" (p. 260). [Note to Shirky's editor: ease up on some of the commas next time.]

Shared vision or promise is easy enough to comprehend, so let's get to Shirky's points about the tools. The tools help the participants in their cooperation, collective action, and collaborative production to get to the land of the promise. The tools matter. The tools always matter. The right tools are imperative to do the job well and correctly, to achieve the promise. I think identifying the right tools in some situations is harder today. We have more choices.

As a result of my interaction with many of the NECC folks, I've learned about an increasing number of Web 2.0 tools. I tried Twitter and found it harder to expand my network in that tool, but also got frustrated when it went over capacity, which will happen more and more often as people try to adopt that tool. So then someone suggested Plurk, which I like a lot and therefore use more often (I'm peregrinator there). But every time I'm on plurk several people are talking about tools or resources they've found. I want to explore and play with all of them, but there simply isn't enough time to do so to determine which might be the better tool for my situation. Our web world seems to insure the proliferation of tools, some of which will be more useful than others. Perhaps that's when we have to depend on the wisdom of the crowds who have beta tested them before us.

Back to Shirky. The bargain, Shirky suggests, determines the culture of the group, its behavior (p. 261). Not only does someone have to buy into the vision of the project and the group, but an individual has to be willing to adopt or adapt to the culture of the group. This, I think, is one of the most important pieces of information for any group doing any kind of work in any kind of situation. I don't think that means a blind adoption or adaptation to a group culture, but if the culture does not seem to allow for its own adaptation to suit how the vision or the promise must be modified or adapted as the situation requires, but perhaps even as the tools require. And it's at this point that Shirky invokes Surowiecki as he notes that larger groups may have to adopt tools differently, but even so, somehow the group, even if organized informally, has to believe in the promise and the bargain.

And now to the Epilogue. I love that more and more books are including epilogues. Who needs a final chapter when you can have an epilogue? I mean, an epilogue is to a book what the words "In conclusion" are to a speech. Those words let the hearers now that it's really almost over. The epilogue tells readers that the book is really almost over, as though they couldn't tell from the number of pages left. [That was, by the way, absolutely sarcastic. This predilection for epilogues is actually quite troubling. Don't writers know how to conclude their work any more?]

So Shirky mentions the controversy around calculators when he was a kid. He said the issue seemed to be that people didn't think that calculators would be around for long. Really? People thought that? I remember some conversation about banning calculators but the argument I always heard had to do with knowing how to do the math and get to the answer rather than punching a few buttons to get an answer and hope for the best.

But then Shirky mentions Manutius, a Venetian printer, who introduced the octavo size in 1501 which meant the men could carry their libraries in their saddlebags, but also meant that manuscripts were transportable (p. 302). And then he gets to the point that it is important to "take the present for granted" (p. 303), but it's also important to analyze current events to determine if changes, adaptations, viral events are trends or fads.

Well, calculators are here to stay. For a while they were in watches, we find them in our phones, and part of our computers. I think it's safe to say that the web is here to stay. I also think it's safe to say that as long as people are interested in trying to create tools that help people realize their own potential, help others achieve the promise of their groups, and accept the bargains of those groups, change is one of the few constants.

So this is all very interesting, but now I'm thinking about how individuals manage the various groups in which they find themselves--balancing the potential variety of promises, tools, and bargains with which they content every day. And how they manage the potential conflicts of the bargains, of the cultures.

The end. For now.

Thinking about wisdom and crowds, Take 2

2008-07-13T07:28:00.006-05:00

Here is my recommendation about James Surowiecki and The Wisdom of Crowds. Join ISTE so you can go to the video on demand page of the NECC 2008 web site so you can watch James Surowiecki's presentation. Buy his book if you like, but I think you will probably get all you really need from the video.

I found the first 90 pages relatively engaging, but I found myself skimming a lot of the rest of the book. Like so many of these kinds of "business" books, it is chockful of stories or situations that are presented as though to prove his points. There are, of course, any number of ways to read particular situations, especially if you have the entirety of situation. We do not. We get the perspective Surowiecki likely finds most useful for his book and we get only the information that is likely to contribute to his point.

The point I most appreciated were the statistics presented on football's fourth-and-down because I have often thought coaches hedged their bets in those situations. Surowiecki tells us that David Romer, an economist at Berkeley, did a study on fourth-down strategies. A quick Google search shows there was a bit of interest in that study, which was published in July 2005. The point is that coaches should go for the touchdown on fourth down with three or fewer yards to go because 1) they are more likely to make it which will help build momentun and 2) if they don't make it, they likely have the opposition in worse field position. But Surowiecki led me to believe that Romer did the study about football because he was interested in football. He didn't. The actual title of Romer's study is Do Firm's Maximize? Evidence from Professional Football. So on page 45, I started reading with more skepticism that Surowiecki was actually telling me anything worthwhile his 40-minute lecture and first couple of chapters. Romer's paper, by the way, is pretty interesting.

But I hung with it because I figured there might yet be something of value. Then I got to Chapter 7, "Traffic: What we have here is a failure to coordinate." Surowiecki begins with London and the infamous tax or charge if people want to drive into central London (p. 145). Then he moved on to Singapore and the country's plan for congestion pricing if people wanted to drive into the central business district.

According to Wikipedia, London is "covers an area of 609 square miles (1,579 km²)" and "the population density is 12,331 people per square mile (4,761/km²)" with the total 2007 estimated population of Greater London being 7,355,400. Using the same source, this is what I learned about Singapore's land area, due to land reclamation projects has grown to about 704 km² (271.8 sq mi) today and "may grow by another 100 km² (38.6 sq mi) by 2030." I also learned that the approximate population estimate in 2007 is 4,588,600. So Singapore is more successful with its traffic congestion. Duh.

Though the traffic congestion problem in London proved to be more successful than non-economists might have thought, that's not a difficult idea either. If I had to commute to Chicago every day, I would take the train. It's cheaper and easier and would take far less time than driving. Depending on how far to get to my office and weather and if the train was running late, I'd plan to walk or take a taxi. Still cheaper, easier, and less time than driving in and trying to find a parking place AND pay for the cost of parking. As it is, I take the train to the city whenever I can if I need to go. It's, well, cheaper and easier and takes far less time. The people who insist on driving to the city every day do so because they have rationalized that they cannot fit their busy schedules and lives around the train schedule or they just can't live without their cards. I'm going to guess that with gas prices planted above $4 for a while will help change their thinking a bit. And the people who choose to drive regardless have counted the cost and determined it is worth it to them.

To be honest, I was most annoyed by his reference to the 2003 mission of the Columbia. For those unfamiliar with that disaster, the Columbia was on its re-entry when it disintegrated, 16 minutes from landing. All 7 of the crew died. As with the aftermath of the 1986 Challenger disaster, which Surowiecki mentions in Chapter 1, there were a lot of investigations. For the Challenger, Surowiecki looked only at how the stock market responded noting, most interestingly, that the "stock market did not pause to mourn" (p. 7). When I read that, I chalked it to corporate and personal greed. When I got to the Columbia, I got annoyed. Surowiecki seems to oversimplify what was undoubtedly a series of lengthy and somewhat complex conversations. In a few short pages, he suggests that the conversations were short and presumes to know what a single individual thought and decided (p. 174).

It was at that point, however, that I came to an amusing realization. I had not gone to the keynote because I was working. I had heard from folks that the keynote was outstanding. I'm a believer in going to the source, so, in spite of previous experience, I thought the book might expand on what people were raving about. So when I saw the book at the ISTE book booth, my thinking dulled by conference overload perhaps, I plunked down my $14.95 plus tax. I was guilty of groupthink. I allowed myself to convinced by others without doing any analysis. If I had really thought about it--and known the video was going to be posted--I would have waited to watch the keynote video and then might have flipped through the book a bit more thoroughly before buying.

But that's me. It's an interesting book. Even with only the video of the keynote, I probably would have found myself recognizing certain crowd behaviors differently. The book has had only a little more impact to my thinking, but, as of this moment, engaged few more hours of my life that I would rather have back for other things.

Technology Overload?!!?

2008-07-11T18:13:00.003-05:00

There are not enough hours in the day to explore and do everything I want to do. I have a stack of publications I want to read, not just skim but read. I have more new tech toys I want to play with. I've been making notes for ways to integrate my learning and exploration for my pre-service teachers in the fall and spring knowing their exposure will have been limited.

I spent about 3 hours yesterday playing with HTML because I want my blogs to look cooler. I was talking with a colleague about that and she wondered why on earth I would want to try to write my own HTML. The truth of the matter is that I spent 8 years as an assembler programmer. I learned how to program on a PDP-8 and just learned there's one in the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Wow. That's a news flash I didn't need.

I spent a number of years coding for the PDP 11/70. I loved that machine. I loved toggling the bootstrap address and flipping the toggle to start the machine, watching the lights flash across the panel. And I loved writing in assembly language. When I did some work in FORTRAN, sometimes I'd compile with the assembly switch so I could see behind the FORTRAN code. It was so cool. I loved writing macros and subroutines and figuring out simple but elegant ways to solve problems.

Anyway, this HTML obsession just now reconnects me, sort of, to those days. I loved being a programmer and a systems analyst, which is probably one of the reasons I'm reasonably successful at my current job. I've got some design chops. But it is time-consuming. So I'll spend a few more hours marking up the HTML for one of my blogs, see if I can make it work and then be done with it until I feel compelled to do the same for my other blogs. And then I'll start playing with some the other tech widgets and gadgets I've gotten.

NECC 2008 Reflections Redux

2008-07-09T09:33:00.003-05:00

You know, you might think you write in a blog vacuum until you are startled by comments posted on your blog. Yikes! People are reading what I have to say and replying. Mixed emotions result: Cool. Outstanding. Yikes!

Anyway, because folks posted to the NECC 2008 Reflections blog, I wanted to revisit their thinking collectively. First, however, a shameless plug for a wiki I've created, but done so precisely to engage this conversation further. Hie thee to http://nomargins.wikispaces.com/ and feel free to collaborate and consult and chat. I'm interested in just about everything you have to say!

Brian made a wonderful observation about publishers: there is no doubt a love-hate relationship between teachers and publishers, and certainly inherent conflicts between the need to make a profit as a for-profit organization and the desire to provide means and resources for teachers to improve their teaching. I appreciate Brian's skepticism of any publishing company.

Let me insert a caveat here. I started in the computer industry, then went to higher education and taught f2f, then an early hybrid model as well as f2f, and then online in addition to f2f. I've developed courses for online and blended delivery for over a decade. I joined Pearson in 2004 as director of product development and my focus is graduate level courses for online, blended, and f2f delivery working in partnership with universities, districts, and schools.

So this past May we launched a professional development program that has been over a year in the making as we've talked with teachers and administrators about what makes sense. Some school districts have shown an interest because of the nature of the model which insures, and I do mean insures, that the district and the teachers have support and follow-up.

I'm going to learn these tools anyway. It's just my nature. What I want to continue to do is talk with the students who take our courses, talk with our faculty (all practicing or retired K12 teachers, by the way), talk with anyone else who will talk to me to find out how we can best integrate tools and strategies to make our content more valuable to the folks who plunk down their hard-earned money to take them, and for whatever reason. (My personal rant: publishers and PD providers absolutely positively must stop thinking that K12 teachers take courses only for a pay bump. Yes, they are looking for money, which is often well-deserved, but there is nothing in my experience that suggests that the majority of K12 teachers are that mercenary.)

And if folks are willing and interested in working with us to help with that integration, I'm more than willing to pay for that work. I have a healthy respect for intellectual property.

Back to Brian's comments. He's right. Publishers charge a lot of money and don't generally explain why. I'd help explain why if I could, but I can't. I'm not on that side of the business and I'd probably have signed some document that says I couldn't share that info even if I knew it.

Lnitsche commented on the booms and the cameras often interfering with line of sight. I'm really sorry about that and I know some of us tried to apologize for that interference, which really didn't make up for it, I know.

Kevin (Dogtrax) noted that too many administrators seem to think that a curriculum can come in a box, but I think publishers have contributed--deliberately or not--to that thinking. I've seen some great programs that come in a box and I know that the idea is to make it accessible for teachers, easy to implement, and all that jazz. But not all boxes are created equal; some programs just aren't as good as others, in concept or in practice.

I go to a LOT of meetings (it's part of my job description: attend an inordinate number of meetings each month). Some of the meetings over the past several months have been about projects that are currently in development. What's really exciting to learn is that some folks in Pearson are paying attention to not only the research that tells us that one size does not fit all, but trying to listen to as many folks as possible to develop a top-notch product. Of course, it won't satisfy everyone, but the hope is that it will be flexible enough to provide teachers relatively easy ways to modify and adapt.

I wish I could say something about Scott's observations about Pearson in Texas. That whole assessment/testing group is far afield from me and what I do, but I know that I carry the Pearson label, so I get why the eyebrows are raised.

The reception we received was not inhospitable; it was mostly very generous. What I did not think about, though, is the very point Scott makes: people hear "Pearson" and respond based on their own experiences with whatever part of the company has affected them most. I should have done more advance PR work and I should have tried to made sure that Steve Hargadon was not subjected to the kind of snide comments he got.

Mrs. Durff asked if we were asked to leave. No, we weren't. Only a few folks walked away from us and very obviously avoided us. We made it very clear that if folks didn't want to be on camera or talk to us, we would respect their wishes. The majority of the people we asked to sign releases (indicating we have their permission to use their words and on-tape presence for commerical purposes) did so.

My apologies to Scott that our presence diminished his experience at EduBloggerCon. Again, if we had done more advance work, perhaps presently differently at the beginning of the meeting, we could have been more clear about our work, our intentions, and our relationship to the rest of the company. I could also have made it very clear that when we tape teachers in the classroom, we are curriculum agnostic. We make sure we get permission from any other publisher or vendor (posters, manipulatives, etc.) that we can use images of their products in our commerical products. Most say yes and we gladly pay the permissions fee. So, we weren't asking anyone to endorse a Pearson product, but I can see why there would be mistrust and concern about that.

I've already had conversations with folks in other departments in Pearson and sent an email about the Flat Classroom project to folks in offices much bigger than mine. I don't think I have much influence, but I have few qualms about spreading the word about stuff Pearson needs to know if we really want to do well by doing good.

Provided I still have a job with Pearson for next year's NECC and provided there is a reason for us to be there with a video crew, I want to make sure we work in more of a partnership with ISTE.

I believe that Pearson as a corporation has a genuine interest in working with educators. If we have made missteps in Texas, then I hope the Pearson individuals who have any influence in that state are aware of the problems and are working to resolve or mediate them. If I find out who those people are, Scott, I will forward your concerns to them. At this point, that's the best I can do.

But something else I can do in my little corner of the Pearson universe is keep working to try to serve teachers and districts so they can make sure the kids in their care get the educations they need and want.

Please don't stop the comments and conversation. Again, I encourage you to visit nomargins.wikispaces.com and keep talking. I will be sharing those statements, justifiable rants, observations, insights, and suggestions with my superiors. And maybe, just maybe. . .

WOW 2.0 and reverse classrooms

2008-07-08T21:27:00.004-05:00

Tonight was an incredible webchat of WOW 2.0. It's a wonderful group of individuals, though mainly women, who share their learning, insight, humor, intellectual curiosity, and generous spirits with those who participate. If you are in education and you enjoy technology, check it out!

One of the topics mentioned tonight was reverse classrooms. I was first introduced to the general no-tech concept some number of years ago when I attended a faculty development presentation led by Barbara Walvoord. Barbara was talking mostly about effective grading and ways to do assessment that reduced some of the time required. Those of us who taught writing were particularly interested in what she had to say. More often that not, the final project of too many university classes is the big ol' monster research paper. Faculty find themselves buried in huge research papers that need to be graded and, if they are seniors' papers, have to be graded quickly for final grades for graduation. It's always exhausting. Her suggestions made a lot of sense and I often refer to two of her books: Effective Grading (1998, John Wiley & Sons) and Assessment Clear and Simple (2004, John Wiley & Sons).

Anyway, I remembered that I tried a low-tech version of the reverse classroom when I first had access to the then nascent WebCT. I'd introduce some key concepts at the beginning of class, we do some in-class work to explore, investigate, question, and, where appropriate, practice the concepts. I made the assumption, however dangerous, that students had done their reading so had a least superficial familiarity with terminology. At the end of class I'd do some sort of "check for understanding" kind of assessment: 2+2 (2 things you learned, 2 things you still don't quite understand or about which you have questions), 1-minute paper, etc. The students' homework was to go to the web site, review the notes I'd posted there, perhaps review the reading assignment, and then review their own end-of-class assessment and write a short analysis/synthesis/reflection piece they would email to me. I could aggregate the information (I've used "aggregate" more times in the last two days than I've ever used it), have a pretty solid snapshot of the strengths and weaknesses in my class, and go from there.

The biggest hurdle was getting students to check the LMS between class meetings because the technology was fairly new and certainly new to them. But the concept changed the way I thought about assessment and creating lessons.

Thinking about wisdom and crowds, Take 1

2008-07-08T11:21:00.000-05:00

The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations was introduced to me at NECC 2008. James Surowiecki was the opening keynote at the conference on Sunday, June 29. His webcast is available at the ISTE web site, but for members only. As good a reason as any to join ISTE, by the way. I missed the keynote as I was with my video crew setting up for another event, but I've started the book and I've watched the webcast. I'm looking forward to finishing the book, but I do have some initial thoughts.

My first response to the shortened title of the book--The Wisdom of Crowds--was skepticism. The concept seemed like an oxymoron, but that was because the first things that came to mind were the "mob mentality" and "groupthink." The former brings the whole 1991-1992 Rodney King debacle to mind, but also how sports fans tend to set cars on fire and do incredible damage, and that's even when they win. There's an interesting National Geographic piece on sports riots. Certainly alcohol contributes to the general unruliness of the crowd, but there are other factors that impel them to become out-of-control rioters. The latter, "groupthink," came to mind because I'd just been doing some thinking about how too many tend to follow the group because we don't want to be the only one to dissent. Yet if someone else is bold enough to voice a different position, we are often willing to voice our like-minded opinion.

But then I started reading the book and have begun to learn about aggregated group information, knowledge, perceptions. A key point that Surowiecki makes in his book and in the webcast is that "under the right conditions, groups of people can be remarkably intelligent and they can often be smarter than the smartest person in that group." Obviously there is more, but let me stop right here for a moment. I had to absorb and think about this statement before I could go too much further, but then I'm generally not the smartest person in the group.

This suggests to me that many people think crowds aren't very bright, and perhaps want throws me off is the use of the word "crowds." I keep thinking of the hours of committee meetings I've been in. Some productive, some less so. Some in which the time has flown by because there has been so much collaborative energy and conversation careening off the walls. I think most of us chalk up successful meetings to successful leadership. But perhaps there is more to it. Perhaps a really successful meeting is part good leadership, and we know there is a great deal of discussion about what constitutes leadership and even more about how to recognize leadership that is good. Perhaps a meeting that is deemed successful is because the group has responded intuitively to the wisdom of the crowd. I suppose one might ask how many people makes a crowd or at what point a group becomes a crowd, but that might be a matter of semantics. Or not. More to come.

Reflecting yet again on NECC 2008

2008-07-05T16:36:00.000-05:00

I think I've mentioned I learned a lot at NECC. I'm still clawing my way through piles of possibilities because there is so much to read and think about. And there are so many cool toys to download, explore, and buy. I'm watching more people begin to explore Plurk, still trying to figure out the value of a Ning network compared to a wiki, impatiently waiting to play with new techno toys so I can do some podcasting and figure out how to make that work for my fall classes, etc. I've discovered lots of new resources and am nearly blown away by the sheer volume of stuff out there. I'm a reasonably experienced geek, so I can only imagine how the intrepid novice feels.

While at NECC I learned there is an interesting bifurcation of attitudes, but that's true in any industry or any technology or trend. There are the early adopters who think they are the experts and that everyone should go to them for advice, information, whatever. Then there are early adopters who invite everyone into the pool, but also invite the newbies to explore on their own. This latter group of early adopters, the non-divas, are the mentors and encouragers. They are the folks who know they don't have all of the answers and are eager to have others come on board to explore their brave new worlds.

I also learned that blogging is a powerful and potentially dangerous tool. But I also learned about the concept of "walled garden" whereby bloggers and wiki-ists create a safe space so that members are invitation only. That way their students can do their work without creepy stalkers, but the teacher can also moderate any and all discussion. In fact, those gardens can be so walled that even parents can be invitation-only. A number of teachers talked about their experiences and how the class would determine if and when parents could be a part of the blog or the wiki.

But one of the reasons it can be dangerous is because individuals can take advantage of the ability to leave a comment or make a statement and ignore any responses that may ask for accountability.

Which made it interesting to learn more about "digital citizenship" with regard to cyberethics. If anything, K-12 educators are making specific and special efforts to make sure their students are safe, but are also making sure their students have reasonable access to some powerful information and sites on the Internet.

I learned about the Flat Classroom and Horizon Project.

I got to explore plurking and twittering.

I heard Peggy Sheehy talk about her experiences with Second Life in her Ramapo classrooms.

I met two delightful women who started http://www.facts4me.com/, a safe research site for young readers that could also be used by teachers in upper grades who have struggling readers.

I met some amazing folks who are doing wonderful things in their classrooms and with their students, and often NOT with the latest and greatest computers and often with limited resources.

NECC 2008 reflections

2008-07-02T14:49:00.000-05:00

I work for Pearson Education and stirred up a bit of controversy when I brought a video crew to do some filming at the conference. I'd gotten permission from folks, but we didn't convey information as well as we could have. Lesson learned. Please note that the opinions in this blog are my own and do not reflect the position held by Pearson. I do hope, however, that I am philosophically close to my company's vision.

Anyway, I had a conversation with Steve Hargadon on Monday (he was gracious enough to do an interview with us) and one of his comments to me made me listen differently to the folks at the conference, but also to my own tendency to lapse into corporatespeak. I understand the concern of grassroots leaders that somehow a corporation will try to create a product out of a movement, but I really didn't get it until I walked through the Exhibit Hall at NECC and heard vendors talking, for example, about enabling students to be "socially networking."

I thought about this as I walked around the exhibits (I was not at NECC as an exhibitor) and realized how easy it is for vendors to co-opt certain language and make it sound as if a product or service accomplishes something it might or might not. But I also had to wonder how many of those sales folks really understood what they were talking about. I wonder how many of those vendor reps have experimented with blogging, with podcasting, with using Twitter or some other Internet app. I wonder how much they know about application options; for example, any competition Twitter might have.

I know I've only begun experimenting with a lot of these technologies only recently. It never seemed like something I needed to do or know, but as I watched the fad shift to a trend and begin to establish some roots, I knew I had to gain some firsthand knowledge of these tools and not just because I like to play with technology.

So, at the end of the conference, I've learned a lot that will be useful for my work, but I've also learned a lot that I can use as an instructor and that I'll just have fun exploring on my own time and in my own SL world.

NECC 2008 and learning edges

2008-07-01T16:16:00.000-05:00

Wow. My head hurts. Actually, my brain is tired. I've learned so much. My background is varied: spent 11 or so years as a system analyst/programmer. Worked in Assembler on PDP 11/70 computers for quite a number of years. Then I started working for Prodigy that was Trintex when I first began. We were developing this concept of online shopping back and our main (if not only) competition was CompuServe. I developed one of the first online shopping order forms for a couple of our clients. It was exciting stuff. Trying something and hoping it worked. Eventually I started teaching computer science courses on the college level. I stunk at teaching when I first started, but learned the hard way how to begin to make connections with students. Then I found myself having to teach the occasional math course: basic, discrete, and finite mostly. I should mention I was an English/American Studies double major as an undergraduate and an English major as a graduate student.

Then I pestered the English department chair until he allowed me to teach freshman writing. After that I had split appointments for teaching for quite some time. It was exciting, exhilirating, exhausting. Okay, I can talk more about that later. The point of all of that is to say that I thought I had a reasonably good handle on things technical. Let's just say I don't get too lost, but I have quickly learned there are just way too many options and possibilities out there and I do not have nearly enough time to play with them all. But I've identified a whole bunch that I do want to play with not only for my job, but for my first love, which is teaching. My poor students will be a bit overwhelmed this fall, I think. But I also have some ideas for some things that I'm going to try to help my online faculty learn. Just need some time (don't we all) to think through all of these ideas to prioritize what I want to try first.

Reinforces for me that some of us might always been on the edges, sometimes in the middle of the curve, even occasionally in front though often behind the curve. As long as I have an idea where "forward" might be, I can keep moving in that direction. Most excellent stuff.