EduCon 2.1, Constructing Modern Knowledge, and Learning 2.0: A Colorado Conversation

If there’s one educational conference you attend this year, I think you should make it be EduCon 2.1. If I had a choice between FETC and EduCon, I’d pick EduCon. If I had a choice between NECC and EduCon, I’d pick EduCon. If I had a choice between any content-area conference and EduCon, I’d pick EduCon (it’s not a technology conference, it’s a learning conference). If I had a choice between all my students having laptops computers and going to EduCon, I’d choose . . . well, okay, I’d choose the laptops for all my students. But you get the picture.

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to go to EduCon, which is why I want you to go if it’s at all possible (and then tell me all about it). If you live anywhere near Philadelphia, go. If you don’t live near, but your organization (or personal budget) funds things like this, go. I mean, just look at the scheduled conversations. Here’s the description from Chris Lehmann:

Registration is now open for EduCon 2.1, the second annual conference and conversation on education and innovation hosted by Philadelphia's Science Leadership Academy in conjunction with The Franklin Institute. We will be convening January 23-25, 2009. During the conference, educators from around the world will descend upon Philly to teach, to think and to learn how to improve their own practices and inform the larger dialogue on education as well. Aaron Sorkin wrote, "Decisions are made by those who show up." It is time to show up.

EduCon is built on the Axioms:

1) Our schools must be inquiry-driven, thoughtful and empowering for all members

2) Our schools must be about co-creating -- together with our students -- the 21st Century Citizen

3) Technology must serve pedagogy, not the other way around.

4) Technology must enable students to research, create, communicate and collaborate

5) Learning can -- and must -- be networked.

Visit the EduCon wiki to learn about the conversation schedule. Aside from the conversations, Friday night will feature a panel discussion where deep thinkers from various non-academic strata investigate the question, "What is the purpose of school?" While the need for a new educational course is clear, the path to that shift is not as obvious. Sunday's panel will highlight those divergent paths as educational leaders for varying pedagogies engage each other in an attempt to make the case for how we should approach our educational evolution.

EduCon will also feature a pre-conference event on January 22nd this year - Constructing Modern Math/Science Knowledge - with participants Dr. David Thornburg, Dr. Gary Stager and more.

The stage is set for an amazing conference. No vendors. No sponsors. Simply - ideas, inquiry and pedagogy.

Show up.

General conference registration is $150 and $100 for School District of Philadelphia employees and includes Friday admittance to SLA's partner museum The Franklin Institute and The National Constitution Center. Pre-Conference registration is $100.

If you have any questions, please contact Chris Lehmann.

Now, for those of you in Colorado (or close to Colorado) who cannot attend EduCon (or even if you can attend), please consider attending the 2009 edition of Learning 2.0: A Colorado Conversation (last year’s info soon to be updated with this year's info). This will be held on February 21st, 2009, at Heritage High School in Littleton, Colorado (different location than last year - mapquest), with details to follow in another post very soon.

Advanced Placement is Changing

One of the many interesting discussions in our staff development efforts revolved around the idea that many of the changes we've been discussing (a more student-centered and constructivist approach, students taking more control over their own learning, students developing personal learning networks, etc.) are very difficult to implement in Advanced Placement courses because of the very defined curriculum and the all-important "big test" looming at the end of the school year. The gist of the argument is that while this approach would be great for students, it's next to impossible to do with the time constraints and the amount of material that must be covered by a fixed date in May when the test occurs. That doesn't mean, of course, that the course has to be straight lecture and ours are not, but the general feeling from the AP teachers involved in our staff development was that there simply wasn't enough time for a more inquiry-based approach, and that - while they might value many aspects of that approach - they were concerned that it might actually hurt the students on the AP exam.

Now, being the radical I am (and also being completely unaccountable because I don't actually have to teach these courses or own up to the results), I often pushed back with my usual, "What's best in the long run for the students? What will help them learn and grow and understand history/mathematics/science/language/etc. at a more deeper level? Don't you think that if they truly develop a deep conceptual understanding that they'll do just fine on the AP exam and it will more than make up for any drop in their score from missing a few more multiple choice questions? Is our only goal to prepare them for one exam when they're 17 or 18, less than a quarter of the way through their lives? If so, we should stop the Super Bowl and hand out the Lombardi trophy just before the first quarter ends. Yada Yada Yada." (Yes, I'm pretty much always that obnoxious. But they love me anyway. I hope.)

I think I always acknowledged how difficult this was and conceded that realistically they might have to make some compromises due to the constraints the AP curriculum/exam placed on them. In any event, I think we always had some very good discussions and generated some great ideas, and the end result was better instruction and learning for the students in those classes (even if my radical self always hoped for more).

(As a side note, this discussion was also happening at the same time that my school was opening up our AP courses to many more students, meaning these teachers were not only being harassed by me but were also dealing with more sections of AP classes, and those sections had significantly more students with more varied levels of preparation. I actually think this was good, because it made all of us really question what we valued and what we wanted for students, but it also didn't make it any easier.)

So I read with great interest when one of our AP teachers sent me an email indicating that the College Board was in the process of redesigning the AP History and Science curricula and exams. And when I followed the links and did a little more reading, I was very interested in some of the changes they were proposing:

The review of the AP Exams in science and history has resulted in a recommendation to improve these exams, reducing the breadth of content covered and reducing the emphasis on memorization of facts, and instead requiring a greater depth of study among a smaller number of topics, emphasizing inquiry and scientific reasoning.

Okay, so far so good, but I wanted a little more detail. That article then linked to a couple of PowerPoints, one for science and one for history, that were in support of a live presentation given at the AP Annual Conference. Those PowerPoints referenced two books: Learning and Understanding (full text at that link) by the National Research Council and Understanding by Design by Wiggins & McTighe. I found that fortuitous (always wanted to use "fortuitous" in a blog post), as one of the early influences on our staff development was How People Learn (full text at that link), an earlier work by the National Research Council; and UbD is one of the books informing our current staff development work. So it appeared as though the AP review underway was tracking right along with the themes in our staff development these last three plus years.

What else did those PowerPoints say? Well, they both included a slide with recommendations "applicable to all AP course subjects:"

• Courses should emphasize deep understanding rather than comprehensive coverage.
  
  
• Programs should reflect current understanding of learning in the discipline.
  
  
• Programs should reflect current research directions within the discipline.
  
  
• Courses should include a deep emphasis on inquiry and reasoning.

Alrighty then. I was beginning to feel much better about some of the ideas we'd been discussing these last few years, as it appeared as though perhaps the AP curriculum and exam might change in ways that would better align with the approaches we had been talking about. If you download those PowerPoints (and I think you should), also pay attention to the "notes" section on each slide, as many of the slides have additional information and "talking points" for the folks that were presenting that give some valuable insight into their thinking (not as good as being there live, but still helpful). Here are some notes that jumped out at me:

History Presentation, Slide 4, notes: A very specific consistency is supported by evidence; there is too much content in the "science" courses.

History Presentation, Slide 10, notes: Need to create flexibility for teachers to select topics of their choosing. In identifying essential historical knowledge, goal is to limit historical detail so teachers are not required to "cover" everything.

Science Presentation, Slide 18, notes: The Chemistry Commission recognized the need to replace the emphasis in the current exam on calculations and descriptions with an emphasis on the conceptual foundations of the discipline and on the ability of students to express the reasoning that underlies the calculations and descriptions.

Now it was getting just downright scary, as this could've been the summary of some of our staff development sessions (and a few of my Fischrants as well). There's much more in the PowerPoints, but I felt like I was probably still missing some pieces since I hadn't seen the live presentation. So I decided to read the executive summary (pdf) of Learning and Understanding (again, the full text is online, but I've only read the executive summary so far).

Some lengthy excerpts in case you don't want to read the executive summary:

This book takes a fresh look at programs for advanced studies for high school students in the United States, with a particular focus on the Advanced Placement and the International Baccalaureate programs, and asks how advanced studies can be significantly improved in general. (introduction)

. . . its primary motivator was the improved, research-based understanding of teaching and learning that has emerged recently, and its application to advanced study. (p. 1)

The committee found that existing programs for advanced study are frequently inconsistent with the results of the research on cognition and learning . . . Students learn best from teachers with strong content knowledge and pedagogical skills . . . High school teachers . . . have little opportunity to work with colleagues to improve curriculum or instruction . . .Research indicates that constrained curricula are more effective and equitable in helping students pursue advanced studies. (p. 2)

The goal of advanced study is to promote development of deep conceptual understanding and the ability to apply knowledge appropriately . . . Effective instruction is focused on enabling learning to uncover and formulate the deep organizing patterns of a domain, and then to actively access and create meaning around these organizing principles. (p. 6)

Seven research-based principles of learning can provide a framework . . . (p. 6-7)

1. Learning with understanding is facilitated when knowledge is related to and structured around major concepts and principles of a discipline.
   
   
2. A learner's prior knowledge is the starting point for effective learning.
   
   
3. Metacognitive learning (self-monitoring) is important for acquiring proficiency.
   
   
4. Recognizing differences among learning is important for effective teaching and learning.
   
   
5. Learners' beliefs about their ability to learn affect learning success.
   
   
6. Practices and activities in which people engage during learning shape what is learned.
   
   
7. Socially supported interactions strengthen one's ability to learn with understanding.

Successful implementation of advanced study that promotes learning with understanding also depends upon creating opportunities for teachers' continual learning . . . It treats teachers as active learners, builds on their existing knowledge and beliefs, and occurs in professional communities where there are opportunities to discuss ideas and practices as colleagues. (p. 8)

The committee's analysis . . . yielded the following findings: (p. 8-9)

• Excessive breadth of coverage (especially in 1-year science programs) and insufficient emphasis on key concepts in final assessments contribute significantly to the problem in all science fields . . . . [assessments] frequently focus on procedural knowledge at the expense of conceptual understanding.
  
  
• Except for mathematics, these programs do not specify clearly what prior knowledge is needed for success.
  
  
• Many programs and courses do not help students develop [metacognitive] skills.
  
  
• The single end-of-year examinations and summary scores, as found in AP, do not adequately capture student learning.
  
  
• Teamwork and collaborative investigation are especially important in advanced study . . . Better use of the Internet and technologies for collaborative learning is needed.
  
  
• Students need opportunities to learn concepts in a variety of contexts. The AP and IB programs currently do not emphasize interdisciplinary connections sufficiently.

Students can study topics in depth and develop conceptual understanding only if curricula do not present excessive numbers of topics. Currently, AP and IB programs are inconsistent with this precept . . . Additionally, the College Board models AP courses on typical college introductory courses, rather than on the best college courses or educational practices based on research on learning and pedagogy. (p. 9-10)

A striking inadequacy of the AP and IB programs is the lack of detailed research about what their examinations actually measure, including the kinds of thinking that the examinations elicit. (p. 10)

At present, neither the College Board nor the IBO supports systemic and continuing professional development for teachers. (p. 10)

Recommendations (p. 12-13)

• The primary goal of advanced study in any discipline should be for students to achieve a deep conceptual understanding of the discipline's content and unifying concepts. Well-designed programs helps students develop skills of inquiry, analysis, and problem solving so that they become superior learners. Accelerating students' exposure to college-level material, while appropriate as a component of some advanced study programs, it not by itself a sufficient goal.
  
  
• Course options in grades 6-10 for which there are reduced academic expectations . . . should be eliminated from the curriculum.
  
  
• Programs of advanced study in science and mathematics must be made consistent with findings from recent research on how people learn. These findings include the role of students' prior knowledge and misconceptions in building a conceptual structure, the importance of student motivation and self-monitoring of learning (metacognition), and the substantial differences among learners.
  
  
• Curricula for advanced study should emphasise depth of understanding over exhaustive coverage of content . . . Because science and technology progress rapidly, frequent review of course content is essential.
  
  
• Instruction in advanced courses should engage students in inquiry.
  
  
• Teachers of advanced study courses should employ frequent formative assessment.
  
  
• Schools and districts offering advanced study must provide frequent opportunities for continuing professional development.

Changes in the AP and IB Programs
The following substantial changes in the AP and IB programs are recommended: (p. 14)

• The College Board should abandon its practice of designing AP courses in most disciplines primarily to replicate typical introductory college courses.
  
  
• The College Board and IPO should evaluate their assessments to ensure that they measure the conceptual understanding and complex reasoning that should be the primary goal of advanced study.
  
  
• Both the College Board and IBO should take more responsibility for ensuring the use of appropriate instructional approaches.

Okay, I'm convinced. Our staff development efforts are pretty much directly aligned with the changes that are coming to the Advanced Placement program. While these won't occur any earlier than May 2011, they appear to be serious about these changes. Which implies that we need to be serious about implementing these changes in our Advanced Placement courses beginning right now.

I also firmly believe that what's good for students in AP courses is good for students in all courses. I'm not suggesting that all courses be AP courses, different students have different needs. But the essential idea of what constitutes understanding in any given field is applicable to all students, and the basic design elements of a course/learning environment should apply to all our students, not just the ones deemed "advanced."

So, Advanced Placement is changing. Are you?

AHS Chemistry Podcasts

I first ran across the idea of podcasting Chemistry lectures about three years ago. Jean-Claude Bradley at Drexel University posted this:

A new way to teach. Having an archive of lectures available gives me a lot of added flexibility. This term I have assigned the archived lectures (podcasts and screencasts) and instead of lectures I run workshops during class time. I have the chance to interact one on one with every student who needs help with the specific problems that they have. I can use other modalities such as watch them play games or build molecular models from kits. In other words, I can be a teacher again, instead of a parakeet.

He also has a wiki with some links to his own and other university lectures that are podcasted.

I'm pretty sure I shared that with the folks in my staff development at some point and probably commented on how at least some university professors were trying to take advantage of some of the new technologies. And I recall a conversation with some folks where I mentioned this and talked about how it allowed the professor to offload the necessary (but routine) parts of his chemistry class so that he could get to the "good stuff" in class; the really interesting parts of Chemistry that he thought would grab the students' attention, but he often never had time for because he had to spend it on delivering the basics. And, as he blogged about, he wasn't worried so much about the attendance factor:

Attendance. It seems strange to me almost every article or comment on lecture podcasting assumes that a decreasing attendance is obviously a negative outcome. As educators we should be focusing on education, not counting bodies. If students are doing just as well and not attending class then that tells me that my multimedia channel is effective. This is exactly what I have observed in my online optional classes (using podcasting and screencasting), where attendance dropped to 10-20% by the last lecture.

Now flash forward to last year when Brian Hatak, one of the teachers at our school, came to me and said he had heard about these high school chemistry teachers in Woodland Park, Colorado podcasting their chemistry lectures and was wondering if we could do that. After some lengthy discussions about both the technology and the pedagogy, Brian decided to give it a shot this year:

Podcasts. Yes, chemistry podcasts.

For the past few years, I have felt frustrated with how my classroom was working. I would ask the students to read and they would act like they did, and perhaps some of them did, and then I would lecture over the material on the next class day. It seemed that the students were learning that they did not have to read since I would be covering the exact material in class. Then they would struggle on the homework problems and ask in class and earn average grades on the tests.

However, I felt as though I was doing a lot more of the problems then the students were. So, I started looking for a way to fix this.

Much like Jean-Claude Bradley at Drexel, Brian decided to try to offload the, umm, sometimes less than exciting (for some students) - but still very necessary - chemistry lecture/information delivery to outside of class. He found that he could "deliver" the necessary information in a relatively compact and cogent form via video podcast/screencast. He could take his time (and this does take some time up front) to fine tune it to make sure he hit all the points he wanted to, yet still take much less time than he used to in class (he's hoping most of the videos will be between 5 and 15 minutes, although a few will undoubtedly be longer). And, the students could watch it - or parts of it - multiple times if they needed to. Instead of frantically writing down notes in class and then later looking at them and understanding step 1 and step 3 but not having any idea of how he got from step 1 to step 3, they now could watch, pause, reflect, and re-watch until they felt pretty comfortable with the material. And, of course, they could come back to it as often as they needed to when they needed to review.

Previously Brian had been frustrated - like most teachers - with never having enough time in class. He felt like by the time he got done "covering" the material he didn't have enough time left to effectively answer student questions. He'd send them off to do homework on their own where he wasn't around to help them when they got stuck, and then feel frustrated when he'd have to go over it all again in the next class period. (Note: I think both Brian and I agree that it's not always a bad thing to struggle, but if the material is so difficult that students get frustrated and then give up - and lose their interest in Chemistry - then that's a bad thing.) So Brian decided to try to do almost the exact opposite of what he'd been doing before - have them do the lecture as homework and use class time to work with the students (much like Jean-Claude Bradley at Drexel appears to be doing). He could use class time to work with students in small groups or one-one-one, and also hopefully give him the time to explore some of the more interesting aspects of Chemistry. (Note: Our chemistry classes meet three times a week for 58 minutes on MWF, and then they have a two-hour lab once a week on either Tuesday or Thursday.)

Now, we just started school about two weeks ago, so we don't have any definitive results to share yet, but I think this shows a lot of promise. I've embedded one podcast below, but you can also visit Brian's TeacherTube channel to see all of them. He's just getting started, so still getting the hang of how to do this, but I think it's a good start.



As he progresses through the school year, Brian's also going to ask students to record some of their lab work and how they work out problems and share that out with the other students. He's really hoping to develop a community of learners, all helping each other - and future Chemistry students - learn the material.

I thought this was blogworthy in and of itself, but the story gets just a little bit better. Before the school year even began, Brian received an email from Ben, one of our students that was going to be in Brian's class. Ben had discovered what Brian had already uploaded:

I am personally very excited about the way you have decided to use technology to fundamentally change the way you run your class. The way you perceived an issue and saw how technology could be used to effectively address it is a prime example of how the expertise of teachers is key to effectively integrating technology into a class.

The screencasts you have a created are available on teachertube, which is a convenient way to view them. However, I thought that it would be even more convenient if your screencast was also a podcast. For this reason, I used several tools to turn the videos you post on teachertube into an iTunes subscribable podcast.

At this url, I have created a blog where the videos are reposted. It is the process of reposting that syndicates them into an XML format iTunes or other video podcast readers can understand. They are also available for download individually in a format that can be transferred to an iPod or viewed with Quicktime. The "PODCAST HELP PAGE" link on the sidebar goes to a website I quickly assembled that describes how to subscribe in iTunes, download episodes, or even view online with an iPhone or iPod Touch.

One of the reasons I am sending you this email is to make sure that this is acceptable to you. The screencasts are your intellectual property, after all. If it is acceptable, hopefully this will become a valuable way to access the content.

Well. Okay. Did I mention that it was still summer when this email came in?

Brian shared this with me and I suggested he email Ben so that Ben could teach us exactly how he was doing this (I was curious how he was getting the mp4 to be part of the RSS feed from Blogger so that iTunes would pick up on it) and so that Brian could give him the original mp4's so that Ben didn't have to convert them. Ben emailed us back with the details, and we are going to hopefully meet sometime next week to see what other ideas we might be able to brainstorm to make this work more effectively for the students. Ben has also given Brian rights to the blog so that he can post directly.

So give Brian some feedback on his post if you have suggestions (plus you can read about how he's having students use their cell phones instead of purchasing clickers). I'm also hoping Brian will blog soon about how he's modified a Wii to create a homemade - and much less expensive - whiteboard. As for me, I need to go mess up Ben's transcript so that he never graduates. At least he's only a Junior . . .

Birmingham, Michigan is Looking for a Forward Thinking Principal

Just passing this along to anyone who might be interested . . .

If you know of any forward thinking, visionary folks who might be interested in being the new instructional leader (principal) at Birmingham's (Michigan) district wide 3-8 school please encourage them to consider this opportunity.

Birmingham has been doing some interesting things, including a new program called !gnite! which is designed around constructivism and the TCPK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) work of Dr. Punya Mishra at Michigan State.

How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning?

First, a few caveats.

1. I don’t believe that all we’re about in education is preparing future employees.


2. Just because Business says something is good doesn’t necessarily make it so.


3. I don’t know enough about the methodology of this survey to judge bias.

Okay, now that we’ve got that out of the way, I found How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning? (pdf) rather interesting:

From November 8 to December 12, 2007, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., interviewed 301 employers whose companies have at least 25 employees and report that 25% or more of their new hires hold at least a bachelor’s degree from a four-year college. Respondents are executives at their companies, including owners, CEOs, presidents, C-suite level executives, and vice presidents.

So they polled these executives about the quality of college graduates and what they’d like to change, particularly in the area of assessment. Here are a few excerpts:

Employers are satisfied that the majority of college graduates who apply for positions at their companies possess a range of skills that prepare them for success in entry-level positions, but they are notably less confident that graduates are prepared for advancement or promotion. While recent graduates are seen to demonstrate solid skills in the areas of teamwork, ethical judgment, and intercultural skills, employers are less convinced of their preparedness in terms of global knowledge, self-direction, and writing.

When it comes to the assessment practices that employers trust to indicate a graduate’s level of knowledge and potential to succeed in the job world, employers dismiss tests of general content knowledge in favor of assessments of real-world and applied-learning approaches. Multiple-choice tests specifically are seen as ineffective. On the other hand, assessments that employers hold in high regard include evaluations of supervised internships, community-based projects, and comprehensive senior projects.

Employers’ emphasis on integrative, applied learning is reflected in their recommendations to colleges and universities about how to assess student learning in college. Again, multiple-choice testing ranks lowest among the options presented, just below an institutional score that shows how a college compares to other colleges in advancing critical thinking skills. Faculty evaluated internships and community-learning experiences emerge on top. Employers also endorse individual student essay tests, electronic portfolios of student work, and comprehensive senior projects as valuable tools both for students to enhance their knowledge and develop important real-world skills, as well as for employers to evaluate graduates’ readiness for the workplace.

And, from the “Key Findings”:

. . . Most employers indicate that college transcripts are not particularly useful in helping evaluate job applicants’ potential to succeed at their company.

. . . Few employers believe that multiple-choice tests of general content knowledge are very effective in ensuring student achievement. Instead, employers have the most confidence in assessments that demonstrate graduates’ ability to apply their college learning to complex, real-world challenges, as well as projects or tests that integrate problem-solving, writing, and analytical reasoning skills.

. . . Employers deem both multiple-choice tests of general content knowledge and institutional assessments that show how colleges compare in advancing critical-thinking skills of limited value for evaluating applicants’ potential for success in the workplace. They anticipate that faculty-assessed internships, community-based projects, and senior projects would be the most useful in gauging graduates’ readiness for the workplace.

. . . When asked to advise colleges on how to develop their methods for assessing students’ learning, employers rank multiple-choice tests of students’ general content knowledge and institutional scores for colleges as conspicuously low priorities.

So, let me summarize (bias alert! bias alert!) via a single multiple choice question:

1. According to this report:

a. Grades are pretty much a non-factor in the hiring process.

b. Multiple choice tests are an unreliable predictor of success.

c. Employers are pretty much satisfied with the content knowledge of their employees and think assessments that cover content are relatively meaningless.

d. Employers want their employees to be more globally oriented, to take charge of their own job, and they must be able to communicate effectively through writing.

e. Employers prefer meaningful, relevant, experiential learning over an isolated, content-focused-only approach.

f. All of the above.

So, keeping those caveats I started with in mind, what does this mean for what we’re doing here at Arapahoe? Regular readers of this blog can probably predict what I would say about the ramifications of this in terms of the way we grade, what and how we teach, coverage of the curriculum, and how much of the responsibility for learning we put in the hands of students. But, just in case there was any doubt (and that the above wasn’t biased enough), let me add on to the choices above.

a. Since the primary way that many folks use grades appears to be superfluous, perhaps we need to take a hard look at the efficacy of grading in the first place, and perhaps switch to a focus on formative assessment versus “grades.”

b. Other than standardized test companies, politicians, and teachers who have a tight deadline to turn in final grades (see previous item), who’s really in favor of multiple choice tests? (Yes, I’ve ranted about this before somewhere, but I can’t find it at the moment.)

c. Content is necessary, but not sufficient, to be successful in the 21st century. So perhaps we should stop trying to “cover” the content, and instead focus on understanding the essential concepts and applying them in real world settings.

d. Constructivism. Blogs. RSS. Read/Write Web. Personal Learning Networks.

e. We need to take a hard look at our current system.

I’d love to hear your thoughts (especially AHS folks, but of course everyone is welcome to chime in) on what specific changes we might think about making. If you do comment, please try to not focus on the rant portion of the above, but on the results of the survey and on meaningful changes that will benefit our students.

How It All Ends: YouTube, Climate Change, and Inquiry

Thanks to Chris Lehmann and Will Richardson, I came across this video (well, actually, multiple videos). As Chris said, "This is one science teacher's attempt to influence the way we talk about the issue of climate change. Pass it on."



I find this worth blogging about for two reasons. First, full disclosure, I am concerned about climate change. But second, even if I wasn't, I find this approach very interesting and would like to explore the educational possibilities.

This teacher has taken an important, controversial topic, and attempted to start a global conversation. He started out with an earlier video titled, "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See!" It got a lot of views, and also a ton of criticism (hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar). He then acknowledges that he had a giant hole in the original video, and then created a series of videos attempting to address every criticism of the original, with the How It All Ends video being the jumping off point.

He provides an index of all the videos and a suggested order of viewing in the "About This Video" section next to each of the videos on YouTube, but easier access can be found on this site. He provides some links at that site as well.

I think this is a very interesting approach, even if the topic wasn't so huge or as controversial as climate change. Lay out an argument, address and attempt to refute all the criticism, put it all out there on YouTube to be freely distributed, commented on, criticized, discussed, and generally put through the wringer, and then also provide some next steps for those interested in doing something about the issue.

I think this holds a lot of promise as an example of an inquiry approach to learning about climate change. I could see a science class taking this on, watching and discussing all the videos and investigating the related links. And then investigate the other side of the argument thoroughly, generate a list of links and resources, and then presenting them in one, unified "space." This would involve looking deeply at the science - as well as the related social issues - and I think would offer many possibilities for learning and doing science along the way. The students would learn a whole lot of science concepts in context - in relation to the bigger picture issue of climate change. Then each student (or perhaps group of students) would have to take a stand and make a persuasive argument using all the evidence collected, and present that argument both digitally in some form and in person to their peers and/or their wider community. Invite others in to critique (including Greg, the creator of How It All Ends.)

For me, this big picture approach would not only be more engaging for students and would be more likely to lead to more enduring learning of science concepts, but it would also immerse them in the scientific process itself. Not just the scientific process as applied to science - which I think most folks would agree is pretty significant in and of itself, but also the larger scientific process as it relates to politics and policy. As we've seen with so many issues (AIDS, evolution, stem cell research, climate change, etc.), you really can't separate the science from the politics and the policy when it comes to actually addressing the issues and attempting to solve the problem. What better way to show the relevance, the social impact, and the sheer beauty of science?

Thought for the Day 11-25-07

Via the September 17th, 2007 issue of Fortune Magazine (p. 56):

Shelly Lazarus, CEO of advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather, says:

We’re living in a world now where consumers are bombarded with thousands of commercial messages – they’re everywhere you look. Unless you cut through that and engage someone, I think you are lost. Consumers are now clearly in control. They control what they hear and see, when, and where. You have to find new ways to allow them to actively engage with you, or the money you spend is wasted.

Any parallels for education?

What Will You Learn Today?

Just having some fun here today (via Chris Lehmann).



Although it could be an interesting assignment - having to figure out what you could say well in a limited amount of words per "slide" and in this format.

Customer Service

I ran across the following video at David Pogue's blog. If you have time (6:22), watch it, and then I'll tell you why I decided to blog about it.



I decided to blog about this for two reasons. First, I'm the primary tech support for my high school. I have excellent support from my school district - they take care of the network and the servers. And I have an excellent field support person (Hi Rody!) who's also a certified Dell technician (I share him with 8 or 9 other buildings, though). For anything that's under warranty, he can quickly get new parts ordered after I have (or he has) identified the problem. For anything else that I can't figure out, he'll also do a thorough job of trying to figure out what's wrong and get it working again.

But I'm still the first line of defense - and the only person on-site tasked with this. My high school has about 2,150 students and 150+ staff members, so about 2,300 end users - with about 570 of them new each year. We have just over 750 computers, 50 or so printers, 75 or so LCD Projectors, and a variety of other peripherals such as scanners, digital cameras, camcorders, etc. We have the usual assortment of software, ranging from Microsoft Office to Geometer's Sketchpad to Audacity, and I also help support our student information system (Infinite Campus). If you're a regular reader of this blog you know that I also do a little bit of staff development as well. And, given that this is a school, I pretty much support whatever comes my way, whether it's school-owned or teacher-owned or student-owned, I try to figure out a way to help them with it.

So what's the point of all that? The point of all that is that I'm kind of busy, which means sometimes I don't do a very good job of "customer service." Too often I find myself just trying to solve the problem quickly myself, instead of helping the student or staff member learn how to solve the problem themselves. And as more and more tech "stuff" has come into the building, I've done a worse and worse job of serving my "customers" - I've given them a fish (Fisch?) instead of teaching them how to fish. This is particularly ironic considering my constructivist leanings.

So the first reason I'm posting this is to remind myself to do a better job of teaching my staff and students how to fish. I think this not only makes sense in a general way, but is especially important if we want teachers and students to be "technically literate" in the 21st century. If technology is going to play as big a role as I'm telling everyone it will, then everyone is going to need to be comfortable with using it seamlessly. And that includes learning the problem-solving skills that I've learned along the way - skills that they'll then be able to apply as new technologies - and new problems - arise.

The second reason I'm posting this is to think about the idea of customer service in education just a little bit. (As usual, I'm exploring my own thinking here on the blog, so please bear with me.) The title of the video is "Ordinary Indignity," and it indicates that there is nothing particularly special about this call, that it's pretty typical. In many ways, I think we've become accustomed to this type of service - so much so that we're a little surprised when we get good service. I think the same thing is often true in education. We're so accustomed to the way things are that we end up accepting things the way they are.

I think this applies across the system. As teachers we are the "customer" of building and district administration. As adminstrators we're the customer of the Board of Education, who in turn are the customers of the state legislature and state board of education. And, of course, going the other way, students and parents are the customer for all those folks previously mentioned. But how often do any of us think of this in terms of customer service? It seems like most of the time (at least in my little corner of the world) that instead of being treated as the customer, we look at it in the opposite way. That the folks that are supposed to be serving the customer in each of those relationships are instead looked at as the ones with the "power" in the relationship. That too often administrators are treated like the customer of teachers, that teachers are there to meet administrator needs. And that teachers don't think of their students as customers often enough, but instead the students are supposed to meet our requirements.

Now I know that's a very simplistic description of this. It's a broad generalization and doesn't come close to describing it in full, and I'm not trying to imply that the vast majority of folks in the system aren't caring and truly trying to do their best for their respective "customers," but I still think there's some hard thinking we need to do on this topic. We should ask ourselves questions like the interviewer in the video asked the customer.

In terms of customer service quality, "would you recommend [insert name of school/teacher/administrator/district here] to friends or colleagues who are looking for good customer service?"

And how many folks are "so disenchanted with our customer service" and what we've done to them?

So maybe instead of just accepting things the way they are we need to spend some time thinking about who our customers really are and whether we are truly meeting their needs. And, if we're not, maybe we should think about changing - instead of asking our customers to change.

A Formula For Success?

A question came up during one of our Cohort 2 sessions today when we were discussing the reading (the article discussed incorporating the student’s point of view into instruction.). It was something along the lines of, “How do we honor the student’s point of view on a math assessment where there is typically one “right” answer?” We didn’t get a chance to really discuss that question during the session, but I wanted to revisit it on the blog.

It won’t be a surprise to most of you that I want to focus on the concept of “one right answer.” The initial thought that came to my mind was that it depends a whole lot on what you’re assessing. If you’re assessing a particular math skill, taken out of context, then there may indeed be a “right” answer. Although even then I think in the long run the most important part might be their ability to describe the process, how and why they obtained the answer they did and why they think it’s “right.” Because unless they are presented with that exact same problem again – in some kind of context and where it actually matters – getting the right answer on that particular problem isn’t really all that important in the scheme of things.

But I think it’s more interesting to ask if that’s the type of assessment we really want to be doing. I’m not saying that we don’t need a way to evaluate whether they have mastered a particular skill, but I think the question that was posed was more along the lines of a unit test or semester final kind of assessment. And for that, I would suggest that the type of questions I think we should be asking might not have one “right” answer. For example, what if your assessment question was, “You’re designing a new school. What size and shape should the math classrooms be? Why?” To me, that is a much more interesting question and I think most of us would agree does not have one right answer. It also would require a whole lot of applied math skills, as well as research and critical thinking.

Which leads me to a larger question – why do we still insist on teaching mathematics as an isolated subject? As a set of skills, taken out of context, with the primary goal being to master the skills? Before you start throwing compasses at me, please realize I’m not saying this as someone who doesn’t like math. I happen to love math, and used to teach it, so this is not coming from someone who is math phobic or harboring deep-seated resentments to all things mathematical. It is said by someone who truly wonders if this is the best way to teach students about mathematics and how it applies to their world. Shouldn’t we be focusing more on the application of mathematics, not on the theory of mathematics in the abstract?

Let’s try an example. Actually, a quiz, since this is about math after all and math quizzes are something we’ve all experienced. It’s only four questions, and they’re all related, so don’t panic. (The very fact that so many of you smiled at the words “don’t panic” says something in and of itself.)

1. Write down the quadratic formula from memory.
   
   
2. Assuming you were able to complete number one, explain what a, b and c stand for in the quadratic formula.
   
   
3. Assuming you were able to complete both number one and number two, explain –in detail - when, why, how and for what you would use the quadratic formula in a math class.
   
   
4. Assuming you were able to complete numbers one through three, now explain – in detail – when, why, how and for what real-world situation you would use the quadratic formula.

Now, give this quiz to everyone who has graduated from high school in the United States between 1955 and 2005. (And, of course, please take it yourself.) The quadratic formula is covered in Algebra – and even Pre-Algebra where that is offered - and a very large percentage of high school graduates completed at least Pre-Algebra.

So, what percent of those high school graduates were able to answer all four questions correctly? (As an aside, I think percent is a math concept that we should have our students spend more time thinking about, as opposed to just computing.) I’m assuming your answer is close to 100%, correct? Especially considering that just about every day I read how much better schools were in the 1950’s (and 1960’s and 1970’s and 1980’s and well, just about anytime other than now). And certainly the answer was 100% among the highly-educated, clearly above-average-intelligence readers of The Fischbowl.

Now, let me be clear here that I think the quadratic formula is something that students might spend some time thinking about, investigating and applying. But not in isolation – not just so they can complete one through thirty-one odd. But in context, in a way where they are thinking deeply about solving a problem (as real-world as we can make it) that is important and relevant. They should be thinking about the quadratic formula because it would be helpful in solving a meaningful problem, not just because they need it for the next unit (or math class). Because what exactly is the point of teaching mathematical skills in isolation that the vast majority of adults will not be able to remember as soon as they are done with their last math class, much less even remember or be able to apply a few years later?

Some folks would answer that question by saying that even if people don’t remember the specifics of the math, that learning it helped them to “think logically.” Now, I’ve heard that an awful lot, but I’ve never read any research that proves that. (I’m not saying the research doesn’t exists, just that I haven’t seen it.) But even if the research does exist, what I’m suggesting we think about would accomplish that purpose as well, without the completely out of context, learn the skill to pass the test and then forget it approach. If we approach mathematics – and mathematics assessment – in this way, then I think it’s much easier to see how the student’s point of view becomes more relevant. (Because wouldn’t point of view be more relevant when discussing what the size and shape of a new math classroom would be?)

Now I know this is tricky territory, and I don’t want to get bogged down in the “math wars,” so please take this in the context of thinking about what we believe the essential learnings are for our students. But also please realize that I am not stating that we need to make math easier, or watered down. In fact, this is a whole lot more difficult than the way we’ve been teaching math. Because we’re not just asking them to memorize the formula and plug in the right numbers, we’re asking them to understand. And that’s a whole different ballgame.

This was written rather spur of the moment, so I probably haven’t given this the full attention it deserves, and probably have left some holes in the above argument. So add your comments below, but please try to focus on the bigger picture here, and not some isolated horror story of some clerk who can’t make change at a convenience store. Because, really, is making change a skill that’s all that important in the 21st century? Yes, I think they should be capable of figuring it out, and the approach I suggest above would actually help with that problem, but at this point I’m more interested in making change (in education) than in making change (at the store).

Oh, and for those of you who were wondering . . .

Image Citation: Maths humour, originally uploaded by Rich Watts.

Once Upon A Time The Animals Had A School

Via Karen Janowski.

Animal School is a very interesting perspective on parenting - and teaching. The movie is about 5 minutes and definitely worth watching. Sometimes I just wonder about the whole structure of school as we know it . . .

Toward the end of the movie were a couple of sentences that resonated with me (you can read the entire text). My substitutions are in brackets:

Your child [student] did not come with a direction booklet.

Effective parents [teachers] are always learning, studying, and customizing the instructions for their individual child [classes, students].

I wonder how many kangaroos we are creating, how we can free the bees, and if maybe our schools are currently designed for sheep . . .

Is Balance Always a Good Thing?

Amanda had an interesting post recently where she said (among other things):

The thing I like best about constructivism is that class is more interesting because each period is different. The biggest struggle I have is making some lessons (especially those involving very difficult and intricate material) constructivist. But at the same time I am fine with not being constructivist all the time. I think it is all about balance.

After I read it the first time, I commented:

I agree for the most part, but I would quibble with "it is all about balance." I think it's all about learning. As long as you are doing everything possible to help the actual students that are in your classroom learn (whether that's "constructivist" or not), then we're on the right track. But I don't think "balance" is always the best way to accomplish that . . .

I’ve been thinking about this post a lot since then. (Thanks a lot, Amanda!) I’m not picking on Amanda (as if I could), because as I said in my comment I think our thinking is pretty similar here, but she really got me thinking about the word “balance.”

Many folks in both cohorts one and two have said essentially the same thing about balance, and I’m pretty sure I’ve said it a few times myself. I think this is a natural reaction among educators who’ve been around for awhile. We’ve seen different ideas come and go and have learned to distrust anything that seems too far from the norm, to reject “radical” ideas because they are “extreme” and not “balanced.”

But I wonder if balance is really what I’m after? When I look at folks that are held up as leaders in their fields – from politicians to religious leaders to civil rights leaders to athletes to authors to whomever – rarely can I think of a case where their approach was a “balanced” approach. It seems as though the people that have really made a difference, who have really impacted the world around them, are people who tossed balance out the window. I’m sure there were many contemporaries of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela, William Shakespeare and John Steinbeck, Albert Einstein and Marie Curie, Tiger Woods and Jackie Joyner-Kersee, who counseled them to not be so single-minded in their approach, to not ruffle so many feathers, to be “balanced.” The teachers that most folks remember aren’t the ones who took a balanced approach, but the ones that were most passionate about their subject matter and teaching and learning. And I certainly want the folks who are currently trying to cure cancer, or make solar power more practical, or figure out how to build levees that will hold up to the next major hurricane to be “extreme,” to push possible solutions to their limits if they feel they are on the right track. If they find a cure for cancer, I don’t want a balanced approach; I want them to carpet bomb the planet with it.

Now I’m not saying that I feel there is only one right way to teach or learn. I value a variety of approaches, and I think different students learn best in different ways (and even the same student learns different things best in different ways). But I’m hesitant to equate that with the word “balance.” If, for example, we found that a particular method (be it “constructivist” or otherwise) was really making some headway in a class, why wouldn’t we go for it? That if we feel like we’re finding a better way, that what our students need in the 21st century really is different and therefore requires different approaches, why wouldn’t we toss the current definition of balance out the window and move forward? We would probably ultimately come to some new ground where we would find a new balance, but that might look extremely unbalanced through the lens of current expectations and practices.

I sometimes worry that “balance” is another safety net for teachers. That it’s a built-in braking mechanism, a self-induced friction so that we don’t have to ask and answer some of the hard questions before us. That it allows us to shy away from some controversial issues in the name of harmony and stability. That we are confusing complacency with balance. Again, I don’t think I have all the answers (really, I don’t think that, honest!), but I’m not sure that an incremental approach is what we need at this time. You can’t leap a twenty-foot chasm in two ten-foot jumps.

If we’re not happy with how we’re doing, if we don’t think we’re adequately preparing students for the 21st century, if we’re not being successful with the students that in our classrooms right now – then maybe we need to occasionally “lose our balance” and take a few 20-foot leaps of faith. Because it should be about the learning. The learning of the flesh-and-blood students actually in front of us in our classrooms, not some theoretical notion of balance for the average hypothetical student.

As always, I’m mostly processing and thinking out loud here. Besides, it’s been awhile since I posted something that I knew would get everyone all fired up, and I figure this might do it. So please add your thoughts to the conversation, maybe provide some balance to my thinking . . .

Image Citation 1: .Balance_, originally uploaded by Diana Madrigal
Image Citation 2: Balancing on the Invisible, originally uploaded by Drew Brayshaw