How To Learn Math

I've decided to attend Stanford. Sort of.

I just enrolled in EDUC115N: How to Learn Math:

In July 2013 a new course will be available on Stanford’s free on-line platform. The course is a short intervention designed to change students’ relationships with math. I have taught this intervention successfully in the past (in classrooms); it caused students to re-engage successfully with math, taking a new approach to the subject and their learning.

In the 2013-2014 school year the course will be offered to learners of math but in July of 2013 I will release a version of the course designed for teachers and other helpers of math learners, such as parents. In the teacher/parent version I will share the ideas I will present to students and hold a conversation with teachers and parents about the ideas. There will also be sessions giving teachers/parents particular strategies for achieving changes in students and opportunities for participants to work together on ideas through the forum pages. The ideas I will share will be really helpful as teachers prepare to implement the new Common Core State Standards.

Taught by Jo Boaler, this course is for both teachers and parents and will focus on the following eight concepts:

1. Knocking down the myths about math.
2. Math and Mindset.
3. Mistakes, Challenges & Persistence.
4. Teaching Math for a Growth Mindset.
5. Conceptual Learning Part I: Number Sense.
6. Conceptual Learning Part II: Connections, Representations, Questions.
7. Appreciating Algebra.
8. Going From This Course to a New Mathematical Future.

This course is completely online, and free, and is loosely structured so you can more or less go at your own pace. I've already connected with several folks on Twitter who are enrolled (hashtag #EDU115, unless we're instructed otherwise), so I'm hoping the discussions will be rich, relevant and meaningful.

The class "starts" on July 15th and "ends" on September 27th (although I anticipate "finishing" it sooner if the course allows as things get really busy once school starts up). If you have an interest - as a teacher or a parent - consider joining us. There's no cost, and really there's no huge commitment - if you end up not fully participating - or not participating at all - that's okay.

ISTE + TIE Leadership Bootcamp

Are you interested in effective collaboration and communication practices to help you build a framework for change in your school or district? Then please join us for the 2010 TIE Colorado/ISTE Leadership Bootcamp.

The physical event will be held prior to the ISTE 2010 conference in Denver on Saturday, June 26th from 8 AM - 5 PM at the Denver Hyatt Regency Hotel, with an additional gathering on Friday evening, June 25th from 5-7 PM. This event is designed for leaders at any level (classroom teachers, librarians, school and district administrators, and IT support staff) to engage in learning and thinking that will lead to developing a working plan for improving communication and collaboration practices in your school or district.

During the day, you'll have a chance to interact with other educators as you learn from experienced voices who embody effective communication and collaboration practices including:

• Creating and Maximizing Learning Networks
• Communication and Collaboration Tools
• Communication and Collaboration Practices
• Building Policy to Support Vision

Come learn from and with these folks:

• Mark Benno
• Steve Dembo
• Scott Elias
• Karl Fisch
• Lucy Gray
• Elizabeth Hubbell
• Kate Kemker
• Chris Lehmann
  
• Dan Maas
• Dan Magyar
• Scott McLeod
• Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach
• Carl Owens
• Jeff Piontek
  
• Howard Pitler
• Mike Porter

You can register for this event or please visit the Leadership Bootcamp website for more information.

We also welcome everyone (no registration required) to join the preconference events and online conversations going on now at the Leadership Bootcamp Ning. In addition to the online community, you will find information and access to four virtual learning sessions with these outstanding educators:

March 10, 7:00 PM-MST (UTC/GMT -7) Creating and Maximizing Learning Networks
Bud Hunt, Instructional Technologist, St. Vrain Valley School District, Longmont, Colorado

April 14, 7:00 PM-MDT (UTC/GMT -6) Building Policy to Support Vision
Dr. Larry Anderson, Founder, National Center for Technology Planning

May 5, 7:00 PM-MDT (UTC/GMT -6) Communication and Collaboration Tools
Kim Cofino, 21st Century Literacy Specialist, International School, Bangkok, Thailand

June 2, 7:00 PM MDT (UTC/GMT -6) Communication & Collaboration Practices
Dean Shareski, Digital Learning Consultant Prairie South School Division, Moose Jaw, SK, Canada

To keep up to date with all the learning, events, and resources, make sure you find and follow us on Twitter @leadbootcamp! Hashtag for this event is #lbc10.

We hope to see you in Denver and/or online!

Note: This is not my event, I'm just helping out a little. This is a joint effort of TIE and ISTE, and is co-chaired by Michelle Bourgeois and Alison Saylor, who have done an amazing amount of work on this.

What Makes a Chat a Chat?

I had the opportunity last week to participate along with the amazing Jim Burke from English Companion in an Education Week/Teacher Magazine chat on Social Networking and Teacher Professional Development. I hope some people found it useful and I appreciate the folks at Education Week/Teacher Magazine that put this together. None of the rest of this post is meant to disparage those folks, but simply to ask the question: What makes a chat a chat?

We used CoverItLive for this and Jim and I were fed questions throughout the hour long chat. People in the chat submitted a question, the moderator decided which questions to put through, and Jim and I responded (toward the end of the chat a few comments/thoughts were approved, not just questions, but for most of the chat it was just questions). So this seemed to end up being more of a moderated "panel" discussion than what I think of as a "chat." For most of the hour it was just Jim and I responding to questions, which is not exactly what I think of when I think of chat. Some people on Twitter noted the same thing, expressing some frustration that their questions/comments/thoughts were not getting approved.

As it was happening, I felt myself becoming frustrated as well that it wasn't truly a "discussion" as I've come to expect it. As I was thinking about it later, however, I began wondering exactly how I would've structured it that it would've been any better. My natural inclination was to suggest that it should've just been an unmoderated chat, or at least a moderated chat where every on-topic comment was immediately approved. But, with a large audience (apparently over a thousand people at least asked for email reminders of the event), I'm thinking that wouldn't work so well. So I'm guessing that the format they chose was actually not a bad choice, but perhaps I would've chosen not to call it "chat."

Which brings me to the point(s) of this post:

• What exactly makes a chat a chat?
• How many people can be in a chat before it no longer works?
• What's the best format for these Education Week/Teacher Magazine "chats" that have large audiences? And is there a different tool than CoveritLive they could use that might work better?
• Are there ways to meet the needs of diverse participants - some of whom are used to very fast and furious chats and some of whom are not? Or do we simply have to create different events for different online learning styles (keeping in mind that people's styles might change with experience)?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Diigo Ideas: Results from my Earlier Post

I posted a couple of weeks ago asking how you used Diigo instructionally, and asking folks to complete a Google Form to share how they used it. Here’s a quick-and-dirty Google Site I created for a brief lunchtime staff development session on it. It includes the embedded results from the Google Form in that previous post. (Note: that Google Form is still active, so you can still add to the results.)

How Do You Use Diigo Instructionally?

I asked a couple of weeks ago about Google Forms and the response was so great, I figured why not ask about Diigo?

Do you use Diigo instructionally? If so, I'd appreciate you sharing that information via this Google Form, it will only take a couple of minutes at most. Feel free to share a description of how you're using it, including any links to blog posts, wikis, etc. that demonstrate how you're using it. You can also optionally include your name and email address if you don't mind being contacted by folks having additional questions (I will be sharing the results on the web, so please keep that in mind before clicking submit).

You can, of course, also leave information in the comments to this post so that everyone can see it immediately as well (although it would be great if you would also add them to the Google Form so I have them in one place). Thanks in advance for anything you're willing to share.

Update from the comments: We are doing a show this Saturday on Classroom 2.0 LIVE about the new features on Diigo v. 4 with Maggie Tsai, Miguel Guhlin and Russ Goerend. The focus will be on using Diigo instructionally and I'm sure there will be lots of sharing in the chat room and via the mic in the Elluminate session. We will announce your survey during the session and invite people to contribute to it. We'd love to have you and your readers join us to participate in the conversation/presentation. Saturday, October 31, 9:00am PDT, http://live.classroom20.com for additional information and login link.

How Do You Use Google Forms Instructionally?

Do you use Google Forms instructionally? If so, I'd appreciate you sharing that information via this Google Form, it will only take a couple of minutes at most. Feel free to share a description of how you're using it, including any links to forms, blog posts, wikis, etc. that demonstrate how you're using it. You can also optionally include your name and email address if you don't mind being contacted by folks having additional questions. (It's possible I'll share this info out at some point beyond my staff, so keep that in mind before clicking submit on the form.)

You can, of course, also leave information in the comments to this post so that everyone can see it as well (although it would be great if you would also add them to the Google Form so I have them in one place). Thanks in advance for anything you're willing to share.

Update: Here are the results.

Student Display Names: I Was Wrong

I had the opportunity to be involved with some staff development a couple of weeks ago around our Inspired Writing project. All of our freshmen Language Arts classes next year will have carts of Asus eee 1000 netbooks for use during class, with a focus on writing (and perhaps the broader idea of composing/creating if I’ve made any impact at all on my school).

As you might expect, the staff development focused heavily on the writing process and how we could use these netbooks to help with that process, but there was also a piece about Internet safety. It talked about the usual things, and was not a “scared straight” kind of presentation, so overall I thought it was done well. As part of the discussion that resulted we also talked about how students should identify themselves online and whether they should come up with a completely unidentifiable display name (except it would be known to their teacher), or whether they should use something like first name last initial (our current convention at the high school level).

The point was made that first name last initial really didn’t protect the students all that much, since – along with the readily available school information – it might not be that hard to completely identify the student. I gave my usual counterexample that – at the high school level at least – we already make more than that much information available all the time (often with photos) – in press releases, sports teams’ rosters, newspaper articles (both school newspaper and local/regional newspapers) booster club websites and, of course, television broadcasts of sporting events. While first name last initial probably isn’t that secure, it seems relatively anonymous compared to what we already make available.

But the reason for this post is that this got me thinking again about the whole idea of a student’s digital footprint. I talk a lot about how we should be discussing this idea with students and that whatever they publish – whether on a blog or a wiki or Facebook or MySpace or Twitter or. . . [fill in your favorite site here] - that it very likely will be able to be found later by a potential college, employer or spouse. I also talk about how we shouldn’t just be talking to students about not putting potentially compromising stuff out there, but that they should also be building a positive digital footprint, so that when they are Googled – and they will be – that folks will find really good stuff about them, that they should think of this as part of their digital resume/portfolio.

But if that’s a reasonable thing for them to be doing, then isn’t a policy of first name last initial (or especially the unidentifiable display names) actually counterproductive? Shouldn’t we instead be asking our students to use their full names to build their B-D (Birth-Death) digital footprint/resume/portfolio? I’ve long argued when talking about Internet filters that we should educate our students on how to be safe, ethical and effective users of the Internet instead of blocking everything, but now I recognize that I’ve completely blown it in this area.

I know there will be safety concerns, and there should be, but I’ve come to the realization that this is yet one more reason to educate our students about how to do this well, and that if we ask/require them to use their full name, it will actually encourage them to do this well. Instead of hiding behind unidentifiable or at least slightly disguised display names, students would now be asked to stand behind everything they put online with their full name, and also asked to be wise stewards of their online identity and reputation. Now, I’m not sure that I’ll be able to convince the folks in my school/district to go along with this, but I’m certainly going to give it a shot.

What are your thoughts? Can we do this? Should we do this?

Sharing, Risk Taking, and Creativity

[Cross-posted on the PLP blog]

One of the fascinating things about being a “Community Leader” in a PLP cohort is the opportunity to observe the great discussions going on and ideas being generated in schools around the world, and watch as learning communities develop both in individual schools and virtually in the cohort. Recently in the ADVIS PLP cohort, Dennis wrote in a post titled Sharing, Risk Taking, and Creativity:

At our faculty meeting today I was center stage discussing teaching and learning in the 21st century. My first announcement was the fact that we were getting rid of the two computer labs in the building. We would however, be adding two Innovation Studios. Of course some people laughed, others gave me the deer caught in the headlights look, and some embraced the idea and felt inspired.

. . . However, my main point was this: we need to shift the mindset of how we use the resource (the computer lab). It is no longer a place where we just go to sit down as a whole class and do the same activities.

. . . The second announcement I had was the addition of a piece of butcher block paper on the bulletin board in the faculty room. The question on the paper "what is a learning community?" I asked everyone to write their thoughts about what a learning community is and the characteristics of a learning community.

Not long after Robin replied:

I love the studio-based learning model! One of the things I like most about Dennis's approach is the de-emphasis of the technology piece. As independent school teachers our faculties have a good deal of control over their curriculum and what happens in their classrooms and often take risks in terms of new projects or methods. Unfortunately, for many teachers, when they hear the word technology they duck and cover. This re-frames the initiative so that technology is just one piece of a much larger picture.

As far as the question on the butcher block paper...I am not surprised that there was not a rush to add input. It has been my experience that a good chunk of the professional development that our teachers participate in is about "doing", not "thinking". Many teachers are not often involved in pedagogical discussions. Although I understand the value of "make and take" PD we have to encourage more "philosophical and visionary" sessions as well. This can be a hard sell for some (think how hard it has been for some of us to go so slowly with this experience) but I think it is imperative if we are truly going to promote the shifts we are working towards.

Dennis then replied back:

I guess I'm just different because I'm not afraid of being wrong, that is the only way I will ever learn anything. Through the Innovation Studio I'm hoping that people will be willing to take chances and risks and say "okay this project was a flop....however I learned along with the students what not to do and what to try next time."

Do you find the fear of being "wrong" is an issue at your school when it comes to the faculty?

Robin responded:

I just took a minute away to touch base with a colleague (one who does see the big picture) and she confirmed my thoughts. We have a very supportive faculty here so most people feel comfortable venturing an opinion. However, many teachers, here at least, are so consumed with the day to day business of their classroom that they do not often think about or discuss larger pedagogical ideas. This does not make them bad teachers - they are all gifted educators - it is just not a habit they have developed. I think it is up to us to start the conversations.

Dennis’s and Robin’s schools are physically about 5 minutes apart, but without PLP they most likely would never have had this exchange.

Later Russell commented:

Of course the great irony here is that we want our students to be risk-takers and to embrace learning from mistakes...and yet our assessments typically don't reward taking risks, but rather punish risk-taking by holding up a single right answer. It is critical that we as adults learn to take risks and be wrong, so that we can model this for our kids.

Helping students and adults develop what Carol Dweck calls a "growth mindset" is key here. If you're not familiar with Dweck's work, it's terrific:

Link 1
Link 2

Not only does Russell continue and expand on the conversation, but he links to resources that other PLP participants can investigate and take advantage of.

John then contributes to the conversation, and extends it by asking another question:

Great idea - I really like the shift away from rows and rows of computers. A learning/collaboration studio, where teachers and students have access to a variety of tools and resources. What if every class room was set up like this?

Dru then comments:

Awww, if every classroom were designed like this, it would be heaven for our students, messy for the teachers, and so completely different from what we see right now in a traditional independent school. BUT, it is what we are seeing on college campuses and at workplaces across the country and around the world, so we MUST start to make these changes.

There were many other comments as well, but finally Dennis came back in with an update:

I just thought I would give an update. I checked the chart paper and here is what it said:

"What is a learning community?"

* Works together to share and build an enriching environment.
* A safe place to try, fail, and try again. A learning community takes risks together.
* An environment that fosters innovation and creativity.
* A way to discuss "Big Ideas."
* An atmosphere of respect where people are comfortable sharing their ideas.
* A place where we can learn from our own and each others’ mistakes and feel comfortable doing so.
* A place where everyone is interested in learning.
* A place to share.
* Exchanging ideas.
* Collaboration cross-curricular/division

Then I posted another piece of paper which asked "what are the essential qualities of a learning community?"

Responses:
* Time
* Access
* Be willing to share ideas.
* To know each other better as people so we feel more comfortable sharing and learning from our mistakes.
* Being okay with our mistakes.
* No one is perfect. Certainly not in this profession.

Dennis found support in the PLP cohort as he tried to foster some change in his school, and the cohort was able to learn from his experience and possibly incorporate that into their own schools. This is a great example of the support a virtual community like PLP can provide.

What are some ways you've seen a virtual community (PLP or otherwise) provide support for teaching and learning?

Take a Learning Posture

[Cross-posted on the PLP blog]

One of the interesting things about the PLP model is observing how the community builds itself. This is definitely not a linear process, and one of the things I have to constantly remind myself as a “Community Leader” is that different teams, and even different participants within those teams, will move forward at different (sometimes vastly different) rates. Ray Hawthorne, an Instructional Coach in my building, often says we need to “go slow to go fast,” and I think that’s a key part of the PLP Cohort model.

From my experience with staff development at my own school, as well as my experience this fall with PLP, I’ve become more and more convinced that reflection is the key to building community and moving forward as educators. It’s also something that few schools seem to implement well; so many educators have trouble when asked to reflect on their own learning. As groups of educators devote time to thinking about teaching and learning in the 21st century, and as they have time to thoughtfully reflect on their own teaching and learning, they seem to reach a tipping point where ideas coalesce and folks are ready to move forward.

At least one of our teams in the ADVIS PLP Cohort seems to have reached that tipping point. The team from The Haverford School has recently posted some interesting and powerful reflections, both inside the private Ning and on the public wiki. Team Leader Lisa Snyder, who’s the Head of Information Services for The Haverford School, recently commented on a discussion in the Ning:

Our meetings have not had much structure until recently. At first, when we met, we simply talked about what we were learning, reading, and how it all relates to our situation here. . . I thought that we should be creating something for our administration, our colleagues, and our board to communicate our experiences in PLP and to give them an idea of what we're up to. We used our team space on the Wiki and each of us wrote a small narrative of what we're learning.

The reflective process of creating and sharing what they were doing in PLP with others seems to have crystallized each team member’s thinking. I think they can say it better than I can. (In all cases, emphasis is added by me.)

Dennis Arms talks about how PLP gets the discussion going:

The change in how our students are learning has been exponential and it’s going to take more than just me to shift teaching and learning. I think the PLP program is a great conversation starter.

Nick Romero comments on how he’s been pushed to reexamine everything he’s doing, and how the PLP community helps challenge and support him:

Joining PLP has pushed me to re-examine what I am doing in my class and how to improve it. As a teacher I constantly ask myself: how can I better engage my students and enrich their experience? How can I make their learning more meaningful? PLP is helping me find answers to those questions. Meeting (in person and virtually) teachers from other schools and learning about their successes, questions and struggles in implementing 21st Century Skills in their classrooms has been invaluable. Ever since the first meeting, my mind has been spinning. I feel there is so much to learn about what these skills are and how to effectively teach them to my students. I have a steep learning curve, but I am excited to take this on.

Dru Ciotti has come to realize what I stated above, that folks are going to move at different paces and that we have to be okay with that:

This PLP experience has, so far, been very rewarding in terms of giving me EVEN MORE to think about in terms of how to encourage the upper school faculty to view technology not as an add-on but as an integral part of their teaching and of our students' learning. I envision classroom teachers using tools like wikis, Ning, or Elluminate to eliminate the boundaries created by their classroom walls and to really empower our students with 21st century skills. Some are willing to jump on this quickly moving train, and others are still looking for parking at the station. The good conversations I've had with our group so far have opened up for me the possibility that not everyone is willing to run for the train, and I have to be okay with that. I need to focus on the ones that want to go on the journey.

And Lisa herself reflects on what it feels like to be a learner, and how important it is to assume a “learning posture”:

Boy, they weren’t kidding when they said this would be powerful! From the very first, I’ve done nothing but learn. I would admit, though, that a lot of what I’ve learned I had not expected to . . .

What I’ve come to realize is that, through PLP, we are gaining exposure to the world that our kids already inhabit easily – and learning in that environment is not neat and tidy. I wrote my first ning post about ambiguity and how learning to live – and learn – in an ambiguous world is not easy. It requires openness to new experiences and letting-go of my tradition-based ideas of what schooling is. Learning is not linear, and while I’ve espoused that for years, it wasn’t until this experience of PLP that I was able to live the non-linear, sometimes frustrating, always interesting world of a 21st century learner . . .

I’ve also experienced the very powerful feeling that comes from having a Ning colleague read my posts, find something in there of use, and respond in a thoughtful, serious way to my thoughts. Authentic assessment! Wow, I always knew it was an important concept, but I didn’t know how it would feel to receive authentic feedback from people I respect and admire. It feels great!

So, the lessons I’ve learned from PLP have been important ones – and I’m sure that Will and Sheryl intended for me (and the rest of us) to have the opportunity to share these same kinds of experiences. For those who are wondering, “what’s next?” or “when are we actually going to do something?” I would have to argue that, if you really take a learning posture – give up your control and your need to feel industrious – you will find that you are learning. And you have been all along!

All of the PLP Cohorts have invited in "Expert Voices" to share some of the tools, and I think that will help those who need something a little more concrete to help them frame the big picture ideas. But, as Lisa says so elegantly, we as educators all need to take a “learning posture” if we are going to learn and grow alongside our students.

So, when’s the last time you reflected on your own learning?

A New Learning Opportunity

I’m really excited about a new learning opportunity I began this week. I’m helping as a “Community Leader” for the ADVIS Cohort of Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach and Will Richardson’s Powerful Learning Practice initiative.


The PLP cohort model has face-to-face, webinar (Elluminate), and online discussion (private Ning) components, and I’ll be helping mostly with the online discussion component. I’m still figuring out what my role is, but essentially I’m supposed to do two things: help with the technical side of things (wiki questions, Ning questions, etc.) and help contribute and extend the online conversations. In other words, it’s very similar to what I’ve been doing in my own building staff development these last few years. The biggest difference is I won’t be part of the face-to-face meetings and, of course, I haven’t met most of the people in the community face-to-face. (I had the opportunity of presenting to an ADVIS group - along with Anne Smith and Will Richardson - back in January, and a few of the folks in the cohort attended that, so I probably have met some in the cohort face-to-face.)

While I’m really excited to be part of this, I’m also really nervous. (And this is the reason for this and hopefully subsequent posts – to share the process and what I learn as I go along.) Folks who know me in physical space know that I’m not the most social person. I’m certainly not anti-social, but it takes me awhile to join in with a group of people that I don’t know well. So this will be interesting for me as I leave my comfort zone a little bit.

Even so, I’m still really excited about this opportunity and thankful to Sheryl, Will and the ADVISPLP Cohort for allowing me to participate. I look forward to learning along with the cohort – and hopefully sharing on this blog what I discover about this type of online professional development.

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?

I Have Absolutely No Way to Become Better as a Teacher

Darren's got a great post where he pulls a page from Carl Glickman's Leadership for Learning: How to Help Teachers Succeed:


I'm basically just reposting this here so more folks read it, so please comment on Darren's post.

Save the Date

Staff Development - Cross Curricular Suggestions for 12-17 Session

This post is primarily for the folks in our staff development, to solicit some ideas for a future session.

As we mentioned in the session this week, for our December 17th session (that's a Monday in the afternoon after finals) we are going to spend some time on cross-curricular discussions (C1 and C2 together). We will be focusing on cross-curricular teaching, which could be anything from a particular topic, an entire unit, or entire teamed classes.

While we have some ideas of how we could structure this time, we really wanted to hear your ideas of what would work best for you. Please leave a comment below.

Sharing Our Staff Development – Session 3

Last week both cohorts met for their third session of the year. Our goals for the session were:

1. Write a 21C mission (worked on by all 3 groups)


2. Start working on a 21C Vision.


3. Learn from their colleagues by observing their classes and then debriefing.


4. PLN Time: Read. Think. Write. Reflect. Repeat.

Here is the mission statement they came up with:

The 21C Collaborative Learning Community exists to model continuous learning and to encourage innovative use of technology by using constructivist teaching techniques.

Note that this is a mission statement for our staff development group, not for our school as a whole. It focused on why our 21C staff development group exists. Also, please note that I am very carefully using the term “they” – this is their mission statement, not mine. And I don’t mean that in a negative way.

When we started this two years ago, our group was driven somewhat by my vision (along with my planning team’s vision). That was somewhat by necessity and somewhat by design. We made the decision as a planning team not to have the whole mission/vision/values/goals discussion at the start of our staff development, but to go ahead and jump in with readings/discussions/arguments/technology. We felt we really needed to get into all this, the theory and the practice, the technology and the “shifts,” the reflecting and the soul-searching. I don’t know if that was the right decision or not, but it certainly seemed to work out okay. The first year for both cohorts seemed to follow the same pattern. A lot of excitement, then a fair amount of push back, frustration, and even anger, then the groups came together and – while we certainly don’t all agree about everything – there seems to be a general consensus on many things.

Now comes the problem. Now we need to define where we want to go from here. I am really trying to step back and turn control over to the participants in the staff development – that’s why it’s “their” mission statement, not mine. I’ve probably been a little bit too controlling up to this point, wanting to share so many different ideas and resources, and wanting to make sure they find each three-hour session worth their time. It’s tough for me to step back because I think I’m genetically programmed to open my mouth and voice my opinion on just about every topic conceivable, but I think I’ve done a reasonably good job the last few sessions of not doing that (21C folks, you’re welcome to disabuse me of that notion in the comments). But I think we’ve struggled a little bit with this (certainly the second year for Cohort 1 was not as “productive” as the first). We still have a limited amount of time (and energy) to do this and – just like it is for our students – it’s easier if someone is telling you what to do (even if you sometimes think that someone is a little bit nuts). That’s why I think this mission/vision/values/goals discussion is so critical for us right now, because it’s going to determine whether we (as a 21C group) continue to act as a force to improve the teaching and learning at our school, or not. As I try to remove myself more from the process I wonder a lot what my role should be.

Anyway, back to the session description. We also took time during the session to observe one of our colleagues. Since we have three separate sessions (cohort 1 on one day, cohort 2 split into a morning and afternoon group on another day), each group got the opportunity to observe a different teacher for an entire period. This is something that we are always encouraged to do in our school, but it’s hard to find time for. Our focus was on observing different approaches/methods relating to constructivist teaching and/or the use of technology in their classrooms. Technology use was not a requirement, although all three did use some technology in their lessons. We then debriefed immediately following the class with the teacher that was observed present and participating in the debrief. We used a protocol based on Diane Sweeney’s work to guide our debrief. This is not an area that I have any particular expertise in, but it seemed to work fairly well. The feedback on both the usefulness and the process was positive, so we’ll be doing this again in the future.

Finally, we had some Personal Learning Network time – time for folks to read, think, write, reflect and repeat. As usual, we didn’t have enough time to do this well in two of the three sessions, so that’s something we still need to work on.

Their “homework” for next time includes watching the Creativity Panel Presentation (Elizabeth Streb, Michael McCauley, Mary Cullinane, and Francesco Pedro - moderated by Andrew Zolli) from NECC, and doing some more thinking about the vision statement for 21C.

Is It Okay To Be A Technologically Illiterate Teacher?

Update 12-9-07: I'd like to thank the Academy . . . this post won for most influential post of 2007. I'm not sure I agree (no, I didn't vote for myself), but I guess the voters have spoken. I think this really is a case where it's more of an honor to be nominated (because several somebodies noticed and nominated the post in the first place) than to actually win. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, I know the Edublog Awards folks put in a lot of time and effort, but I guess what I like the best about the awards is all the new (to me) blogs I get to go explore.

If you're visiting this post for the first time, please read the comments as well - that's where most (all?) of the good stuff is.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update 11-26-07: This post has been nominated for "Most Influential Post" in the 2007 Edublog Awards. Thanks to the folks that nominated it, whoever you are. For my thoughts on the nomination, read this post.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning: Grumpy blogger alert. Do not read the rest of this (especially if you’re on my staff) unless you’re in the mood to be provoked.

One of the things I love about the edublogosphere is that when I really annoy my staff with something (which is pretty much daily, if not hourly), I can rest assured that there’s an education blogger out there that’s written something recently that will probably annoy them more. I ran across this post today by Terry Freedman over on the Tech Learning blog where he talks about whether it’s acceptable for teachers to be technologically illiterate and lays out a set of proposed “standards” for teachers.

Before I give my list, I should like to say this. The first step in establishing a standard is to state what that standard is, and/or what it is not. Just because you may not know how to go about achieving it is certainly no reason not to state it. For example, in my classes I always had expectations in terms of acceptable behaviour. It would sometimes take me three months to achieve them, despite teaching them every single day, but that's besides the point.

Here is my list:

1. All educators must achieve a basic level of technological capability.

2. People who do not meet the criterion of #1 should be embarrassed, not proud, to say so in public.

3. We should finally drop the myth of digital natives and digital immigrants. Back in July 2006 I said in my blog, in the context of issuing guidance to parents about e-safety:

"I'm sorry, but I don't go for all this digital natives and immigrants stuff when it comes to this: I don't know anything about the internal combustion engine, but I know it's pretty dangerous to wander about on the road, so I've learnt to handle myself safely when I need to get from one side of the road to the other."

The phrase may have been useful to start with, but it's been over-used for a long time now. In any case, after immigrants have been in a country for a while, they become natives. We've had personal computers for 30 years, and I was using computers in my teaching back in 1975. How long does it take for someone to wake up to the fact that technology is part of life, not an add-on?

4. Headteachers and Principals who have staff who are technologically-illiterate should be held to account.

5. School inspectors who are technologically illiterate should be encouraged to find alternative employment.

6. Schools, Universities and Teacher training courses who turn out students who are technologically illiterate should have their right to a licence and/or funding questioned.

7. We should stop being so nice. After all, we've got our qualifications and jobs, and we don't have the moral right to sit placidly on the sidelines whilst some educators are potentially jeopardising the chances of our youngsters.

I had to smile because it reminded me of something I wrote in February of 2006 – wrote, but decided not to post on the blog. At the time, I felt like it wasn’t the right time for my building to post it, and that it would be counterproductive. But, after reading Terry’s post today, I think it might be time to let it see the light of day. Here’s what I wrote on February 10, 2006 (it was part of a longer post, but this is the part I edited out):

Some of the tech questions I answer from staff members are really rather depressing. But it's the bigger picture I'm more concerned with. I think there's a general feeling among teachers (not all teachers, but many) that it's okay to be technologically illiterate. It reminds me of when I was a math teacher. In about 80% of the parent conferences I had with students who were struggling, at least one of the parents would say "I was never any good at math either." While I don't doubt the truth of the statement, it was the fact that they said it and almost seemed proud of it that bothered me (and of course the message it sent to their student). I can't imagine a parent saying "Oh, yeah, I never learned how to read" and being proud of it. It seemed like there was a different standard for math - not knowing math was socially acceptable, not knowing how to read was very unacceptable.

I sort of get the same feeling today about technology. It's acceptable to say "I don't really get computers" - and many people appear to be rather proud of their technological ignorance. And let me be clear, I'm not saying that technology is the end all and be all of education. As I think I've always tried to say, it's just a tool to help us teach and learn and grow - but an indispensable tool. Technology is the underpinning of just about everything we do today - and especially so in relation to how we communicate with each other. And isn't communication one of the essential ideas that runs through all of our disciplines? The fact that a large percentage of our staff is not only fairly comfortable in their ignorance, but apparently unwilling to make any effort to learn new things (I'm not just talking about Infinite Campus, I'm talking instructionally - and even personally), is really worrisome to me. So let me make a rather extreme statement for you to comment on.

If a teacher today is not technologically literate - and is unwilling to make the effort to learn more - it's equivalent to a teacher 30 years ago who didn't know how to read and write.

Extreme? Maybe. Your thoughts?

Keep in mind that was written after a particularly frustrating day. I’ve gone back and forth on this issue myself. At times completely agreeing with Terry (and myself above), and at other times stepping back and saying that there’s so much on teacher’s plates that it’s unrealistic to expect them to take this on as quickly as I’d like them to. But then I think of our students, and the fact that they don't much care how much is on our plates. As I've said before, this is the only four years these students will have at our high school - they can't wait for us to figure it out.

The more I think about it, the more I think it’s analogous to the 20th century. In the early 20th century, people who couldn’t read or write could be pretty successful. By the middle of the 20th century, that was still true, but it was getting harder to be successful (and certainly those that could read and write had much more opportunities available to them). By the end of the 20th century, there was very little chance of being successful if you couldn’t read or write. (Note that I’m defining “successful” both in economic/employment terms, and in terms of citizenship/personal fulfillment.)

Now at the dawn of the 21st century, I think the same can be said of technological literacy. And – since we’re living in exponential times – I think the timeline compared to the 20th century is very much compressed. In the late 1990’s (I know, still 20th century, but go with it), you could be successful if you were technology illiterate. In the first few years of the 21st century, you can still be successful if you’re technologically illiterate, but it’s getting harder (and those that are literate have many more opportunities available to them). And by the end of the next decade, I think there will be very little chance of success for those that are technology illiterate. (Don’t forget, those Kindergartners that started school in the last month or so are the Class of 2020 – we need that 2020 Vision.)

I go back to my rant from our first staff development session of the year, where I talked about developing personal learning networks (for both ourselves and our students). One of the things I said was basically:

In order to teach it, we have to do it. How can we teach this to kids, how can we model it, if we aren’t literate ourselves? You need to experience this, you need to explore right along with your students. You need to experience the tools they’ll be using in the 21st century, developing your own networks in parallel with your students. You need to demonstrate continual learning, lifelong learning – for your students, or you will continue to teach your students how to be successful in an age that no longer exists.

Or something like that.

So, let me repeat the last part of what I wrote back in February of 2006:

If a teacher today is not technologically literate - and is unwilling to make the effort to learn more - it's equivalent to a teacher 30 years ago who didn't know how to read and write.

Extreme? Maybe. Your thoughts?

Sharing Our Staff Development – Session 2

Earlier I blogged a description of our first staff development session of the year. Last week we had our second session, so I thought I’d share what we did. First, please note that this time we did not meet as one large group, but rather as three smaller groups. Cohort 1 (16 teachers) met last Tuesday, and Cohort 2 met in two different groups of 15, one in the morning and one in the afternoon last Thursday. This allows for better sharing, for groups to bond together, and – in the case of Cohort 2 – for subs to be shared to cut down on the costs.

The first 90 minutes or so of the session was spent discussing Chapter 4 of the PLC book, focusing on mission and vision, both for our school and specifically for 21c (what we call our staff development effort). That discussion was facilitated by two members in each of those groups who had volunteered ahead of time. All six of them met ahead of time to discuss what they were doing in their three separate groups, but there was no requirement that they do things exactly the same way. We feel it’s important for the staff development to not always be led by me, or by members of my planning team, but that the participants take control of it. We’ve had mixed success with that, as intellectually they mostly agree but when it comes down to actually volunteering to do that they are somewhat reticent. This appears to be mainly for two reasons – being uncomfortable teaching their peers and simply a lack of time to prepare and do it well. We'll continue to work on this.

The mission and vision discussion seemed to go well in Cohort 1, although I missed the two Cohort 2 group discussions because I was chaperoning 41 second graders on a camping trip (I heard the Cohort 2 sessions went well). As most folks do, we struggled a lot with differentiating between mission and vision, but also between mission and values/goals. I certainly am not an expert on this, but it sure appears as though a lot of the ideas included in mission statements are really values or goals, not mission. For the group I was in, I encouraged them to really think about purpose, about why we exist (as a school and as 21c). And I suggested that a short, concise mission was necessary if it was going to be a successful mission statement - a mission statement that helps define who we are. I think we’ll get there with our 21c group, but I’m not so sure as a school.

We will continue to work on mission and vision in our next two sessions, with the next session spent actually writing a mission and vision statement (in our 3 separate groups), and then the following session trying to mesh the three mission/visions together. I worry that we’ll burn people out on this, because many people do not like this kind of activity and think it’s pointless. And, to be fair, it often is. But when done correctly, it helps define everything that comes after, so I hope we’re successful. That’s one of my big concerns with my school’s mission, that we’re not taking adequate time to really work through it and that we’ll end up with something that sounds good, but really won’t help point the way for our school.

We didn’t spend as much time on vision (at least in Cohort 1) because we need to get mission down first, but I think we’ll have some hurdles there as well. The main hurdle is getting folks to toss everything aside and really focus on what our school should like in five to seven years. What should it look like to best meet the needs of our students, without all the “yeah, buts” that typically get brought up. I framed it this way,

Think about what you would want this school to look like if you were designing it from the ground up today, with no limitations. Don’t settle for what you think will be "acceptable" or "uncontroversial" - design a mission and vision that will meet the needs of our students.

I really, truly, passionately feel we need to define what that looks like first, then deal with the obstacles. As opposed to artificially limiting our vision by assuming the obstacles will triumph and compromising our vision. Isn’t that what we should be about, figuring out what's best for our students, and then designing the best possible learning environment and experience to facilitate that vision, and then figuring out a way to make it work? Perhaps I’m tilting at windmills here, but I’m really tired of the “yeah, buts” getting in the way. If we know the right thing to do for our students, and then don’t do it because it might be difficult or controversial or a lot of hard work, then I don’t know why were here anymore.

After the mission/vision discussion, we spent a little bit of time with some “tech tips” that some of us brought back from NECC. These weren’t any great instructional ideas or anything, just some simple programs or keyboard shortcuts that could help out some folks and then they could adapt for their classes. This was inspired by Frank Miracola’s Free is Good session at NECC (I didn’t attend that session, but two others from my planning team did and thought it was great). They focused on a few of the photo applications (pun intended), but you can view all of Frank’s resources (Word doc).

We then closed with providing them time to explore their own personal learning networks. To read each others’ blogs, or blogs from elsewhere, or write in their own blog, or start on their “assignment” for next time. Their assignment was:

1. By 9-15, watch the David Warlick presentation Contemporary Literacy in the New Information Landscape. Scroll down to 2 pm on Tuesday, June 26th, then click on stream. It’s worth watching the entire thing, but if you don’t want to devote an hour to it, scroll over and start at either the 11 minute mark or the 31 minute mark. Please at least take the 30 minutes necessary to watch from the 31 minute mark to the end. The slides don’t display well on the stream, you can get a better view of his slides here – scroll down to Redefining Literacy 2.0
   
   
2. Then read the Teacher as Network Administrator article.
   
   
3. Your focus for both the Warlick Presentation and the article is: What does it mean to be literate in the 21st Century? How can we help our students – and ourselves - become literate? How do we help our students – and ourselves – develop Personal Learning Networks?
   
   
4. For our next session, think about mission and vision. While our primary focus is a mission and vision for 21c, also think about AHS’s mission and vision as well as your own personal mission and vision. Think about what you would want this school to look like if you were designing it from the ground up today, with no limitations. Don’t settle for what you think will be “acceptable” or “uncontroversial” - design a mission and vision that will meet the needs of our students.
   
   - From Brian and Jessie [led the Cohort 1 discussion]: For our next session (9-25 or 9-27), blog/reflect on the four questions at the bottom of p. 78 and top of p. 79 [from the PLC book].
   
   - From Micki and Andrea [led one of the Cohort 2 discussions]: Five years from now – Imagine there are no barriers, in what ways would we be different? Consider the following – practice, procedure, relationships, results, climate…

So, again, I’m not saying this is anything spectacular, but just trying to share out some of the things we are doing in our staff development. I think the mission and vision stuff is important, as are the values and goals that we’ll get to next, but it’s not as interesting to blog about (perhaps) as some of the things we’ve done in the past. But hopefully somebody out there will find it useful or get one good idea they can use.

Sharing Our Staff Development

Those of you who have read this blog for a while realize that while this also serves as my personal blog, its initial (and still main) purpose is in support of our staff development efforts. It’s a place to stimulate and continue the conversations we have in our staff development sessions, as we explore constructivism and the use of technology to create a more student-centered approach to teaching and learning.

One of my blog goals for this year is to do a better job of sharing our staff development efforts. I hope to give readers from outside of Arapahoe a better idea of the specific activities we are doing and the discussions we are having, as well as give the teachers participating in the staff development a place to comment on the specific sessions. (While we’ve always used the blog to continue the conversations we’ve begun in the sessions, we haven’t focused so much on commenting on the quality of the sessions themselves.) I realize there’s no way that I can accurately portray our staff development on the blog, because you really have to experience the three-hour sessions yourselves to get a feeling for what’s happening. The power and success of what we’ve been doing comes from the discussion, interaction, collaboration and push/pull of the teachers in the face-to-face sessions. But I hope to at least give a window into that process on the blog in hopes of possibly stimulating a good idea for someone else.

So, last Monday we had our first session of the new school year. This was before teachers had to officially report back, and before students start back (they start next Tuesday), so we were able to have both cohorts of teachers (46 of us total) meet together for a little over four hours. The session was divided up into four sections, although the time was not evenly split.

The first part was a discussion of the introduction and first three chapters of the book Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement by Dufour and Eaker. Like many school districts, ours is making a major push into Professional Learning Communities. We have an altered calendar this year, with ten late-start days (two hours late) spread throughout the year for teachers to work together in PLC’s. Many of the ideas in this book complement what we’ve been trying to do in our staff development, as well as we hope to support our building as we develop mission, vision, values and goals. Four teachers (two from each cohort) took on the task of planning and facilitating our discussion of these chapters (everyone got a copy of the book to take home and read over the summer). You can read a nice summary over on Michele’s blog, but basically we discussed both the negatives and positives of past school reform efforts as well as what was necessary to make this one succeed. The big take-away for me was, as Michele said, “it’s up to us, the teachers, to make this work.” I think most of us left that discussion feeling positive that we do have the power and ability to use this process to make good things happen for our students. Thanks Michele, Brad, Lauren and Jared for planning and facilitating our discussion.

The second part of our morning was the ranting and raving portion of our session. In other words, I talked for a while. Over the last two years we’ve been doing this staff development (well, two years for cohort 1, only one year for cohort 2), I’ve been known to occasionally launch into passionate, emotional, and slightly crazed soliloquy’s that are affectionately (or perhaps not so affectionately) known as Fischrants. These are usually in one of our sessions, but occasionally play out on our staff development blogs (typically in the comments of either this blog or one of the cohort member’s blogs). They are instances where I really try to push an idea whose time may or may not have come, and the folks in my staff development typically push back. The topic for this Fischrant was Lifelong Learning and Personal Learning Networks. I shared this PowerPoint with them (as always, to try to spur thought and conversation), and then spent some time talking about how I think learning networks have always existed for humans, but that they have evolved over time. And that in our current time, with the Internet and other flat-world factors, the scope and power of learning networks has expanded exponentially. I then closed with a plea that they needed to do three things:

• First, they needed to think long and hard about this.
  
  
• Second, if they thought I was even partially correct, then they needed to start thinking about how they can help their students create, develop, manage, learn from, and contribute to their own learning networks.
  
  
• And third, that they needed to work on creating, developing, managing, learning from and contributing to their own personal learning networks; that they could not possibly do a very good job helping their students if they hadn’t experienced it themselves.
  

Like most Fischrants, I think this one was partially successful and did some good, but also probably convinced some of them that I’m completely insane. (Those are not mutually exclusive outcomes, by the way.)

The third portion was really a continuation of the Personal Learning Network piece, as we gave them time to learn. The suggested activities to choose from included:

• reading some blogs
  
  
• writing/reflecting in their own blog
  
  
• reconnecting with Bloglines or exploring/setting up Google Reader or iGoogle
  
  
• thinking about personal learning networks – both their own and how they could help students create them
  
  
• watching the Andrew Zolli keynote from NECC and reading The Coming Death Shortage from The Atlantic (part of their assignment for next time is to watch the keynote and read the article, but they could choose to do that now if they didn’t like the other choices).

I wasn’t sure how well this would go over, as some folks taking a class really want the time filled with “instruction,” but they were all very engaged so I think it went well.

The final portion was pizza, soft drinks, and catching up with each other. I know this part went well.

Their assignment for next time (a three hour session in the first week of September, where they meet in three different groups) is:

• Reading Chapter 4 of the PLC book, with their focus being creating a mission and vision for our 21c staff development efforts (as well as thinking about our school-wide mission and vision). Two teacher participants will plan and lead the discussion in each of the three groups.
  
  
• Explore creating their own personal learning network, and think about how to help students do that.
  
  
• Watch the Zolli keynote and read The Atlantic article, the focus here being both on changing demographics and increased lifespan, and what that means in terms of K-12 education and lifelong learning.
  
  
• To reflect in their personal blogs (or in a Word document emailed to me if they are completely uncomfortable with doing it publicly – a few are) on the ideas we are talking about, things they are trying in their classes, successes and challenges, reactions to our discussions today, reactions to the Zolli keynote and accompanying article, or whatever they feel would be helpful for them to reflect on.

So, I know this was rather long, but hopefully it gave some folks an idea of what this staff development session was like, and perhaps may spur some ideas for your own sessions. As always, I don't hold our examples up as being perfect or fantastic in any way, but I am attempting to be just as transparent with our staff development efforts as I'm encouraging the teachers in my building to be with their teaching efforts. Hopefully by being transparent - by sharing and communicating and collaborating and being open with what we do - we will all learn more from each other and, ultimately, do a better job helping our students learn.

NECC Reflection #4: Podcast Of Our Session

I suppose I should reflect a little bit on the session we presented at NECC. I talked about this a little in a previous post, that we decided the night before to scrap our original plan and only "present" for 30 minutes, then have 30 minutes of conversation. It seemed to work well, and reinforced what we’ve seen in our staff development efforts at our school – that we learn the most from each other, from the conversations.

Well, it turns out that Kristin Hokanson recorded our session and then kindly uploaded it to the web, so I had a chance to listen to it. The audio quality is pretty good – I was the only one miked, but all of our voices came through pretty well and there are only 2 or 3 questions from the audience that you can’t hear very well. If you’re really interested, you can listen to it online (55 minutes) or download it (mp3, 50 MB).

If you do decide to listen to it, keep a couple of things in mind. First, there are five of us presenting. The order that we appear on the podcast is: Me (I’m miked, so you might want to turn the volume up a little after my initial part is over), then Anne Smith (Language Arts teacher), then Brad Meyer (Social Studies teacher), then Barbara Stahlhut (Math teacher), and then Brian Hatak (Science teacher). After that we are all interspersed, but hopefully you can figure out who’s who.

Second, the podcast starts two or three minutes into our session, so you miss the intro. I think it’s important to know that part before listening to the podcast, so here’s the quick version. We talked about scrapping our plans the night before and leaving more time for conversation as I mentioned above, and we let the audience know that we were counting on them to come through.

Then we talked about why we were offering this session. At NECC 2006 (which was the first any of us had attended), as well as at other conferences, we had all had the experience of seeing some amazing presenters. And while we usually came away with some good ideas, we also came away thinking, "We have no idea how they got there, or how we could get there ourselves." So it was great to get ideas, but we felt like we rarely saw a path we could follow to help our school move forward. So we wanted to give a presentation from the perspective of a school that had gone "this far" (picture me holding my thumb and forefinger about 2 inches apart) along the path. We felt like we could share some approaches that had worked for us in staff development, as well as some classroom examples of the changes we’ve made, and perhaps help others figure out how to chart their own path, to help them see how they could "get there themselves."

It’s always hard to tell (for me, anyway) exactly how well a presentation goes, but from the comments we received we appear to have at least partially succeeded (and only a few folks left before the end, which is a pretty good sign considering we had the 3:30 to 4:30 slot and the room was pretty full). I think what I like most as I listen to our presentation is that you can really hear our passion come through. Thanks Anne, Brad, Barbara and Brian – both for the presentation and for all that you do day in and day out for the teachers and students at our school.

Tapped In To U of M

I had the opportunity yesterday to use Tapped In for the first time. Two teachers from my staff development (Anne Smith and Barbara Stahlhut) and I had an opportunity to chat with graduate students from the University of Michigan. They’re enrolled in a graduate teacher certification program and are taking a class titled "Teaching with Technology." According to one of the instructors (Jeff Stanzler), the class attempts to "expose our students to different ways of thinking about schools and about pedagogy (along with some peeks at web 2.0 technologies, video editing, etc.)." They set up "virtual conferences" with a few folks, including us, to "learn about the creative ways in which you're thinking about both professional and community development, and could hear more about the role that technology has played in this endeavor."

If you’re interested, here’s the transcript of the session (pdf). I don’t think there’s anything particularly earth shaking in there, but I thought I’d link to it in case anyone wondered how a group chat might look. It was fun to do and I hope it was at least a little bit helpful for those graduate students. I’m still learning how to be comfortable in real-time online conversations; they definitely don’t feel natural to me yet. It’s still hard for me to translate what’s in my head into relatively short sentences in real-time, and to keep up with multiple questions at the same time. And I do still feel somewhat at a loss without the face-to-face contact to get a better feel for how the conversation is going. Definitely some skills there I need to work on, so thanks Jeff and Liz and grad students for the practice.