Showing posts with label Topical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Topical. Show all posts

10 October 2012

Looking at someone else's course and this week's readings

I had to do a little writing for the week:

 

There are many elements of a course which contribute building a successful learning community.  I found the Venn Diagram (Swan, 2004) useful in thinking about this idea. As instructors, our responsibility is to create an environment conducive to learning, which contains three types of presence: social, teaching, and cognitive. Students coming from a face-to-face environment (or being a part of one at the same time) will crave the social presence. In fact, I would say this social piece is extremely (if not the most) important of the three. According to Social Development Theory, social interaction plays a vital role in the process of cognitive development(Vygotsky, 1978). If an online course is expected to be a successful learning community, it must include those critical elements. They are opportunities for students to interact

  1. with one another,

  2. with the instructor,

  3. and with the content.


This must all be done in such a way that students can interact asynchronously (or with synchronously, but in limited amounts). This sounds an impossible task, but we have found that there are many tools available to both students and instructors that make it possible to build community in a course.

Before we go much further, Roblyer & Ekhaml (2000) bring up a good point when they that a definition of interaction must be agreed upon. Citing Gilbert & Moore (1998) they note that “interaction… is a reciprocal exchange between the technology and the learner, a process… referred to as ‘feedback’.” This seems like a reasonable way to describe it. I once described it in a blog post as a sharpening stone and a knife. You talk to one person, they take your information and are changed. They respond and you are changed. By interacting back and forth, you are both changed, hopefully for the better.

In our online courses as SNU, we use discussion boards as a way for students and instructors to interact. However, I’ve seen many courses in which students were “discussion-boarded” to death. I imagine that’s a bit like being water-boarded, but I’m not sure. We also use collaborative projects/documents as a way for students to interact. Google Docs, specifically, makes this a great tool for students. I always enjoy presentations much more (as an instructor) when it has been created by several students. Probably my favorite (these have gone in reverse favorite order) is video. YouTube makes it so easy to create video (especially when integrated with QuickTime on a Mac) to create video, there’s no reason to not use video in online courses, for everything from feedback on essays/projects to instructions and introductions for each week’s assignments. These follow the tips provided by Patricia Smith in “Developing Community Online”  (Faculty Focus). I do think it’s extremely important to recognize that students are quite different from those of just a couple of years ago. If faculty insist on using outdated modes of contact or assignments styles/types, student interactivity, outcomes, and learning will likely suffer. As instructors, we have to let students know the expectations for communication and participation in the course. We should also be willing to adapt (within reason) to modes of contact/instruction that work best for students.

It has been (widely) accepted that interactivity is crucial in education. Even John Dewey, back in 1916, referred to interaction as the “defining component of the educational process that occurs when the student transforms the inert information passed to them from another, and constructs it into knowledge with personal application and value” (Anderson, 2004). If our outcomes for online education are the same as for our face-to-face courses, why would we perceive interactivity differently? At least on our campus, there is no differentiation between outcomes in online learning and those of face-to-face. The courses even count for the same amount when it comes to calculating load.

While I was looking at the Intro to Fine Arts course, I noticed a couple of ways the instructor worked at building community with students. The main one was giving them a schedule of “virtual office hours” in which students could interact with the professor. I never saw the link, but I suspect this was due to the fact that it’s a model course and the link was not live. I also noticed the numerous discussion boards available each week. Students were required to post discussions and then respond to one another.

I ran this through our rubric (which was designed based on Quality Matters and SLOAN-C resources) and you can find it here. Before being offered at SNU, we would need to revise and insert some assignments to encourage more community. We follow a Prepare, Discover, Analyze, and Share (PDAS) model here at SNU. We encourage instructors to give students the opportunity to prepare (usually something like lecture or reading), discover (go find information or construct it), analyze (allow the information to interact or change them as the learner), and share (bring information back to the class and share it with other students). I’m not naïve enough to think this is the only way students can learn. It just happens to be what works best for us.


References


Anderson, T. (2004). Chapter 2, Toward a Theory of Online Learning. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from Theory and Practice of Online Learning: http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch2.html#three

Faculty Focus. (n.d.). Online Classroom. (R. Kelley, Ed.) Retrieved October 2012, from Faculty Focus: http://facultyfocus.com

Roblyer, M. D., & Ekhaml, L. (2000, March). How Interactive are Your Distance Courses? A Rubric for Assessing Interaction in Distance Learning. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from University of West Georgia: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/roblyer32.html

Swan, K. (2004). Relationshipes Between Interactions and Learning In Online Envrionments. SLOAN-C Editor for Effective Practices in Learning Effectiveness , 1-6.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

 

 

29 April 2012

20 April 2012

Stoll and Jonassen on Computers in the Classroom



I can see just why Stoll engages 8th graders so well. He is a character and seems to epitomize the mad scientist persona. However, I think he ought to stick to physics. Schools do need to be high-tech, but I disagree that schools think they need to "have the glitzy computers." (Stoll, 1996). His argument seems to leave no room for a middle ground. Basically, he says that we either have to believe that technology is going to revolutionize education or there should be none. I would agree with his argument that "a good teacher is the most important thing in the room" (Stoll, 1996). I saw Dr. Stoll use an oscilliscope to demonstrate the wave equation. When did he learn to use that thing? Was it not in a classroom? I believe by simply using that in his rant against "modernizing the classroom" he nullifies his argument. The technology didn't revolutionize his equation, but it sure did ENRICH it. I would also agree that "edutainment" is not the main goal, but we do need to make learning fun. I would be very interested to see him try to talk to a bunch of elementary students about learning being "hard", it "takes committment", the "reward is the pay-off." (Stoll, 1996) I also agree that there is no way to "instantly fix education". Railing against technology in education isn't going to fix it either.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I both agree and disagree with Dr. Stoll. We do need to teach students that there is a payoff in education and it comes AS you learn. However, his argument is quite outdated in today's connected world. Not that he doesn't understand what's going on, but he certainly was not a fortune teller. Classrooms are more full of computers and media delivery systems even more than they were in 1996, not to mention that the internet looks quite different than it did 14 years ago, as well. He even said "information can get you the answer", therefore if you are able to FIND that information (information literacy/fluency) it can assist you in solving problems. I sat today monitoring students while they took End-Of-Instruction tests. While I didn't see every single question on the Biology test, not one that I did see were factual, so I'd say Dr. Stoll's argument that testing rewards students who are able to memorize factual information is null and void, too. No one, especially in this class, has ever said that computers should replace a teacher. If a teacher can be replaced by Google, it should. For the record, we are going to need both the plumbers and the programmers. This was true 14 years ago and it is still true today. If the libraries don't adapt to the new digital literacy age, they need to go by the wayside. It's called survival of the fittest. It happened to the blackboard creators, the wagon wheel makers, and the spear makers. Change happens! As a scientist, this guy should recognize that.

Jonassen, et al. fall MUCH more in line with my ideas on how technology should play a part in students' education. The quote on p. 32 says it best, "Computers can most effectively support meaningful learning and knowledge construction in higher education as cognitive amplification tools for reflecting on what students have learned and what they know." I've made this confession before and I'm sure I'll make it again: I'm a constructivist and technology (especially web-based tools) provide a perfect avenue for students to stroll into the information and show what they know. It provides a means for students to (learn to) collaborate and showcase what they have done. We don't need computers with a full suite of software and the latest gadgets. We simply need internet access for our students with a dependable network connection. Additionally, students need access at home. In fact, this may be the most important aspect of my "grand vision". There are only 8 hours in the day for instruction. However, if students have access at home, we can allow them to "get" information as homework and focus class time on concepts on which more instruction is needed. Class time can be spent on scaffolding instead of instructing.

11 March 2012

The Problem with Problem Based Learning

Prompt #5 - “Discuss ill-structured vs well-structured problems.  Refer to Jonassen's (2000) article”

The Problem with Problem-Based Learning -
by Jody Bowie




Jonassen (2000) quotes Gagnéa (1980) as saying “the central point of education is to teach people to think, to use their rational powers, to become better problem solvers” (p.85). This statement resonates with me and follows my own philosophy of education. In fact, this idea is the basis of the parent discipline of the natural sciences: Physics (formerly, Natural Philosophy), which provided a natural fit for me as a teacher (or has the fact that I taught physics shaped my philosophy of education? Maybe this will require further reflection/research.) The greats like Newton and Galileo worked toward an understanding of observable phenomena. They worked within/on ill-structured problems. These phenomena had been observed, e.g. acceleration, gravity, etc., but not explained. These problems (and the way in which these men solved the problems) are still the basis for entry-level science classes of today. Science classes are taught within the historical context of the Journey of the Pillars of Problem Solving.

Background




Problems are an “unknown entity” (2000, p. 65) solved via a “goal-oriented sequence of cognitive actions” (Anderson, 1987, p.250). These problems vary in complexity, domain, and structure. Hopefully, they are presented in varying levels based on age/developmental appropriateness.  Our main focus will be on structure because while Jonassen argues that among the charateristics of problems “... they are neither independent nor equivalent” (p. 66), the structure of the problem is dependent on the other areas, i.e. complexity and abstractedness.

Well-structured problems are formal, domain-specific, have a very well defined initial state, and have a clear solution. Because there is often a single solution nature of well-structured problems, these are relatively easy to assess. They can be assessed in a “mass-gradable” format, e.g. multiple-choice. There is a clear solution to these problems and (hopefully) the teacher knows or, at least, has access to, this solution/answer. Occasionally, there is only one path to the solution and all students draw on the same intellectual skills/processes to arrive at the “destination”. If you can find the answer to your problem in the back of a book (or on Google), you are working on a well-structured problem.

Ill-structured problems are more broad, often cross-disciplinary, may or may not have a well-defined initial state, and do not have a clear, single solution. These problems are much more difficult to assess and may be graded via a “component/skill rubric,” i.e. a rubric with specific components of a concept or skills that need to be assessed individually. These problems might cover a number of skills/ideas and often incorporate seemingly unrelated ideas. However, when students begin to consider the implications (economic, cultural, morality, civil-rights) of their particular solution, these “unrelated ideas” become very relevant. Ill-structured problems have numerous answers (or none) and will likely give students the opportunity to arrive at solutions in through a number of paths (strategies).

To address Cates’ question of “I am also curious as to how everyone feels about the new Core Standards and if it will be easier, or more realistic to incorporate ill-structured problems into classroom instruction?” I’m not sure whether or not it will be “more realistic or easier” but if PAARC is making assessments with ill-structured problems, you can be that teachers had better be exposing students to this type of assessment. Otherwise students’ performance on the assessments will be a disaster. I don’t mean to sound like we should “teach to the test.” However, if our objective is to increase students’ ability to problem solve (authentically) and the assessments are designed as such, our instruction should be driven in those tests. Isn’t that how the objective or learning outcome/assessment relationship is supposed to work? This ties directly to Jonassen’s assertion that two very strong predictors of success in problem-solving is students’ familiarity with problem type and their domain knowledge. If students have sufficient domain knowledge and have some familiarity with the problem type, they will be able to be successful in solving the problem. The reciprocal of this is that successful problem solving should be an indicator within the domain specified by the problem. Students can show mastery (or at least knowledge) of a domain or concept within that domain.

Issues




Based on the title of this post, there should be problem. So where/what is it, you ask? It lies in the planning on the part of the teacher. Teachers (no surprise) are the key to students’ ability to problem solve. (If the rest of this writing sounds like I “know it all,” I do not mean it that way. I’m learning so much about what I did wrong in my classes of the past and I’m doing my best to apply that to my current teaching load.) If teachers rely only on the practice problems in the book, Scantron (or self-grading tests), and pre-made test banks, we will keep getting what we have always gotten, or worse, as shown in the results of the 2009 PISA.Teachers must target their instruction to the needs of the students. How can pre-made materials, test banks, powerpoints, possibly know what your students need to learn, based on their current level of knowledge/skill? I keep thinking over and over in my head as I write, “Set the bar based on the abilities of your current students. Set that bar high. If some make it over, great. Hopefully, everyone else jumped as high as possible.” The fact remains, the bar needs to be adjusted according this current group of students. Likely, that will involve keeping up with current research within a discipline, reframing knowledge within that domain in current cultural and socio-economic lenses. Not only will this allow teachers the ability to always have new problems for students to solve, they will model one of the intended outcomes of PBL: living as a lifelong-learner.

As we discussed during Week 6, many adaptive, stand-alone technologies are emerging in education. These technologies give students a pre-test, identify their weaknesses, and differentiate autonomous instruction to meet the students at their point of need. These technologies assess based on factual information, skill attainment, and/or some analysis. These assessments are based on problems that have a specific answer, likely based on the fact that we have not yet written an algorithm allowing a computer to assess ill-structured problems, due to the nature of those problems. My point here is that many lower-level thinking processes, facts, and skills can be replaced (to some extent) by a program (adaptive technology). This leaves the teacher in the role of lab monitor. While I am not implying that fear of losing our jobs should drive us to enrich our students learning experience through authentic problem-solving experiences, job security is a side-benefit! Assessment of ill-structured problems, at least currently, can only be done by a human, capable of considering all aspects of a students solution and the way in which they arrived at that solution.

Solution




Teachers must continue their learning to be enabled to engage students in ill-structured problems, while still engaging in authentic assessment of students’ problem-solving skills, ability to think critically, and domain knowledge (concept-specific). As a part of this, students should also be assessed on their ability to make cross-disciplinary connections. This can be done easily if other disciplines are brought into the process. For example, Michelle and I are going to be a part of paired class next semester, in which she will teach writing/research (skill) and I will teach technology (skill), through the lens of American History (the context). Finally, these problems should be student-directed. Students should be able to construct their own relevancy/motivation by being allowed to choose a topic that both fits the context of the class and is something in which they are interested. Jonassen suggests that students “...think harder and process more deeply when they are interested...” and “...have high-self efficacy” (p.73) Allowing students to select their own problems enables them to choose those in which they are (or can be) interested and believe they have the ability to solve.



References





  1. Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: Freeman.

  2. Gagnéa, R.M. (1980). Learnable aspects of problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 15(2), 84-92.

  3. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(4), 63-85.

  4. Plekhanov, A. (2011). PISA Results: How does quality of education compare across the EBRD’s countries of operation? Retrieved from http://www.ebrdblog.com/wordpress/2011/03/pisa-results-how-does-quality-of-education-compare-across-the-ebrds-countries-of-operation/

05 February 2012

my name is jody and I am a constructionist

In chapter 1 of the book “Situating Constructionism,” (Papert & Harel, 1991), the authors drove my thoughts to students and what kind of instruction they were receiving in our classroom. I began to wonder, “Were my students programmers of their own education or were they programmees of my idea of what their education should be?” For that matter, which one should they be? While I would love to say they started at a point and began to drive their own instruction based on what they learned, I will admit there was a significant component of each semester in which I was the “driver of the train” and all of my students were on simply passengers. Isaac Newton once said, “I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” My hope is to become the kind of teacher who will allow every student to find the smoothest shells and prettiest pebbles. (I purposely rearranged the quote to include alliteration; clearly he was not a writer!)

Papert & Harel (1991) allude to an experiment (done by Harel) which gives “statistically hard evidence that constructionist activity—which integrates math with art and design and where the children make the software—enhances the effectiveness of instruction given by a teacher in the same topic.” This gives me a bit of heartburn because I do not know what factors they gauge the “effectiveness of instruction.” The context would indicate student’s engagement as the primary factor. However, can we allow that to be the only factor? Is that even what the author meant? Maybe I am just grasping at straws, but I really need a bit more information.

One of my favorite quotes of the chapter:

“The presence of computers begins to go beyond first impact when it alters the nature of the learning process; for example, if it shifts the balance between transfer of knowledge to students (whether via book, teacher, or tutorial program is essentially irrelevant) and the production of knowledge by students.” Papert & Harel (1991) (emphasis added)



Now they are simply pandering to me. This is the one of my core beliefs about education reform. Teachers have to begin to move from a class of knowledge transfer to knowledge production;  an effective means to do that is through the integration of technology. Wikis are a great example of this kind of reform. iBooks Author will also allow students to publish their artifacts for a much broader audience; one that is beyond the four walls of their classroom. I appreciate that Papert & Harel mentioned computational thinking as a mindset. I wrote a blog post about computational thinking in another class. It is encouraging when reformists make the same kinds of connections to other disciplines, since they expect students to do the same.

The most significant piece of the discussion of Logo and “microworlds” (Sawyer, et. al) was the fact that it was born of one idea, from one person. He saw a radical new way for students to learn and built it into an entire movement in education.

These “learning places” are not quite autonomous, but I get the impression they really are virtual locations/ communities where students can drive their own learning, find their own relevance, create mashups of different subjects, and create thoughts and ideas which previously did not exist. Students walk away from “school” (I don’t think they ever really stop learning if we are doing it right) with an artifact, a picture of what they have learned, something far more valuable than a grade, to show others the kind of thinking he or she is capable of doing.

This artifact component of constructionist learning really resonates within my framework of education. If I see a student’s grades, I can certainly make an inference about the kind of success they might be able to have in a class. However, if that same student brings me a computer simulation they have written, or a kinetic sculpture they have created to show a mathematical principle, or some other original creation, I am able to make my own assessment of their learning and skills. If I see on their transcript that they have all A’s, what does that really mean? In an era of grade inflation, when many students (and parents) expect that he or she will have A’s in every class, what do student’s grades really imply? If we truly want to evaluate a student, we need to see that the student is capable of producing at a certain level. We would like to know that he or she can master, or have already mastered, a specific skill. The student needs to show he or she can make connections between other subjects (this one is near and dear to my heart). I imagine you can see that I am a proponent of some kind of portfolio for students. A place for students to “put” these artifacts, which show what they have learned over time. How can a student’s learning/growth truly be measured if there is not some baseline with which it can be compared? While I do not have the answer to the “where & how” question of portfolios, I do know if my own kids were not let high school early college, I would create a portfolio and start putting their student work on it. Likely, it would be a wiki and the student would have edit rights.

Last year I got to witness the U.K. version of Project-Based-Learning (PBL). I had a day to observe at OldMacher Academy in Aberdeen, Scotland. I attended a science class with some 6th or 7th grade U.S. equivalent students. They were working within a PBL context and their driving question was something like “How can we send a person to another planet?” Honestly, I had a bit of issue with the question, simply because it was one that had already been answered. However, I suspect it was appropriate for this age group. Their driving question had many different areas in which they needed to learn content: Newtonian mechanics, planetary astronomy, chemistry, ethics (we can go, but should we?), human biology, relationships, and the list could go on and on. In reality, I have no doubt a driving question such as this one could take an entire year for students to answer. Even then, there would still be “meat left on the bone”. It has such a far-reaching context, I’m not sure it could even be answered in a single school year.

While I was observing the students at OldMacher, I saw 7th graders (or 8th) engaged in the learning process, asking questions, and making discoveries that were relevant to the topic at hand. I did not observe students who were bored or misbehaving. I do not mean to imply that PBL makes teaching/learning all roses, stars, and unicorns. The teacher was was working even harder than the students. She had no time to visit with me because she was busy asking her own guiding questions and giving gentle nudges, in context, as needed.

No doubt, I had an effect on the class as well. After all, the observer effect is one of the basic tenets in physics. As you observe an object, you change it’s state, simply by observing it. It is entirely possible students were on their behavior because I was in the room. Nevertheless, students, by all appearances, were learning and doing so with some independence and self-direction.

My point in all of this can really be summed up in one sentence: If the Constructionist candidate were running for the Office of Education Reform, I would vote for him or her. Not only would I vote for the candidate, I would knock on doors to campaign for this person. I would tell my friends about the merits of this view of education (I kind of already do this). I would volunteer to work in the campaign. I would do whatever I could to get the Constructionist candidate elected. After the reading last week and this week, I find that I am not a constructivist; instead, I need to register to vote as a constructionist.

29 January 2012

constructivism or instructivism?

Who Am I as A Teacher?
When I was teaching physics, I used both the instructivist and constructivist models in my classroom. I did (and still do in my current classes) a significant amount of lecture and guided questioning; however, we also spent (spend) a significant amount of time with students doing their own independent, student-directed learning.Instructivist - When students were learning fundamental principles, there was lecture. However, I was not the only person in the room doing the talking. During lectures, I asked guiding questions, students would answer in small groups and then share their ideas. Usually, the questions drew on personal experience and were designed to expose misconceptions about the guiding principles. This is often referred to as cognitive disequilibrium (although some call it cognitive disequilibration) espoused by Piaget (see equilibration), which clearly falls under the constructivist paradigm. So, even though I was using lecture/guided thought, am I an instructivist?

Constructivist - Once students began to master those foundational principles of physics, one day a week, I turned students loose with a computer and my own version of a problem based learning project. They knew the components that were to be included in their artifact, but they were able to do everything else, from picking a topic to designing an experiment/demonstration. This kind of explicit instruction is clearly instructivist in nature.

I use my examples (the links) above to show that in practice, at least for me, the line between constructivism and instructivism is quite blurry. Everything I can think of that I have done/currently do in my classes have components of each theory.

In every class I teach, I start the semester/year with two of my favorite Nature of Science activities: The Checks Lab and The Polar Bear Game. In both activities, students come to understand some of the components of science, i.e. evidence, inference, interpretation, etc. One of the the key concepts I focus on is that we all bring a different viewpoint to the “game of science.” We look at the evidence in different ways. Our experiences change the way we view the world, clearly a constructivist viewpoint. However, I guide students to that realization through questioning, which is instructivist.

Who Am I as A Learner?
When I was a Master’s student, many of my peers were very uncomfortable when the explicit guidelines were not given for a particular project/artifact. They wanted to know exactly what was expected. I found that I learned best when I was not limited by the written expectations of a project. So that indicates to me that I am a constructivist learner, or at least I can function in the role of one. Often, I felt as though I was running a bit “rough-shod” through assignments. Without clear guidance, I felt uncertain as to what I should be doing. However, when I look back on what I learned and how I was influenced by that experience, I feel that my learning was enriched because of the lack of guidance. While I do not have any evidence to support a qualitative claim as to which type of learning/instruction is best, I have my own anecdotal evidence to show what works for me.

So Which Theory is Best?
I hate to be a fence-sitter, but I really think the answer to the question of “Which cognitive theory is best?” is “It depends!” Students of today need to learn some foundational principles of a discipline, but they also need to be able to have enough freedom to explore the ideas and concepts with which they most closely associate relevancy. I have found that with some guidance (instructivist), students can find that relevance in any topic of a discipline (constructivist). That said, the teacher must be receptive enough to his or her students to be able to know when instructivism is needed and flexible enough to give students what I like to call “learning room.”

In the hotly debated Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) article, the authors use a constructivist model to make their point. I find it ironic (not just coincidental) that the authors use their own experiences to influence their knowledge base. They came up with a question, designed an experiment and/or used other’s experiments, and interpreted the results to make a claim. They even cite their own research as evidence in favor of their claims (Sweller is referenced no less than 21 times). Does anyone else see the irony there? I do not mean to imply that this is poor practice, but when you are trying to make a point and your practice supports the opposing viewpoint, it is, to say the least, amusing.

While not explicitly stated, I supposed the mention of “novice learner” by both Downes and Kirschner, et al  indicates that everyone can agree that activities in learning need to be age-appropriate. For instance, it would not be appropriate to turn lower-elementary aged students loose on the Internet, although Dr. Sugata Mitra would likely disagree. However, if I take some high school students to a play ground with a curved slide and a merry-go-round and ask them to determine some of the basic principles of rotational motion, they might actually be able to “discover” some of them.

No doubt this debate may never be settled. It could be a bit like quantum mechanics. One of the basic concepts is that one cannot know both the position and speed of a given particle, if you know one, you change the other. This is known as the Uncertainty Principle (Heisenberg, 1927).
It is also entirely possible that we may never know whether constructivism is more correct than instructivism; or whether it is the other way around. Another idea in quantum mechanics that a particle can be in two places at once as shown in The Double Slit Experiment (Young, 1803). It may be that constructivism and instructivism are both right and wrong (depending on the circumstance). This is the more likely scenario.

18 January 2012

The Demonization of Wikipedia

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="269" caption="Wikipedia isn't quite as bad as everyone makes it out to be."][/caption]

No doubt you have been on Wikipedia or at least seen it at the top of your search results. As a teacher, I did not allow students to use Wikipedia as a primary source, but I did encourage them to use the site. There are many uses and contrary to what most teachers say, it does not need to be avoided. Wikipedia has been demonized in education. Whether or not that has a good reason is open for debate, but the mindset needs to be changed.


Two years ago, I spent about six weeks working with a couple of physics researchers at Oklahoma State. When Dr. Rizatdinova wanted me to learn something, she always pulled up Wikipedia first. Was this ignorance? Or does she recognize that Wikipedia is, on average, more accurate than print sources? I suspect it is the latter. She has a PhD in High Energy Physics from Moscow University, so I can only imagine she has a pretty clear understanding of how to find correct information on the internet.


Back in 2009, I had a realization: Putnam City High School did not have a Wikipedia page. I thought to myself, "How can this be?" At that point, I realized I had two choices, I could continue to be a consumer of knowledge (and allow my students to do so) or I could model for my students what being a producer of knowledge looks like. I chose the latter. I did a minimal amount of research about the history of Putnam City High School and started a Wikipedia page. This was one of only two edits I made to the page. I only mention that because it has some (not a lot) of information on it, most of which was put there by others. There are actually people who enjoy building pages and some of them found our page! My second edit was to correct the mascot. I could have noticed the error and pointed it out to others, further casting the site in a bad light. However, I decided it would be better to make the page better.


A couple of weeks after I created the page, I went back to the page and there was a note at the top saying, "This page does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards, you can help by adding citations and information." What? They have "quality standards"? They actually want you to add citations? To show where your information comes from? That sounds a lot like the kind of thing we teach students when writing papers. I suspect Wikipedia could be used as a tool to teach writing, instead of being talked about like the plague.


Over the last two weeks, I have talked (probably too much) about Wikipedia over the course of some professional development I have done about technology. One was at Deer Creek Schools and the other at Yukon Public Schools. I spent some time talking about how students should no longer look at the web as a place to simply get information. They should also look at it as a place to construct their own knowledge base and add to the overall knowledge about a topic. This is (at least part of) the purpose of Wikipedia.


Oklahoma recently adopted the English/Language Arts and Mathematics Common Core State Standards. These standards mandate that students should "Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate..." Wikipedia would be a fantastic place to do that. By the way, this was cut and pasted from the grade 3-5 standards.


Imagine starting a Wikipedia page for your school (neither Yukon nor Deer Creek have pages for any of their schools at the time of this writing). You could have students develop interview questions, contact members of the community, video the interviews, post them to the school district's webpage, and then link to the video interviews as primary sources for your Wikipedia article(s). Would students think differently about their writing if they had that kind of ownership? Would they write differently with that kind of audience?


I recognize that Wikipedia can be used incorrectly. As teachers, should we continue letting students use it incorrectly? Or should we be proactive in our approach? I hope you will reconsider how you present Wikipedia to your students. Like most things on the web, it can be used to learn something.


I challenged the teachers from both Yukon and Deer Creed to build Wikipedia pages for their schools. I'll be interested to see if they pick up the gauntlet. What about you? Does your district have a page? Does your school? Is there some other way to integrate Wikipedia into your teaching? I would love to hear your ideas.


**I posted this today because Wikipedia is blacked out to protest the US Government's efforts to censor information on the internet through SOPA and PIPA. Both of these bills (like most) have a good intent. The controversy comes in from the way in which they are doing the "policing".**

12 January 2012

Here we go again

I have no idea if anyone actually gets anything out of what I'm writing, but it's time to start learning again, which means writing/reflection. I've taken about 6 months off from school, but I'm back in class taking it to the next level. This time it's Trends and Issues in Educational Technology.


For class, I've been reading The Cambridge Handbook of The Learning Sciences (R. Keith Sawyer, Ed. 2005). I've just started, but the first part of the book is fantastic!



It begins with a bit of educational history, starting with the early years of Public Education in America and the concept of instructionism. While I write this, my computer says that instuctionism is not a word, but you are all familiar with the concept because it's how you were taught in school. There was a lot of wrote memorization and factual learning, but not a lot of critical thinking or application. It did a good job of preparing students for the "industrialized economy of the early 20th century" (Sawyer, 2005). However, in today's knowledge economy, this won't work any longer. Students cannot continue to be taught fact after fact. They cannot continue to be taught the same way they were 100 years ago, because the world is not the same place as it was 100 years ago.  We have to teach students how to think. Thinking is a skill. In order to teach it, students must be put in the position of practicing that skill. The only way they will get better is to practice.


Before picking up this book (on my new Kindle), I'd never heard of the Learning Sciences. I guess I had a vague understanding of what they were/are, but didn't know them by that name. However, beginning in the 1970's and ending in the 1990's, scientists and researchers began to word towards a consensus on the way in which students need to learn to be successful in today's society. Those are:




  • It is important for students to gain a deep conceptual understanding. Many of you can probably recite Newton's 2nd law of Motion, but could you apply it to a situation?

  • In addition to teaching better, some focus needs to be on students learning better. Great teachers are so important, but if the student (or teacher) doesn't have some grasp on how they learn, it may not do much good. Passive learning is no longer acceptable. Students must take control of their learning and begin to construct their own body of knowledge. (I know, Piaget has been saying this since the 60's!)

  • Schools must create an environment where learning can occur. Facts are okay, but teachers and schools need to put students in situations that encourage thinking deeply about concepts and there must be some real world application.

  • Successful learning comes as a result of building on the learner's prior knowledge.  Again, no passive learning. Students come in with prior understanding (or misunderstanding) and often only learn enough to pass a test, but their learning in no way affects the way in which they interact with their world.

  • Reflection is important. That's why I write here. It's not so anyone can read. It's so I can process. This blog is a place for me to actively analyze my state of knowledge. What did I know before and what do I know now? How are those different? How will what I've learned impact me? Will it? If not, why not?


**bold sections: The Cambridge Handbook of The Learning Sciences, (R. Keith Sawyer, Ed. 2005).



Next week, I'm doing my "final" professional development session with public school teachers. I say final only because it's the last commitment I made while a State Dept. of Ed. employee. I'm supposed to talk about Problem-Based Learning. The early part of this book, while not explicitly so, talks about Problem-Based Learning.

Students need to engage in inquiry, beginning with a driving question and proposing a hypothesis/solution. They need to use complex representations to communicate and collaborate. They also need to use models, represented in some visual format. That's basically what my presentation is, in 3 sentences. If you are a Yukon Public School teacher, don't bother coming to listen. You just got the nutshell version!

Finally, there is a situativity perspective. This means that knowledge is not static. Knowledge is a process. I think of it as a sieve. When you interact with the information, you change what is there and it changes you, as well. It goes beyond simple knowledge acquisition and moves into a fundamental change in the way in which learners collaborate. This change comes as a result of the collaboration.

Bring it on. This is going to be a great class.

In case you are wondering what's going on here, here's a little intro video I made of myself for class.

09 January 2012

Social Media in the Classroom

Today is the second of what I hope will be many days of work at SNU. Friday was the official first day, but that was time spent in Human Resources with a little bit of running around and meeting with the Director of Online Learning. She got me a broad overview of the grant and it's purpose; so at least I have a vague idea of the direction we are moving.

I'll be spending some time today in faculty workshop. I'm going to be doing some PD with faculty about using Social Media in the classroom. Seems like pretty standard fare if you've been reading my blog for very long. However, it occurred to me that the powers that be want me to teach the faculty something new. These are the people who were my teachers, mentors, & professors (and continue to be so). It just struck me as odd.

I'm going to organize my thoughts here a little bit.

A few of the biggest things I like about Social Media in the classroom is that it can bring new perspectives in (through non-class members sharing), it expands the boundaries of the classroom (again, engaging people outside the classroom in conversation), and it can extend the amount of time students spend learning your content (by continuing the conversation outside the 50 minutes see your face each day). I'll spend a bit of time talking about a few of the tools available and how to integrate those.

As I write this, I'm thinking specifically about faculty who are late adopters (or non-adopters) and I can see them looking at me with skepticism. What in the world is that about? These people know me. Many (dare I say most) of them, I have a pretty good relationship. In fact, that was what I stressed in my interview. I already have significant amounts of currency in my relationship accounts with many of these folks. So what am I worried about? I know there are going to be some who don't "buy it" who are not (and maybe never will) drink the technology Kool-Aid.

Facebook - It's a great way to extend the time you can interact with students. According to TechCrunch, 85% of them are using the site already. That statistic is from 2005, so I would imagine the number is much higher. You can create a group for each class. You could post materials and put reminders there about assignments, due dates, or even just a word of encouragement. The great thing about it is that you don't have to friend your students. As the teacher (or the student) you post on the group wall and it shows up in the news feed of everyone else. It's like seeing all of your students outside of class and talking to them about class.

Twitter - Twitter could function similar to Facebook in that it uses status updates to carry on a conversation about class/content. However, there are no groups. But there are hashtags. If you create hashtag for your class and have your students tweet using that hashtag. For instance, if you wanted to see what conversation is happening right now about Education, you could look here. If you are on twitter, the "Discover" button at the top is a hashtag search. If you have never heard of a hashtag, it is analogous to a keyword search. If you have ever searched for an article in a database using a keyword, you already understand how to use hashtags. They are simply searches for keywords in the conversation that is happening on twitter. It's simply a way for you to focus on what a particular subject of conversation. If you aren't sure what a hashtag might look like for your classes, I teach an Earth's Natural Disasters Class. It starts next week, so it's a winter class. My hashtag could be #ENDwint12. I could then have students use that hashtag everytime they tweeted anything related to class and I could easily search for it.

This strategy is especially useful for things like reminders, changes, canellations, etc. You can also use it as what is called a "backchannel". This idea is akin to passing notes in class, but you are able to see it. It gives students the option to ask questions, make comments, etc. without interrupting what's going on. These are very useful during formal presentations, but could also be utilized in the classroom.

Twitter has a 140 character limit. Imagine asking students to synthesize an entire semester's worth of learning in your class into a single tweet? You might be surprised at the results.

Google+ - I could probably share for an entire hour about each of these tools, but Google+ probably has the most functionality. It has components of both Facebook and Twitter. The great thing about this one, is that since SNU is a Google Campus, all students and faculty are already on Google+. They need only click their name at the top right hand corner of the page (when logged into email) and then click "Join Google+" and set up their profile.

In Google+, you have what are called "circles". This would be very similar to a group on Facebook. You add people to circles. They have no idea how you have your circles arranged. They only see that you have said something. You simply choose which circles you send your update to. If I had a Physical Geography circle, I could add students. When I write an update on Google+, I simply choose my Physical Geography circle as the group to with which the update is shared. Like all update services, you can share links, photos, or places.

One other really great thing about Google+ is the Hangouts function. You create a hangout and it becomes a virtual space for you to interact via webcam and voice with people who come to your hangout. Think of it as office hours without students having to actually walk into your office. This is fantastic for you if you teach online. You can still interact with students even without them being at your physical location.

This is my starting point for what I'm going to talk about this afternoon. What have you been doing with Social Media in your classroom? I'm certainly open to ideas to share!

09 November 2011

You want spoonfeeding? Sorry, no can do

I am really struggling to write here. When in the course of my jobs I write something that I feel is appropriate to post, I'll do so.

The following is a response to a student. I'll let you draw conclusions based on what I say (said).
You said "I understand that we are adults, but I am paying a hefty tuition for a professor to teach me." You will probably be sorely disappointed in this class if that is your expectation. I am a facilitator of learning and much of what you do and learn in this class will be a result of independent learning. As a teacher, I hope your other professors will do the same. Knowing the mission of professional studies as I do, that is the intent, although it doesn't always happen in actuality.

Education has changed significantly over the last 10 years. A major change has been that the impetus for learning has moved from the teacher to the student. This is true in MANY progressive universities and it's how I structured my classes in both the university and the high school. I've learned a lot of what I do from other, veteran professors here on campus, so I know you will run across these same strategies in other classes; some of those profs teach in this program.

That said, I recognize that the program is expensive. I just spent over $30k for a Master's. However, I didn't pay for a professor to teach me. I paid for convenience (1 night a week) and for a professor to know how to engage me in the learning process, whether through lecture or independent learning. My philosophy is that you get out of class what you put into it.

It is my job to bring all of my mental faculties to bear on the learning environment so that it is one that is conducive to students being engaged and learning However, it is your job to come prepared to class (which you clearly do) and do your best on each assignment and while you are participating in class. I say things like "You are college students and need to figure things that are not spelled out on your own" because that is what is expected of college graduates. You should be a critical thinker, a problem-solver, and an independent learner.

This week, I was asked to prepare an RFP for a vendor. Prior to that assignment, I had never heard of an RFP and didn't even know what the letters stood for. However, through a day of research and independent learning, I was able to learn not only what it was, but what was supposed to be included in one and I prepared a (very) rough draft. This was done much to the surprise of my boss. She didn't even expect that I would know what it was, no less be able to create one from scratch. I learned that skill through professors putting me into situations in which I had to think for myself. This is exactly one of the skills I am hoping to engage you in. Be sure to check the learning objectives again. No doubt you will see "critical thinking" listed.

This program is not about (at least it shouldn't be) "paying for a degree" or even "paying for a professor to teach you". It is about you engaging in the process of learning. Many students come to SNU thinking the professor should "spoon-feed" them the information, assign them an "A", and get them on to the next class. I refuse! I will point you in the right direction, facilitate learning to the best of my ability, award points where they are due, and PREPARE you for whatever challenge you meet next.

You guys know how these things go. Sometimes you've just got to get these things out of your head before you can move on.

23 September 2011

common core and frameworks

*this was sent to my science listserve and I've cross-posted here*

I've been doing a lot of thinking this week about the Next Generation Science Standards. I've had many emails from folks across the state full of questions about the revised PASS, the Common Core, and how those are related to what's going on in science (Next Generation Science Standards - NGSS). I also had a chance to work on the framework for the Oklahoma Physics Subject Area test. This test is what you take to be certified to teach Physics here in the Great State of Oklahoma. What a great learning experience! I learned so much that will help as we move towards the HUGE task of developing national science standards. It's overwhelming and exciting all at the same time. More on those standards later.

I've been working to get teachers informed about the status of science education here in Oklahoma and what the expectations are concerning standards. Here's an overview:

 -The Common Core Standards (CC) are only for Mathematics and English/Langauge Arts. The CC does not give any content concerning science. There are some literacy standards for interacting with science and tecnological texts, but those are not content standards. Those are standards for having students read and interact with the type of texts we encounter in the science disciplines. There's a ton of misinformation out there about Common Core, e.g. "the only science I have to teach is in the Common Core." Uh, wrongo! That's kinda like using the excuse of "well, they didn't say I had to pay for a refill, so I assumed I didn't need to." Just because it's called the Common Core doesn't mean it covers all the Core areas. (on a side note, I think the name has contributed to some of the confusion).


 -The PASS (specific to Oklahoma) have been revised and should be used when planning science lessons. It might be helpful to refer to the CC to make those critical connections to mathematics and literacy, but the only document that contains content for science is the PASS. The Pocket PASS for science is at the printer and should be ready to be mailed soon, so consider checking the website to order. We'll be on overload getting those out when they arrive, so please be patient! You can download a current version of the revised PASS for science from the website, as well. If you are reading this and you aren't an Oklahoma teacher, the PASS is an acronym for Priority Academic Student Skills. We used to have this for all content areas, but now ELA and Math are under the Common Core.


 -The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are in the process of development right now. When standards are developed, there must first be a framework to guide the standard writing process. This document has been written and can be found by going to http://www.nextgenscience.org. In 2009, the National Research Council brought together a panel of scientists and science educators. This makeup of this panel was split about in half between scientists and educators. The educator side of the panel had K-12 strongly represented. The panel wrote the framework and it will now guide the standard-writing process. I'll give you more information as I get it.


 I'll not bore you with the details, but the framework basically splits into 3 dimensions: Scientific and Engineering practices, Crosscutting concepts, and the disciplinary core ideas (including Physical, Life, Earth and Space, and Engineering and Technology).

Most of those are probably self-explanatory except the crosscutting concepts. These are the ideas that are not discipline specific and are not skills or practices. They are Patterns, Cause and Effect, Scale Proportion and Quantity, Systems and System Models, Energy and Matter, Structure and Function, and (finally) Stability and Change. These 7 concepts can be applied to all of the scientific disciplines.

The framework includes a plan for integration between the 3 dimensions, a plan for implementation, a discussion of diversity and equity, and guidance for standards developers. They also included some rationale on what the assumptions were when writing the framework and reasoning behind the organization.

It's been about 15 years since we've had any kind of National Science Standards. The last version was done in 1996 by the National Research Council and included many of the aspects of what I imagine will be included in the Next Generation Science Standards. However, because the Common Core already exists for language arts and mathematics, the new science standards will be designed to articulate (or work with) the Common Core. The NGSS will include standards that fit together with grade-specific standards in mathematics. Once this is done, I expect that standards will all complement each other. I also expect when the Common Core is revised, they will make more explicit connections to the Science Standards.

Okay. I lied. I bored you the details. Here's the abbreviated version: the Framework will drive what is in the standards and the organization of them. It is not a standards document. It is the shell of the house around which the standards will be built.

So where does Oklahoma fit into this process, you ask? Well, we could sit idly by and let other states decide what we should be teaching or we can work toward getting into the Leadership Consortium of states and help write the standards. I'm kinda leaning toward the latter!

Achieve.org (the bi-partisan education reform organization) sent out a press release last week a list of the states that would be leading the standards development and Oklahoma was not listed. I'll take the heat on that one. I was not aware of the process to get us into the leadership consortium. However, the news isn't all bad. I'm now aware and in contact with Achieve to get this fixed. They still want us to be a part of the leadership (my predecessor worked really hard in this area) and we want to be a part.

I'm thrilled at the idea of helping construct this. Talk about something a person could be proud of and take ownership in! We are going to drive what the majority of students in the United States are studying in science! That's exciting!

In case you are wondering (and can't tell) I'm loving the new job. I miss my students, but I get to interact with my SNU students, so the sting isn't quite so bad. I miss my colleagues at PC High, but I love meeting new people here at OSDE as, well. There is so much transition going on, both here locally, and nationally in science education! It's a great feeling knowing (or at least hoping) that you are having an impact on what students are learning in the classroom and I still feel very much a part of that. I'm thankful and blessed beyond belief to be afforded the opportunities I've been given.

 

07 September 2011

earth's natural disasters

I'm so thankful I have the student contact during Earth's Natural Disasters. That class continues to be meaningful. We talk about Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Volcanoes, Floods, Wildfires, and Tornadoes. It's a bit scary when these kinds of events continue to happen regularly, especially when we are discussing them in class. 3 weeks ago we talked about earthquakes and there was a 5ish magnitude in Northern Virginia. 2 weeks ago our topic was hurricanes and Irene hit the Northeast. Last week we discussed wildfires and you have probably seen that Oklahoma City has been hit along with Texas, Arizona, and California. I think there have even been some in Oregon. It is one of those instances when you wonder if you are noticing the news more because you are teaching the class, or is there really some correlation to the topics discussed in class and the cause!


Either way, I love teaching the class and one of my favorite things students do is to reflect on their learning over the past week. One student did some great reflecting this week and I thought I might share her reflection and my response. Nothing groundbreaking, but I can't help sharing when I see that students are taking what they learn and applying it to everyday life.




Class was very interesting this week. The information about Yellowstone Park stood out the most. I have been talking and thinking about the devastation it would cause if the volcanoes there erupted. I have asked myself if I would try to escape to Canada or if I would stand still and let the first wave of destruction take me out? I haven’t answered that question yet.


The video we watched was useful in gaining a perspective about super volcanoes. I don’t think that I could have fathomed the mass destruction one would cause had it not been presented in that way. I had thought that Mt St Helen’s would be considered a super volcano because of the amount of damage it caused but the reality is that it does not compare.


I feel like I am learning a lot in this class about science which is causing me to observe nature more. My family and I took a 12 mile trip down the Missouri river a few weeks ago and I couldn’t help but examine the rocks and the layers of earth pondering what I have learned in class and attempting to guess the age of each layer. I’m sure that my family would have liked me to just row the raft and enjoy the trip more but I was totally fascinated by different colors and types.


 It is interesting to me how the scientists get their data. How do they know their methods are correct and what do they use to back up their findings? Carbon dating for instances, how do they know that something is as old as they say? Can they be absolutely positive that the rocks that they study are as old as they claim? I’m sure the answer is more complicated then I can understand but I would love the abridged version if there is one.



Here's my response:



What a great question. We need to discuss this in class and I'd be happy if you would raise the question when I give time for that.

Just in case you don't ask in class, the short is answer is this: Scientists don't know whether their methods are correct. At least they don't know any more than you can know whether or not your car will start in the morning. You go out, turn the key and expect it to start based solely on past experience and your faith in the person who built/maintains that vehicle. Science is very similar in that it relies heavily on past experience. We also make inferences in science using logic.

Take your rocks for example. How do you know the rocks on the bottom are older than the ones on the top? You have some knowledge of the Principle of Superposition, even though you've probably never heard it called that. Logic and past experience tell us that the layers that are below were "laid down" BEFORE the ones above. This is called superposition.

So I'll answer your question with another question. How do you KNOW that superposition holds true? Can you be absolutely POSITIVE that you are correct? To tie our classroom activities in to what we are talking about...I suspect there may be some checks left in your envelope. You'll never know the whole story. You just have to keep rolling the die and check that your hypothesis still fits the data. :-)

I hope this helps. I tried really hard to make that the abridged version!

This exchange shows why I love teaching science - We never know the entire story. We never know whether we are 100% correct. We only know what the data tells us (assuming we are listening) and we can only look for patterns once we have some experience. It's like having built-in job security. You can never know everything, because it is constantly changing. It is a dynamic system!


That's why science is better than fiction. In fictional writing, you can make up some wildly fantastic stories. But in science, you don't have to make it up. It is wildly fantastic while being utterly true and accurate!

19 August 2011

My Final Duty

Putnam City has a tradition in which the previous Teacher of the Year speaks to the district faculty on opening day. Ive got to say, I was really looking forward to this. There's something very exhilarating about standing up in front of a captive audience of about 1200 professionals and telling them what's on your mind. I think my experience at IgniteOKC gave me a taste of public speaking and I like it! I'm not saying I'm good at it, but I enjoy it. When you have people clapping (even if you told them to) or laughing or even cheering, it gets the adrenaline going. It was a great experience.

I talked about the Common Core and I'm afraid I stole some (or a lot) of the superintendent's thunder. I felt pretty bad about that, but much better when several people asked if they could have a copy of my speech. So here you go: (it's long - as usual) I just cut and pasted from my notes, so please forgive any grammar and punctuation errors. I write just like I talk.

By the way, I sitting in Logan Airport in Boston, on my way home from a STEM plan learning lab. I'll debrief on that in another post. It was an enlightening experience in so many ways.



I’d like to start out by saying thank you to Mr. Hurst and the rest of the administration for the opportunity to speak to you all today. I was honored to be chosen as your Teacher of the Year for 2011. Being selected as a State Teacher of the Year finalist made my decision to take the Science Director job a very difficult one. In fact, I can easily say it was one of the most difficult decisions ever. I’m so proud to be a part of the Putnam City Schools family and I wanted so badly to represent each of you at the state level. Thank you so much for the opportunity to do so and I’m sorry I had to drop out of the competition because of this new responsibility.

Now if you’ve never spoken to a group this large, know that it can make you a bit nervous. I’ll just say that if I say something you agree with or that resonates with you, or even if I just mention your school, to let me know you are listening, you can clap or say something like woo-hoo!

15 years ago, I applied to be a bus driver in Putnam City Schools. I was hired and drove off and on for 10 years until I finally finished my undergraduate degree at SNU in 2007. During those years, I came into contact with what I believe to be the greatest faculty in the State of Oklahoma. As a bus driver, you certainly get a different perspective of the students and faculty. My time as a bus driver allowed me to learn what caring about students means and I learned that from you guys. One of the schools I drove out of was Tulakes Elementary (anyone here from there?) Every day the teachers would bring the students to the bus. They would get on the bus with the students and they showed me what an example of a caring teacher looked like. If a student was having a bad day or if they knew of some particular difficulty at home, the teachers made sure I knew about it. I have no doubt that this type of thing continues across the district in other schools and on other buses.  Little did I know back then, that I would get the privilege to join the faculty of Putnam City, a fantastic group of educators and that I would be afforded the opportunity to teach the best students in the state.

Speaking of great students, my own kids, Jessica and JC, have been in Putnam City their entire lives and I’d like to publicly thank each of you who influenced them during their time here. When I first started driving a bus, I applied for a transfer into the district so Jess could begin Kindergarten at Overholser Elementary. About that time, we moved into the district and the kids attended Rollingwood, Capps, and most recently, Putnam City High School. Jess graduated last year and JC will be a Senior this year. We were purposeful about purchasing a home in the district so our kids could attend school in Putnam City because we believed then, and still do, that the district offers the best academic and extra-curricular opportunities in Oklahoma. Because of the relationships I’ve built and the quality of education my children have received, I will always consider Putnam City Schools my home.

For those of you who are new to Putnam City this year, I want you to know that this is a special place. If I were to go into all the reasons for making such a broad statement, we would be here all day and I doubt any of you want that. (that is an appropriate place for applause) I’ll just say that there is a sense of family among the teachers in each building that I’ve not experienced in any other workplace. I’m thankful for the community that teachers and administrators work hard to build. If you don’t feel that in your building, I hope you do whatever it takes to treat your colleagues as family (or in some cases, better than family). It creates an environment of support and makes Putnam City a great place for students to learn.

The faculty members in this district have challenged me to grow and the members of the administration have given me opportunities to facilitate that growth. I have been fortunate to have leaders who allowed me the chance to try new things in my classroom. This led to an enriching teaching experience for me and hopefully a positive learning environment for my students. I hope the administrators in the district will continue to allow teachers to innovate in the classroom. Principals, if you aren’t already doing that, I’d challenge you to give your teachers some slack and see just what kind of excitement they can generate in their classes.

As I have begun to transition into the job of Science Director at the State Department of Education, I am beginning to realize that the change we’ve all been looking for in education is here. I doubt you’ve been able to read any journal or website without hearing about the Common Core State Standards Initiative. I’m not here to tell you that the Common Core standards are the saviour of education, but I do think they are common ground with which we can all start to increase the rigor and relevancy of our classes. If you don’t know about the Common Core, you should get informed. You can find information on the State Department of Education’s website or at corestandards.org. I thought I might share just a little of my understanding of the Standards (I’m talking to you as a teacher as a teacher, not as the State Science Director, give me a little slack, I’ve only been on the job for 3 weeks!)

The major components of the Common Core are this:

Include more reading and writing of informational texts in all content areas. - This isn’t really anything new. We’ve been talking about having students read and write for quite a while. Yes, you CAN have students in an English class learning to read and interpret a historical document. In fact, that is just the kind of thing the core standards encourage you to do. Literacy is everyone’s job. Think about it, if a student cannot read or write at grade level, how can they interact with the rest of their education? I guarantee you can connect literacy strategies to every single subject area in every single grade. If not, you are probably doing it wrong.

Provide opportunities for students to practice the 3 modes of rhetorical writing (narrative, argument, and informational) I can tell you from experience, when students enter college, they are going to have to do each of these three kinds of writing, probably in their first composition class. It doesn’t mean they have to be able to do them perfectly, but they should have already been exposed to this kind of writing, at a minimum. This isn’t just at the secondary level, either. Elementary students should be practicing their writing skills. How about having them write out the directions on how to accomplish a task and then let another student follow those directions?  

Require students to supply evidence and/or reasoning to justify their position. This can be mathematical reasoning, evidence from a text when analyzing literature, or scientific evidence from observation or experimentation. It doesn’t really matter what the topic is, but students must be able to give a reason for why they think a certain way or believe something. In this case, the process by which a student arrives at an answer is just as important as what their answer is. This may mean that you put students in a position in which there is either more than one right answer, or (heaven forbid) a situation in which you, as the teacher, do not know the right answer.
Expose students to grade-appropriate texts (which may be more complex than they have been in the past). The core standards are very explicit in giving examples of the kinds of texts students should be reading and at what level they should do so. Notice I said examples, I didn’t say mandates.

Use student work from each grade level to show proficiency (This is clearly a situation in which a series of GoogleDocs would work great as an e-portfolio!) This is a big part of the Common Core: being able to show that students are proficient at a particular skill. Just as the students should be able to give evidence of their reasoning, you as teachers should be able to give reasoning that supports your assertion that students are proficient in a particular area. We must be purposeful in causing opportunities for students to create artifacts that will demonstrate proficiency.

Teach using real world examples.  I’ll talk more about this shortly. I’m really passionate about this one, and I’ll tell you why in just a minute.

Integrate technology into instruction. Yes, the Common Core is very explicit on this one. The students Quote “use technology and digital media strategically and capably.” end quote. And they are not just using technology just to be using it. They quote “employ technology thoughtfully to enhance their reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language use.” end quote Ha! Some of you thought technology would decrease their language skills! Try having your students summarize a story or a semester-long project into 140 characters or less (maybe using twitter or polleverywhere). You will see some students writing more creatively and being more excited about what they are doing than ever before. Innovation like this will require training for students and teachers, I recognize that. In fact, it will probably require you as educators to begin doing some independent research into the use of technology in your classroom. I won’t lie. It’s not going to be easy. But then nothing worth doing ever is. If you need help with technology, I know of several people in the Putnam City technology department who are more than willing to help, you just need to ask. I’ve also heard there are some new instructional coaches who will be able to provide you with some much needed innovation assistance, as well.

Enough of what the Common Core is. Let me tell you what it is not.

The standards are NOT a national curriculum. They do not tell you how to teach your content. You should rely on your own professionalism, your district curriculum directors, and the collective wisdom and experience of your colleagues to help guide you in this area.

PThe Standards are not a comprehensive guide as to what should be taught, they are the minimum of what students should know and be able to do. However, those minimum guidelines are pretty explicit. For example, if you have students who cannot use the words their, there, and they’re correctly, they haven’t shown proficiency for what they should be able to do by the end of the 4th grade. Yes, I did choose that one because its a pet-peeve of mine.

The Standards do NOT include interventions for students below grade level and English Language Learners. However, PLCs can provide assistance with below-grade level interventions and I’m sure the ELL teachers are happy to help, as well. You have resources, but you have to ask for help!
Finally, the Standards do not define every single thing students need in order to be college and career ready. Teachers, districts, and states have some leeway on considerations as to what else is needed for students.

After stepping into the shallow end of the pool with the Standards I can tell you this: As an educator, there’s nothing in the Common Core I have seen that we shouldn’t already be doing.

My wife teaches at a local university, so you can imagine that we spend a significant amount of time talking about students, about teaching, and about our own learning. There is one thing she talks alot about that is a common struggle for many students arriving at college: the ability to think critically. The skill of analyzing a text or a situation and being able to cite specific evidence to support their position is something with which many students struggle. That’s a significant part of what Common Core is about: critical thinking. At the college level, students can still learn new content, but if they come in without the ability to think critically, they have a significantly smaller chance of academic success, no matter what their major is. Additionally, when students enter a workplace, they can learn how to run a cash register, but the ability to deal with a new situation requires problem-solving!

As a science teacher, I get really excited when I read anything that says students should be able to quote “evaluate the argument... including the validity of the reasoning... and sufficiency of the evidence”! end quote.  I heard someone on NPR the other day talking about gas wells and how they have a new method of getting more gas out of those old wells. If you were my family, I’d explain exactly how they do that, but suffice to say, there is a large group of people who are concerned about the contamination of ground water because of this new practice. The group is pushing for full disclosure of chemical levels in ground water before and after the drilling process. The host said, and I quote “The public needs some evidence so they will know the practice is safe.” end quote.  Really? How many average people in this country would be willing or capable of looking at evidence and drawing a reasonable conclusion? I suspect the average person would be willing to let some reporter interpret the evidence and tell them what to think. Consider that when you would rather let your students memorize facts instead of putting them into critical thinking situations.

I give this example because another significant part of the Common Core is relevance. I told you earlier I would get back to “Teach Using Real Life Examples”  As teachers, we owe it to our students to show that what they are required to learn is going to be useful later in life (or at least in a later class). In my physics classes, you cannot imagine the excitement on students’ faces when we would take some algebra or trig function and leverage that to actually learn about the position of an object or some force being applied! If you can’t make your subject relevant to students, you should reconsider what you are teaching. I’m not saying its easy to make your class relevant to students’ lives (unless you teach physics), I’m just saying you owe it to them to be explicit in that relevancy. This is especially important as students get into late elementary and middle school and begin to wonder, “What am I even doing in school anyway? What’s the point of all of this?” If we wait until students begin their high school years to introduce the relevance of learning, school may be so irrelevant by that point, they won’t be inclined to listen.

I’m so proud of each of you and I know this year is going to be better than the last. I hope if there is anything I can do to help you, (especially in science) that you will contact me. I’ll be looking forward to hearing about the exciting things going on in Putnam City. I hope you have a great year and I appreciate you giving me the chance to speak today.

03 August 2011

master teacher summer institute

This week starts a new beginning in my journey. I checked in through Human Resources at the State Department of Education as the new Science Director. As soon as I got done, it was off to the National Center for Employment Development in Norman, OK to begin the Master Teacher Summer Institute.

This program is an exciting one in which teachers work in their content area for part of the time and in their geographical region for the rest of the time. There is a strong focus on building relationships and that is something I appreciate the most. We spent most of yesterday with Tina Boogren from Solution Tree (Richard Marzano's company) working through the book, "The Highly Engaged Classroom". Tina is a fantastic speaker and educator who has something to share with teachers from all content areas and all grade levels. I really enjoyed learning some new strategies on how to "hook" students and then keep them engaged in the learning process.

This morning, several of the other Curriculum Directors presented on the idea of Multiculturalism in Education. They worked through about 3 hours of information, sharing strategies for building community in a diverse classroom throughout. The most interesting to me was Bafa' Bafa', a simulation in which learners engage in role play as people from different countries. This simulation really magnifies the cultural clues and hidden meanings that exist within different cultures. It's quite enlightening and I recommend it highly! (Good Lord! I just realized I've linked to the site for purchasing the program. Expensive, but worth it.)

Finally, this afternoon, we were able to work as content areas and Tiffany Neill brought some great inquiry lessons to us. Not only did we do some inquiry, we spent time taking it to the next level and thinking about what everyone else did with the data we gathered. Everyone collected data (a skill on which every student needs to work) and then we were told to create a representation of the entire class set of data to share. 4 different groups = 4 different representations. We spent time going around looking at what each thing represented (or at least what we thought it represented) and giving a critique, as well.

Here's where things got interesting. Groups went back and read what had been said for a critique and had the chance reflect/modify or to defend what they had done. This part of the process is SO important! We have to work on more opportunities to give students the chance to take a stand and argue their point. It is almost like debate. They present evidence to support their position. This is the next level of learning; it is beyond the content and takes students to a higher level of thinking and a deeper level of understanding. This is where the Common Core will take us: increased rigor at a deeper level. Remember the Sunday School song "Deep and Wide?" That is not the Common Core, its only deep, not wide.

Tomorrow, we will finish up our content time and then work together as groups for Regional Conferences. I'm interested to see exactly what that Regional Conference is going to look like. I'm definitely learning something everyday. I might even be beginning to wrap my brain around bits of this job.

27 July 2011

new beginnings

This has been a week of transition. I have accepted the position of Science Curriculum Coordinator for the Oklahoma State Department of Education. I've said for a long time that teaching physics at Putnam City High School was the last job I would ever want, meaning it is literally the last job I ever wanted to have. However, sometimes opportunities present themselves and you feel like you cannot pass them by (lest they do not return!)

In my next to last Master's class, I was working with a group of people and one of them said, "You know that the Science Curriculum Director position is open? You would be awesome at that, you should apply!" I said, "No, I didn't know that. I'm not sure that's something I would want to do. I mean, I'd have to leave my classroom!" So I went down home that evening after class and talked to @mishelleyb and we decided that the only way I would know if I wanted to do that job was to apply and interview. So, in April I applied. Knowing how little experience teaching I have had, I did not think I had any chance at even interviewing for the job. Honestly, once I applied, I totally forgot about it.

I moved forward with the State Teacher of the Year application and focused on teaching to the best of my ability. I didn't give Science Director another thought. As we were on our way to Philadelphia for the International Society of Technology in Education Conference, I received a phone call from the Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum about presenting at a conference in Oklahoma City. In the course of that conversation she mentioned my application and assured me that I would be called for an interview. This was completely out of left field as I was so nervous about making the finals for State TOY. At that time, I was informed that there might come a time when I would have to choose between TOY and Science Director. Uh, can you say no-brainer? TOY is a big honor. In fact, for me, its been huge. However, to be able to influence teachers beyond my district and to be able to affect change in science education versus being a spokeperson for the vocation of teaching? Yeah, not really a difficult decision.

What was a difficult decision was leaving my classroom. It was incredibly hard to think about leaving my students to be taught physics by someone else. However, knowing I would have some influence on that teacher and others who teach science across the State of Oklahoma helped make this much less difficult. In the course of the interview I learned that a significant part of this job is focused on teaching teachers, e.g. conducting professional development. This is something about which I am passionate. In fact, I'm as passionate about that as I am about teaching physics and earth science, so how could I say if they offered?

To make a long story short, I interviewed for the job last week and they offered the position to me on Monday and I have accepted.

I start next Monday and I believe I am going to hit the ground running. We are conducting Master Teacher Academy 3 days of next week and then I am going to a workshop to begin assisting in the process of developing a STEM plan for the State of Oklahoma. I mean, really? That's the kind of responsibility I have now? Oh, my. What have I gotten myself into? I've certainly moving out of my comfort zone. It feels like starting over in teaching. I feel like I'm about to start my first year again.

I do know this, I am going into an office in which there are other Directors who are experienced and are excited about me coming to work with them. We are moving towards the Common Core and we have already re-done our science standards and I'll be helping to implement those. The team I am going to work with is awesome from what I hear.

I'll be continuing this blog in its current format. I'm continuing my education and this will simply be a place to share what I am doing in my teaching (I'm still adjuncting 3 classes for SNU) and my learning (I am beginning to understand just how much I don't know). If you enjoy reading, I hope you will continue to do so.

13 July 2011

the common core - my thoughts

The last few days have found me researching the Common Core. I am about to attend my final class for my Master's program and I had to do a research paper for class. I was allowed to choose the topic, as long as it related to education administration in some way. I decided early on in the class I would do my paper on Merit Pay. I'm the only student in the class with no aspirations of being a principal. I would like to move into Curriculum Administration one of these days and I felt Merit Pay might be something I would have to deal with at some point. However, for reasons I might get to here in the next several months, I decided to change my topic to The Common Core.

Most of what I have seen about the Common Core Standards has been negative. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I am vehemently in support of the Standards now that I have done some research and read them myself. Critics say teachers had no part in writing the current standards (so far, only English/Language Arts and Mathematics). All I can say to that is the Common Core Standards Initiative rebuts that with some very well written standards. As a professional educator, I recognize a well-written objective/guideline/standard when I see it and that's what I see when I read this and this.

Others say the standards amount to a national curriculum. Teachers who buy into that rhetoric are a big part of the problem with today's educational system. If you can't recognize the difference between being told what students need to know and what you can teach to students, you might talk to your district about some professional development. It should be something akin to your Methods Class from your undergraduate degree because that's where you should have learned to distinguish between objectives/standards and curriculum.

Rigor. That's what I got when I read the Standards. When I read them I thought about problem-solving, persistence, analysis, pattern-recognition, evaluation, and application. Students who meet these Standards will be able to not only find information, but use that information in an unfamiliar situation. If you memorize how to solve a puzzle, are you really problem-solving? No! You have to be able to take what you have learned and apply that to another, new situation. Sounds a lot like the upper levels of Bloom's Taxonomy to me.

Here's a piece of advice, before you start thinking or speaking negatively about this, go read them yourself. Don't believe what you hear or read. Not even what I've said here! If you are reading this, you are likely a trained education professional. Go read the Standards, think critically about them, evaluate whether or not they can be useful to changing the face of American Education and make your own decision. Just because I like them doesn't mean you have to.

However, know that the Common Core Standards are likely coming to a state near you. Depending on what you read, somewhere between 37 and 48 states have adopted the Standards or are beginning the process of adoption. Why not embrace them and find a way to be successful within that framework? You can whine and moan about it all you want, but at some point you have to ask yourself, how can I learn to be happy about this? Because it is coming!