That implies that I think it's bad, which it isn't, but I wonder whether it is changing us or whether it's just something I like. I have had several conversations recently in which the discussion wandered around the extent to which the things that we write or think or whatever as personal reflections belong in an open place where anyone can see them.
Well, obviously, if you don't want something to be public, don't put it out there. The question that is more interesting is whether something you create for a limited purpose should be made available for a larger public purpose. And also how much of your own identity should be public. I don't like to be paranoid, and though we all know data mining is going on all around us, I am not afraid of a world in which a smart artificial intelligence is sending stuff my way that I might be interested in reading or viewing or seeing or -- horrors -- buying. Having said that I am not suggesting that everything should be public all the time and life hasn't changed completely, but on the other hand there does seem to be some movement in the direction of full disclosure that has to be having some impact on how we see each other in relation to one another.
How many profiles do you have? I just noticed today that my profile for this blog is pretty limited. There are lots of boxes I could fill with information about my likes and dislikes. I filled a lot of those boxes out for Facebook...it seemed like an amusing task...but I don't really want to do it again as that seems like a colossal waste of time. Maybe they'll add a button so I can pull my Facebook profile into my blogger profile...maybe they already have -- one of the difficulties of technology is that it is filled with procedures about which you are unaware so you are unable to utilize them. The world has not gotten any easier to navigate, really, just more connected.
Anywho, why wouldn't I want my profile out there? Ignoring the isolated serial killer for whom my profile is just the ticket...which I would assume is statistically less likely than winning the lottery several weeks in a row...I'm not really hiding from anyone, hopefully.
I like a more open world. I think that if I know who you are, and what you do, and how much you earn, and how much you spend, we will both be more likely to be more thoughtful about all of those things, which is likely to be a good thing. Well, maybe not the earning and spending part. There are limits. :) That's my bias. I don't have any evidence.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Learning is a pain in the keister!
Just finished Daniel Willingham's book, Why Students Don't Like School. I purchased it because I was expecting a exploration of how students aren't engaged by school because it's not relevant and participatory, but that was not his primary focus. What he has to say supports that idea, but it also has some interesting things to say about the importance of practice and the need to work hard to become smart. I like this. Being smart is not easy. Learning is not easy. As educators, we need to work hard to create experiences for students that make them want to learn, even though we all acknowledge that learning isn't easy. It's easier to have a beer, or a martini, or for our underage students, to play a game or hang out at the mall. It's really easy to just mark time in a classroom because, despite the fact that it feels like a waste of time, it's easier than engaging and learning...
UNLESS
...the teacher makes the learning experience something that intrigues the student without overwhelming them. His findings support differentiation and rigor. Here are his main points...
Another recent experience that resonated with these ideas came from a presentation by Scott McLeod. He had a lot to say, but one item related to why video games are so popular. His insight was that Grand Theft Auto is not popular because of its content, but rather it is popular because it is a well designed gaming experience. That is to say, it challenges the player enough to engage them while not challenging them so much that they give up. This is exactly what Willingham has to say about learning. As an aside, McLeod has some great links to educational gaming on his blog. I was particularly interested in Conspiracy Code, which offers an entire US History curriculum in a game. It may not be as interesting as Grand Theft Auto, but it probably is more effective than a traditional textbook.
UNLESS
...the teacher makes the learning experience something that intrigues the student without overwhelming them. His findings support differentiation and rigor. Here are his main points...
People are Naturally Curious, But They are Not Naturally Good Thinkers.
What is just beyond what my students know and can do?
Think of to-be-learned material as answers, and tke the time necessary to explain to students the questions.
Factual Knowledge Precedes Skill
What do my students know?
It is not possible to think well on a topic in the absence of factual knowledge about the topic.
Memory is the Residue of Thought
What will students think about during this lesson?
The best barometer for every lesson plan is, “Of what will it make the students think?”
We Understand New Things in the Context of Things We Already Know
What do students already know that will be a toehold on understanding this material?
Always make deep knowledge your goal, spoken and unspoken, but recognize that shallow knowledge will come first.
Proficiency Requires Practice
How can I get students to practice without boredom?
Think carefully about which material students need at their fingertips, and practice it over time.
Cognition is Fundamentally Different Early and Late in Training
What is the difference between my students and an expert?
Strive for deep understanding in your students, not the creation of new knowledge.
Children are More Alike than Different in Terms of Learning
Knowledge of students’ learning styles is not necessary.
Think of lesson content, not student differences, driving decisions about how we teach.
Intelligence Can be Changed Through Sustained Hard Work
What do my students believe about intelligence?
Always talk about successes and failures in terms of effort, not ability.
Teaching, Like Any Complex Cognitive Skill, Must be Practices to be Improved
What aspects of my teaching work well for my students, and what need improvement?
Improvement requires more than experience; it also requires conscious effort and feedback.
Another recent experience that resonated with these ideas came from a presentation by Scott McLeod. He had a lot to say, but one item related to why video games are so popular. His insight was that Grand Theft Auto is not popular because of its content, but rather it is popular because it is a well designed gaming experience. That is to say, it challenges the player enough to engage them while not challenging them so much that they give up. This is exactly what Willingham has to say about learning. As an aside, McLeod has some great links to educational gaming on his blog. I was particularly interested in Conspiracy Code, which offers an entire US History curriculum in a game. It may not be as interesting as Grand Theft Auto, but it probably is more effective than a traditional textbook.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
A World of False Dichotomies
The following is a seven minute rant...
I am in a workshop today related to the future of education in relation to the technology revolution and one of my tablemates is reacting negatively to the presentation because they see the ideas as being offered in opposition to traditional instruction. This reaction is largely a function of the "Yes, but..." or even "But..." without the yes mentality that we bring to so many conversations. Yes, there is a technological revolution. Yes, students have a collossal disconnect between their personal world, in which technology is largely ubiquitous, and their school world, where technology is generally absent or even oppressed (put away your electronic devices!) Yes, passive learning is bad. Yes, active learning is good.
And...
All of the learning experiences that are facilitated by technology can take place without technology. Good instruction is good instruction no matter how it takes place.
Wait, that's a bird walk.
And... Each of the ideas that are placed on the table have at their core merit that needs to be interrogated and synthesized in a meaningful way into a coherent whole that provides meaningful experiences for students. Technology -- Yes. Collaboration -- Yes. Teacher Independence -- Yes. Unified Standards -- Yes. Student Freedom -- Yes. Student Accountability -- Yes. Etc. Etc. Etc. Yes. Integrate the new and the old. You can't reject something unless you Grok it in the first place.
I am in a workshop today related to the future of education in relation to the technology revolution and one of my tablemates is reacting negatively to the presentation because they see the ideas as being offered in opposition to traditional instruction. This reaction is largely a function of the "Yes, but..." or even "But..." without the yes mentality that we bring to so many conversations. Yes, there is a technological revolution. Yes, students have a collossal disconnect between their personal world, in which technology is largely ubiquitous, and their school world, where technology is generally absent or even oppressed (put away your electronic devices!) Yes, passive learning is bad. Yes, active learning is good.
And...
All of the learning experiences that are facilitated by technology can take place without technology. Good instruction is good instruction no matter how it takes place.
Wait, that's a bird walk.
And... Each of the ideas that are placed on the table have at their core merit that needs to be interrogated and synthesized in a meaningful way into a coherent whole that provides meaningful experiences for students. Technology -- Yes. Collaboration -- Yes. Teacher Independence -- Yes. Unified Standards -- Yes. Student Freedom -- Yes. Student Accountability -- Yes. Etc. Etc. Etc. Yes. Integrate the new and the old. You can't reject something unless you Grok it in the first place.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Content and Structure
Roseville, MN. Stardate now...
Read an essay by the Tanner man (see his new blog when it exists...name pending) about the need to create creative and revolutionary spaces around us. At the same time, I am all wound up in helping to create, plan, implement, reflect, and otherwise reproduce structure in the Roseville School District. I am a fan of structure. I create it almost instinctively. It seems to me that without structure nothing is really possible. Yet, the question that Tanner's writing begs and that I struggle with often is to what extent is structure necessarily imposed and unified from an external or standard driven construct, and to what extent does structure rise organically from the space within which it needs to be useful?
One of the beliefs that is in currency is that we are BEHIND in America in our efforts to educate our children. This belief is not without its critics, but it is a belief that drives a lot of activity which seeks to impose structure onto schools, and thus teachers, and thus students. This structure has at its core a desire to ensure that students are equipped to be successful upon arrival at their post-secondary educational setting. The imposition of structure also comes with the assumption that if students are not keeping up with the foreign competition, it must be as a result of ineffective practices in our classrooms. Teachers, it assumes, need to be provided with clear learning outcomes and appropriate instructional strategies for bringing their students to the successful acquisition of those learning outcomes. This is not an unreasonable strategy, even if one does not accept the underlying premise that we are BEHIND.
What is often lost, though, is the ability of the teacher, who in many cases is a skilled professional, and the student, who also has much to contribute, to interact in a meaningful way with these learning outcomes and instructional strategies. One truth of teaching that has always struck me as essential is that you cannot effectively teach someone else's lesson. The process of articulating outcomes and designing engaging activities to match those outcomes allows the educator to fully engage the meaning of the outcomes in such a way as to ensure that they can communicate with students effectively. How much more effective is it if the student can also interact meaningfully with the outcomes and assist in the design of their learning activities so that they also understand and engage the purpose of the learning?
The rub in this is that in order for the student to engage the educational outcomes (read STANDARDS) in a meaningful way, they need to have some latitude around how they understand them and in what they do to learn and demonstrate learning. This is considerably more anarchy and revolution than the system seems inclined to find comforting, not to mention the fact that educators are generally not equipped for that level of student involvement in the first place. Of particular difficulty is the fact that to truly engage students in a meaningful learning process takes a lot of time, time that we have eliminated by the dissection of the student day into small, content-driven units filled with STANDARDS that take considerably more time than is already available within those time chunks.
It would seem that efforts to explore this problem differently are generally believed to have failed (as in the Open School model of the 1970s) but there are current examples of how it can work (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yie4q8LscBs).
Tanner is developing a model for creating the space within which the collaborative of teacher/student/standard could take place. The trick is to figure out the school model within which that classroom model could work.
Read an essay by the Tanner man (see his new blog when it exists...name pending) about the need to create creative and revolutionary spaces around us. At the same time, I am all wound up in helping to create, plan, implement, reflect, and otherwise reproduce structure in the Roseville School District. I am a fan of structure. I create it almost instinctively. It seems to me that without structure nothing is really possible. Yet, the question that Tanner's writing begs and that I struggle with often is to what extent is structure necessarily imposed and unified from an external or standard driven construct, and to what extent does structure rise organically from the space within which it needs to be useful?
One of the beliefs that is in currency is that we are BEHIND in America in our efforts to educate our children. This belief is not without its critics, but it is a belief that drives a lot of activity which seeks to impose structure onto schools, and thus teachers, and thus students. This structure has at its core a desire to ensure that students are equipped to be successful upon arrival at their post-secondary educational setting. The imposition of structure also comes with the assumption that if students are not keeping up with the foreign competition, it must be as a result of ineffective practices in our classrooms. Teachers, it assumes, need to be provided with clear learning outcomes and appropriate instructional strategies for bringing their students to the successful acquisition of those learning outcomes. This is not an unreasonable strategy, even if one does not accept the underlying premise that we are BEHIND.
What is often lost, though, is the ability of the teacher, who in many cases is a skilled professional, and the student, who also has much to contribute, to interact in a meaningful way with these learning outcomes and instructional strategies. One truth of teaching that has always struck me as essential is that you cannot effectively teach someone else's lesson. The process of articulating outcomes and designing engaging activities to match those outcomes allows the educator to fully engage the meaning of the outcomes in such a way as to ensure that they can communicate with students effectively. How much more effective is it if the student can also interact meaningfully with the outcomes and assist in the design of their learning activities so that they also understand and engage the purpose of the learning?
The rub in this is that in order for the student to engage the educational outcomes (read STANDARDS) in a meaningful way, they need to have some latitude around how they understand them and in what they do to learn and demonstrate learning. This is considerably more anarchy and revolution than the system seems inclined to find comforting, not to mention the fact that educators are generally not equipped for that level of student involvement in the first place. Of particular difficulty is the fact that to truly engage students in a meaningful learning process takes a lot of time, time that we have eliminated by the dissection of the student day into small, content-driven units filled with STANDARDS that take considerably more time than is already available within those time chunks.
It would seem that efforts to explore this problem differently are generally believed to have failed (as in the Open School model of the 1970s) but there are current examples of how it can work (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yie4q8LscBs).
Tanner is developing a model for creating the space within which the collaborative of teacher/student/standard could take place. The trick is to figure out the school model within which that classroom model could work.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
It's a big 'ol mess for sure...
Education is, I mean.
The latest and greatest lingo war for the education world is around COLLEGE READINESS and TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SKILLS. Which is not to say that recent conflicts around standards, assessments, accountability, collaboration, or a million other things aren't still sporting a confrontational style as well, but these are just a couple of newer labels that folks seem to be digging into.
As we all know, everyone is right and everyone is wrong. For sure.
Something about College Readiness make all of my hair stand on end...what hair I have left, anyway, which is more than some folks but less than others...and certainly less than I once had. As you age somehow the scalp beneath your hair slowly moves into greater prominence. But my hair is definitely elevated by this idea that schools primary function is to prepare students for college.
It sounds like a good thing. Yes? How could it be bad to get kids ready for college. And I certainly would like to think that my kids have the opportunity to get ready for college in school and that what they are learning is preparing them to be successful in the world at large. But what is success?
Ted Turner said that, "Life is a game. Money is how we keep score." But Jimmy John's wall observes that, "Money is not a good way to keep score." A sentiment with which I would tend to agree. Of course, it's probably not a coincidence that Ted likes keeping score with money, since he's got it...and I don't, and I don't. Regardless, we all know there is more to life than keeping score with money and there is more to college than getting a high paying job. It might be a motivator for some, but there are a lot of folks who would like to think that we've moved to a level of civilization that is more advanced than that.
So, what does COLLEGE READINESS mean? The ACT folks publish a 36 page document that lists all of the skills and knowledge that they think a student needs in their College Readiness Standards. No doubt these are good things to know and I suspect that any students who has acquired these skills will, indeed, be successful in college. Further, demonstration of having acquired these skills through compliant participation in high school courses and standardized tests will likely remove most of the roadblocks to college, regardless of ones socio-economic starting point. There is a large concern around cultural bias that might prevent one from engaging said compliant participation, but leaving that aside for now, it is hard to argue that they are WRONG about this being an indicator of success.
The conversation that this leaves out is the one that acknowledges that many gifted and able individuals are not successful either to acquire these skills or to participate in education despite having acquired the skills. Further, are we saying that people who achieve success in this particular way are more...? More what?
And how is it that there is a deep and meaningful mythology around the idea that someone could be the all American student, achieve the all American dream, and then find oneself empty and unfulfilled? From whence comes this mythology? Is it the idle fantasy of the artistically inclined (and thus the producers of much narrative art) for whom the all American path was not available? Revenge comes in debasing the dream through novel, film and drama. Or is is a real thing that has an appropriate place at the table when we discuss educational outcomes for the American Public School System. Not that the system is monolithic, but there is a core ideology in public education that gravitates toward standards and college readiness as the yardstick against which it would like to be measured.
But what do we do with Holden Caufield? Could there have been a moment in education where the individual has an opportunity to explore their own relationship to the learning experience in a way that creates meaning beyond the acquisition of skills?
Nahh.
The latest and greatest lingo war for the education world is around COLLEGE READINESS and TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SKILLS. Which is not to say that recent conflicts around standards, assessments, accountability, collaboration, or a million other things aren't still sporting a confrontational style as well, but these are just a couple of newer labels that folks seem to be digging into.
As we all know, everyone is right and everyone is wrong. For sure.
Something about College Readiness make all of my hair stand on end...what hair I have left, anyway, which is more than some folks but less than others...and certainly less than I once had. As you age somehow the scalp beneath your hair slowly moves into greater prominence. But my hair is definitely elevated by this idea that schools primary function is to prepare students for college.
It sounds like a good thing. Yes? How could it be bad to get kids ready for college. And I certainly would like to think that my kids have the opportunity to get ready for college in school and that what they are learning is preparing them to be successful in the world at large. But what is success?
Ted Turner said that, "Life is a game. Money is how we keep score." But Jimmy John's wall observes that, "Money is not a good way to keep score." A sentiment with which I would tend to agree. Of course, it's probably not a coincidence that Ted likes keeping score with money, since he's got it...and I don't, and I don't. Regardless, we all know there is more to life than keeping score with money and there is more to college than getting a high paying job. It might be a motivator for some, but there are a lot of folks who would like to think that we've moved to a level of civilization that is more advanced than that.
So, what does COLLEGE READINESS mean? The ACT folks publish a 36 page document that lists all of the skills and knowledge that they think a student needs in their College Readiness Standards. No doubt these are good things to know and I suspect that any students who has acquired these skills will, indeed, be successful in college. Further, demonstration of having acquired these skills through compliant participation in high school courses and standardized tests will likely remove most of the roadblocks to college, regardless of ones socio-economic starting point. There is a large concern around cultural bias that might prevent one from engaging said compliant participation, but leaving that aside for now, it is hard to argue that they are WRONG about this being an indicator of success.
The conversation that this leaves out is the one that acknowledges that many gifted and able individuals are not successful either to acquire these skills or to participate in education despite having acquired the skills. Further, are we saying that people who achieve success in this particular way are more...? More what?
And how is it that there is a deep and meaningful mythology around the idea that someone could be the all American student, achieve the all American dream, and then find oneself empty and unfulfilled? From whence comes this mythology? Is it the idle fantasy of the artistically inclined (and thus the producers of much narrative art) for whom the all American path was not available? Revenge comes in debasing the dream through novel, film and drama. Or is is a real thing that has an appropriate place at the table when we discuss educational outcomes for the American Public School System. Not that the system is monolithic, but there is a core ideology in public education that gravitates toward standards and college readiness as the yardstick against which it would like to be measured.
But what do we do with Holden Caufield? Could there have been a moment in education where the individual has an opportunity to explore their own relationship to the learning experience in a way that creates meaning beyond the acquisition of skills?
Nahh.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Notes from the Classroom
What happens with homework? Feedback? Evaluation?
It is amazing how many of our classrooms are homework driven. What is the homework driven classroom? Instruction assumes that student learning is happening offsite, with the classroom being a place where clarification and review takes place. In this model, the student is given a set of activities to complete on their own. What are the ethics of homework? What is the purpose? Knowing that our students experience an extraordinarily large range of contexts when they leave the school building, our expectation that their ability to engage and learn from work outside the class is guaranteed to result in increased achievement gaps and an educational context that privileges compliance over learning.
It is amazing how many of our classrooms are homework driven. What is the homework driven classroom? Instruction assumes that student learning is happening offsite, with the classroom being a place where clarification and review takes place. In this model, the student is given a set of activities to complete on their own. What are the ethics of homework? What is the purpose? Knowing that our students experience an extraordinarily large range of contexts when they leave the school building, our expectation that their ability to engage and learn from work outside the class is guaranteed to result in increased achievement gaps and an educational context that privileges compliance over learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)