METS Review: Support The Thinking Class

Imagine a choir that only practices one song. One song all year, one song every class, one song every concert. Would that choir master that one song? You’d better hope so. Would they learn much more than that one song? Not likely.

That’s what I like about the objectives set out in the Michigan's METS document. The outcomes target areas such as “Communication and Collaboration”, “Technology Operations and Concepts” and “Digital Citizenship”, to name a few, in lieu of software specific objectives. While some application brands are named in the document, the plurality of technologies and the ability to apply one of many is stressed over the mastery of a singular tool. Higher level thinking skills are stressed over isolated tasks.

Another systemic feature that I appreciate is the boldness in focusing on core thinking skills. Seeing categories such as “Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making” and “Learning and Innovation Skills” delights me to see in a government document that actually embraces the idea of teaching thinking over fact retention.

This embrace of the changing nature of information is in my mind critical to free teachers from curricula that are potentially increasingly irrelevant. I was talking with a few of my students this morning about how I regret the fact that I no longer teach Social Studies. The students rolled their eyes (nearly in unison) and asked how could I possibly miss making my students color maps and memorize capitals, as they showed me their course work. It got my blood boiling just looking at the mundane tasks one of my colleagues assigned at a grade 10 level. This is an example of an anti-thinking class!

I am optimistic and excited about documents such as METS because they are applicable to any content area and identify essential skills for students to learn for their futures in the information age. We don’t need to educate students in the mastery of a singular song. We don’t need to educate students for a future in busy work. We need to educate our students to lead a new thinking class.

Is That a Hammer in Your Hand?

Have you ever actually tried to drive a square peg through a round hole? It is not fun, easy, or ever successful. But all too often we try to pound it through, disfiguring the peg.

How often as teachers do we know there is a fit lacking between disengaged students and the traditional path through high school? And how often to we unsuccessfully try to force the student through?

We don’t need more powerful hammers; if it’s not a fit, it’s not a fit.

Thankfully Bruce Umpstead, in a recent article in Eschoolnews.com, highlights some recent initiatives undertaken by the Michigan Department of Education looking to go beyond a “hit em harder” approach and are presenting high school completion to students who have dropped out, as a different fit.

While a recent change in legislation raised the legal dropout age from sixteen to eighteen, this only appears to keep more kids in high school longer, perhaps delaying the issue. I’m skeptical whether this actually solves the fit problem or hopes to wear down the pegs more. This move also seems to increase the already present challenge faced by teachers when dealing with increased numbers of disengaged students.

A second legislative change on the books brought to the light by Umpstead is “a state takeover of the bottom five percent of struggling schools”. I’m rather certain that this threat from the top approach would do nothing to motivate students, and more likely only result in the hammers striking harder, not necessarily a better result in driving those unique pegs through.

I see the most promising work being done in the area of reshaping the traditional holes, or should I say ‘reconstructing’ them. Umpstead shows that initiatives such as Michigan’s Westwood Cyber High School pilot program present online learning opportunities that go beyond traditional classroom tasks while still maintaining academic standards. The cross-curricular projects present an educational experience more tailored to the individual, thus (in my mind) reducing the force required to drive them through.

Many students succeed in fitting through our education system’s traditional holes; some do not. Emerging technologies allow us to create more accommodating but equally valid passageways to move through. If the tools exist to make this fit, why use a hammer?

A Review of Michigan's STP 2010: Who Doesn't Like a Party?

The Michigan Department of Education is explicitly planning their future for technology in education with their State Technology Plan 2010, but they are just one agency involved in the equation. Without a clear, concise plan of who is responsible for what, plans such as these can be quickly brought down like deflated party balloons. And it’s kind of like there is a party being planned; everybody who wants to celebrate also has a role in planning the party. But this goes well beyond who’s bringing candles, and who’s bringing hats?

In my mind, the five “goals” of the document break down the clear responsibilities of each stakeholder (party-goer). These are the things each group needs to do to ensure this party is actually a hit.

Goal number one, 'Teaching for Learning', is actually the theme of the party. It’s not “Western hoe-down” or “Disney princesses”, no this party’s theme is ‘technology-aided learning experiences for the future’ (so maybe robots?). This theme is supported largely by the good people at 21st Century Skills, who could be seen as the up-scale party planning experts. Their vision will act as the blueprint for all else, and I suppose that’s why it’s the first item in the plan.

Goal number two, 'Leadership', is clearly the responsibility of the Michigan Department of Education. The MDE leads the charge, which means they will act as the host of the party. They’re sending out invites, setting the place, date, etc. What games will be played? Ask the host.

Goal number three, 'Professional Learning', falls upon the shoulders of Michigan’s educators. Guided and aided by a 21st Century Skills set of their own, teachers act as the ones directly responsible for setting up lessons, assessment and mastery (the party games), ensuring that the attendees will actually have the skill set for the games, otherwise the party is a certain bust.

Goal number four, 'School and Community Relations', outlines the responsibilities for parents, school boards, and community members. These groups will constitute the peripheral supporters, more on the sidelines than in the fun and games. Their role is outlined to not necessarily hold the skill-set of the 21st Century, but be willing and able to support those seeking it. It’s kind of like a parent who is happy their son is invited to the party, will gladly take their son to the mall and purchase something Pokemon for the birthday boy, but really has no desire for a plush Pikachu doll of their own.

Goal number five, 'Data and Information Management', seems to imply that school divisions, districts, and agencies all up the ‘chain of command’ must back the needs of educators. In the party model, it states that if the games are going to be a hit and we trust the game organizers (teachers), they need the resources (professional, financial and technology infrastructure) to make the games happen. You can’t play (a high-tech version of) pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey without a blindfold, a tack, a tail and some sort of donkey. If there’s no success in the games, there’s no reason for the celebration.

Beyond the identification of the five goals (party responsibilities), I think the host (MDE) has given a thorough support structure for each goal, explicitly bundling each goal with specific strategies, performance indicators, and action steps. It’s clear to me that the host of the party recognizes they can’t take care of all the details and they need to delegate. In drafting such a meticulous protocol, I think the MDE has smartly coordinated all its guests to contribute to the party planning and share the responsibility. It’s inclusive and may even allow the host to enjoy their own party.

The 7th Standard: Practical Steps to Get Teachers Swimming With Technology

'Experience is the teacher of all things' (Caesar)

While the parents of a wholesome, 12-year-old girl may not appreciate this sentiment in a Sex Ed class, it is widely recognized that experiential learning is most effective (Kolb, 1975).

Thankfully then, many of the ‘Technology Operations and Concepts’ found in the Standards for Michigan Teachers (2008), were planned to plunge student researchers directly into the waters of experience directly through the EDU590 course’s work, specifically the assignment entitled ‘Youtube Video Presentation’. Students were required to research strategies employing technology, plan lessons according to those strategies, implement these lessons, and reflect upon this experience; all through a variety of technological interfaces. This one assignment nearly dashes all the 7th Standard’s subtopics (A to G) in a single, deceivingly thorough assignment.

One exception to the above statement would be section B, “Successfully complete and reflect upon collaborative online learning experiences”. For this objective, the maintenance of blogs and contribution to group message boards were the platforms for 'jumping off'. Many student researchers were unaccustomed to blogging regularly and airing their thoughts for the all the world (wide web) to see, though all were successful.

While the levels of comfort and knowledge with specific technology may be quite diverse in the class, I can also appreciate that the Michigan Standards document is wise enough to be set upon an axis of development. Categories for teacher performance range, such as: Standard, Developing, Emerging, Applying, Integrating, and Innovating, which allows individuals to find access and challenge with technology in their professional practice. Professionalism is the key, underlying concept in the document, not technology. As each operation or concept is merely the use of prominent or emerging technologies to apply to one’s professional reflection and growth. It's like swimming lessons for all skill ranges, and ensures that at least everybody is in the pool.

I’ve found the objectives of this course to be precisely the challenge I have been seeking in regards to diving headlong into technology and professional development. The 7th standard for teachers in Michigan may be a bit daunting from a dry deck, but quite refreshing and invigorating once you’re immersed.

I can safely say that I’ve gotten more than my feet wet.


References:

Caesar, Gaius Julius (c. 52 BC) Commentarii de Bello Civili.

Kolb. D. A. and Fry, R. (1975) Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. in C. Cooper (ed.) Theories of Group Process, London: John Wiley

Technology in American Education: The Vehicle of Recovery

The Obama administration has a road map for the economic recovery of the United States; the Department of Education calls their section of the map the National Educational Technology Plan 2010 (NETP). In the rationale for the NETP, it is stated that the two main goals will be raise the percentage of the population holding a 2-4 post-secondary degree from 39% to 60%, and to “close the achievement gap” (both within a decade). While both goals are honorable, the former is concrete and measurable, while the latter is vague and incalculable. While the goals differ in their location on the road map, they are both conveniently located in the same direction from where the country presently sits. As the NETP urgently states; the country needs a new vehicle to get over river and through the woods.

The engine of the recovery vehicle is an educated workforce, so the document places the principle of learning first and up-front. Increased training, knowledge and expertise will overhaul the engine and leverage its core strength, increasing the total output of the machine.

But raw horsepower is not enough to win the race on its own. This recovery vehicle also needs to follow a carefully navigated course set out on the map. To this end, the Department of Education sees the practice of transparent assessment at the best guidance tool. Assessment acts like GPS, informing us whether the vehicle is really on track, or instead if we should have taken a left in Albuquerque.

Once we know that the engine is running clean and we’re on the right course, this vehicle will need to have a good pit crew. This position of advisory, support, and maintenance is identified in the NETP as the role teaching needs to play. No longer are teachers required to be fountains of knowledge, in front of their students throughout the course work. It is instead suggested that teachers need to connect students to data and guide their experience. A good pit crew knows when to flag their vehicle in for fuel and how to inspire a daring driver.

A race can be won or lost based on tires; that’s where the rubber literally meets the road. The well-designed technological infrastructure for such a high-powered vehicle is crucial to maintain the integrity of the vehicle’s journey. The Department of Education’s plan targets a goal of a one-to-one ratio of Internet access devices to students and staff, and that means a whole lot of systems, servers, and devices (not to mention the need for quick repairs). This component may be written off by some as ‘boring logistical stuff’, but if you’ve got a flat tire it doesn’t matter how hard to rev the engine, you’re not going anywhere anytime soon. Students and teachers need to have devices and access, or they are just spinning their tires.

The last component addressed on this recovery vehicle is also the most intangible. Productivity is not the addition of air-conditioning to a vehicle designed for speed. You can’t see productivity as a singular system in the vehicle. Productivity is the streamlining and synergy of essential parts and the removal of superfluous crap. President Obama’s economic recovery vehicle will not have fuzzy dice.

Is the NETP recovery vehicle totally different from the previous year’s models? I don’t think so, but that’s okay. It’s a good, clear map that illustrates the emerging route technology ought to take education in the United States. The vehicle is now assembled and pointed in the right direction. Real learning is the fuel; the race is on.

Drive or Be Driven? Jeffrey Glanz’s Action Research

I’ve got a good friend who I teach with, and we also carpool together so we end up spending a lot of time together. I really like Derrick on many levels, but in the entire five years we’ve worked and driven together, I have yet to go a single day when I don’t hear the following on the long ride home from school.

“I’m so frustrated, it’s like the kids in my class don’t want to learn. Every week it’s the same issues, same fooling around, same kids not handing in work, same headaches! I’d change things, but at the end of the day I’m too frazzled to think. It drives me mad!”

I’m sure this sort of talk would get Jeffrey Glanz’s blood boiling too; a teacher who wants things to be better, but they feel too overwhelmed to make changes in their classroom, and are unsure of what to change anyways. In his book, Action Research: An Educational Leader’s Guide to School Improvement, Glanz attempts to reclaim the notion of ‘research’ from the stereotypes of white lab coats and mad scientists for the purpose of rescuing frustrated teachers like Derrick. Glanz passionately argues for dedicated educators to take up the tool of research in order to make informed, objective decisions in their often-overwhelming field of work.

Glanz is quick and frank to dispel what he sees as the three most common misconceptions about research: that research is only for high-level academics, that research often lacks a real-world applications, and that research is too labor intensive. The process he lays out takes the name ‘action research’ and to me seems tailor-made for educators wishing to make effective changes. The cyclical process may have been criticized in the past by some as “soft science”, however I think action research borrows the essential method from (serious) science while allowing the research practitioner avoid the pitfalls of cold, clinical trials. I really think this is what makes Glanz’s theory and practice so popular with educational leaders; while the structure is scientific, the data collection need not be overly complex.

Glanz does make a clear distinction between two types of action research. A qualitative branch, based upon data of a more anecdotal or observations nature, and a quantitative branch, based upon more empirical, mathematically derived evidence. The two main branches layout a paradigm that identifies a variety of methodologies all united by the principles of a scientific evaluative process. The five-step process seems to me, simply a logical problem solving method with a strong emphasis upon reflection: Select a focus, collect data, analyze and interpret data, take action, and reflect: modify or continue.

While thankfully I do often see teachers (like Derrick) looking for new methods that will improve their classes or teaching, it is often without an objective consideration for the complex variables that mingle within their classrooms. This is probably why I find the action research method most promising; an issue is chosen by the educator to be the focus, but also observed and evaluated by them before a change is made, and reflected upon. The research practitioner is the one behind the wheel and instead of getting frazzled day after day, they move forward through the process and become a proactive driver.

Do You See What Joe Sees?

The Youtube video, Joe’s Non-Netbook, appears to be a cheeky, student-shot video that mocks the huge discrepancy between students’ preference of learning through technology and the traditional textbooks that dominate classrooms. The video appears to be an authentic, in-class joke amongst students, but the surprising element is that it's actually the teacher behind the camera, egging Joe on to explain his problem with the useless textbook. In the good old days, a good teacher would always defend a textbook as an important learning tool right? Well, meet a contemporary teacher named Chris Lehmann.

The set-up is a smart satire on the gross limitations of a traditional textbook, in which Joe cannot access the information in the ways he expects, because the learning tool he assumes is a computer (by default), is merely a book. The students’ wry jokes about the lack of hyperlinks and system preferences in a conventional textbook are supported when the camera pans to reveal all the other students learning on laptops. The video’s entire cast (and the director’s commentary) lead the viewer to believe that the most logical learning tool must be a computer, but apparently Joe’s is broken.

The further implication is that books are broken; or at least no longer the most effective way to learn. Now, plenty of educators and researchers would agree that reading about a subject is not the most effective method of building knowledge on that subject, but I would say that this video specifically targets textbooks and hits the mark. Textbooks are an outdated mode of transferring knowledge. At one point in modern history, textbooks became a portable, cost-effective medium to transfer a (then) considerable amount of information. Following this, laptop computers became produced and priced for the masses. Factor in the exponential amount of information multiplying on the Internet, and you have to laugh at the limits of conventional textbooks as compared to computers. And, viewing this video, laugh I did. I appreciate the inversion of expectations and would expect that this video would get plenty of LOLs from my students. I’m would be tempted to show this to some of my more traditional-minded colleagues, but the outcome would more likely be a series of WTFs?

Ultimately, when I return to school this coming Monday morning, I’m pretty sure I won’t ‘laugh out loud’ at the number of textbooks we use, more likely I’ll cry. Because I recognize that we are not often using the best available tools to educate our students for a future that will undoubtedly, explicitly, involve advanced forms of technology. I don’t blame books. A textbook is a tool that had its primetime and has been surpassed by a newer, more advanced tool. This paradigm may be challenging for those of us who grew up learning from, even loving books, but this is clearly the outlook of Joe and his classmates (even his teacher). After all, Joe does not recognize the object he’s holding as a book, to him it’s a non-netbook.