Integrated Studies: You Mean It's All One World?

I find many aspects of the Edutopia article "Schools That Work: Mixing Art + Politics - Integrated Studies in High School", to be breathtakingly simple but important in contemporary pedagogy.

First, I truly love to be reminded of the notion that subject areas are not separate in any way. I remember stumbling upon this thought as a high school student, and it making a world of difference in my studies. Seeing the real connections between French class, geography, and history made these topics suddenly come alive. Why then do we as high school teachers so often separate and divide our subject areas as if they did not influence and contribute to the same world?

I am inspired by the (sparring) use of technology to combine two seemingly dissimilar topics such as Government and Art. The collaboration between classes obviously took some time and effort by the teachers, but it obviously paid off. This sort of collaboration is often stressed by many as one of the most important skills of the future, and yet how often do we set the boundary of learning at our own subject or classroom?

While I often champion the subject I teach (English) to be beyond a hard and clear curriculum, I know that over the years, the focus of my class has often retreated into an insulated, safe-harbor of activity. Instead of blogging this afternoon, I think I’ll go try to convince a colleague in another subject area to collaborate next semester.

A Worthwhile Reminder: Practice Professionalism Always

I was recently reading an article in the "Globe and Mail" entitled "Ontario teachers told not to ‘friend’ or follow students on Twitter". Two things strike me immediately about this article and its message.

First, although this is only a single, short article regarding the use of Twitter in education I feel it is a significant reminder for all teachers. In the article professional educators are reminded that despite the genuine excitement concerning new learning opportunities via technologies such as Twitter and other social networking sites, teachers are always responsible for their conduct in all spheres of life. The "power" of such technologies are that they allow learning beyond the traditional means of a classroom, but with that expansion come the possible entrance into a teacher's private life. I appreciate that a number of my colleagues use tools such as Facebook to build understanding and community with their students, but with these types of media carry inherent risks that ought to be considered. Risks I do not wish to entertain.

The second thought that leaps to my mind in reading this article is, "What does MY union say about the matter?" With no specific update to our teacher's code of conduct regarding these media, I get the sense that we teachers are being left to make the judgment of risk for ourselves. Certainly teachers in my district are held to high standards of (traditional) professional conduct, but can teacher really be expected to simply make the best decision for themselves without guidance from our professional bodies? Given the large demographic of teachers on my staff that would classify as "digital immigrants" (Prensky), this seems like a bit of a risky assumption. For mine and everyone's sake at the conclusion of this post, I'll be emailing my union rep.

Type to you later.

RUT2T? (Are You Teaching To Text?)

I know the following statement might ostracize me permanently from the English department, but “I Britt Hainstock, teacher of the sacred English language, do solemnly believe that text messaging, or 'txting', is a legitimate form of writing”. Now wait dear reader, stop! Before you too throw your beloved “Heath’s Anthology of Literature” at the computer screen in disgust, hear me out!

Within my poetry unit I’ve taught (as perhaps you have too) the study and writing of haiku amongst other forms for many years at a variety of grade levels. Some students love it; three lines, count the syllables 5-7-5, short and sweet. Also within that same poetry unit I often examine the structure of sonnets. Iambic pentameter is not everyone’s cup of tea, but Shakespeare certainly make a good living off of it. And while very few friends, lovers, or coworkers converse through the form of haiku or sonnets, they are not cited as “enemies of language”, as I’ve heard one colleague mutter of txting.

Why then has txting been blacklisted from the English teacher’s cannon of proper form? It is the unconventional spellingz that puts traditionalists off? T’was the English tongue ne’er to be so transformed? Alack, alack, alack.

I think txting is just the new kid on the block and it hasn’t yet proved itself as a lasting fixture to the linguistic and literary powers that be. It may abbreviate to the point of barebones, but less we forget the wise old haiku only carries 17 syllables in total, and has endured for centuries. I would say that the prevalence of txting with the youth of today means that it will certainly be carried into our workplaces soon (if not already).

Confession time; I don’t actually txt. The whole thing is a bit strange and frightening to me too, given that I’m losing ground on the number of abbreviations being absorbed into popular culture. But seriously, I’m also not losing sleep over not being in the loop either. We don’t all have to love txting, just as we don’t all have to love foreign films.

If educators or parents are genuinely concerned about the prevalence of txting in young people’s lives and the deterioration of society, start doing it. Nothing will kill a fad (if it really is one) like having it adopted by middle-aged people.

JKJK CUL8R

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