Category Archives: Student Access

Posted on

Some of the Messy Parts of learning – Or What We Did After Testing

ground.bmp Diatoms, 3500x magnification, taken with scanning electron microscope, University of Nevada, Reno – by John Kevin McCormack

When I was first exposed to the idea of having students do project work, I remember the presenters saying that it was the process that was important, not the product. I agree, the process is huge to what students get from learning through doing. It’s so huge that your plan for the project can’t hold, can’t hope to preconceive all the kinds of learning that will happen. In fact when you get to the end of a project the more learning that happened in ways you didn’t expect the more jazzed and fulfilled the students and you are. I call it “The Glow.” When you step back from doing or making something that comes out particularly well and you are beaming and can feel your face kind of heat up – that’s “The Glow.”

I’ve found that educators that embrace project-based, problem-based learning the first time they see it – get it because they see the learning and the implications for learning right away. Those that have to be sold repeatedly on its merits don’t see all the pieces without a guide.

To make our recent science video (Stickleback Fossils) there were many, many pieces.

How much background information about fossils do you teach directly, and how much do you leave for discovery? I would much rather students discover, but discovery often takes more time, and time was not what we had. It took seven months to make our video according to the calendar, but that was because we were “On-hold” much of the time to do the “mandatory” pieces we are required to do. Thankfully we do seem to be moving away slightly from the reading groups and math groups all-the-time approach, so next year I’m hoping to get to project work on a more consistent basis. So we did some intense book learning for several days about the “Who, what, where, when, and why,” of fossils.

Next we brainstormed and discussed what the important parts that should be in our video if the goal was that it teach others about fossils, but also specifically about the fossils we found. After that we broke down our thinking into 7 scenes that needed to be produced, and brainstormed ideas as individuals, groups and whole class on what each scene could look like – I do this because students seem to buy into the project better if they have a “feel” for how the whole thing will look AND it exposes them to thinking about what they are supposed to be learning about in one more way – and it gives you another chance as a teacher to observe and fill-in, correct and expand on student thinking and understanding of the content.

I randomly assigned each group of students in class a scene and gave them the class brainstorm on chart paper. They can choose to use one of the ideas the class came up with or come up with a new idea if they’d like to – what I find is they usually use one of the ideas or tweak one of the ideas already generated. Now they do the research, storyboarding, script writing, prop gathering and making, location scouting and everything else required for their scene. While this is happening I wander around the room observing and listening and answering questions and clarifying and keeping a few on track. In a case like this where we had to fast-track things a bit I did jump in more than I like to and helped some groups pick suitable materials for making something instead of having them do the trial and error part – which is too bad – that’s one of the great messy parts of this kind of learning.

Now I want to come back to my first sentence about the process being important and not the product. I’m going to disagree with that statement. The process is very important and can be worthwhile learning on its own. But to me the quality of the final product, the polish, the struggle to get the product as close to its highest potential as possible is also very important. What message are we giving to students if their process is great but we always walk away with an attitude that teaches that the product would have been great, but we don’t have the time to get it there. I disagree – lots of times getting there finds the problems and is the greatest challenge to overcome. The sound on our video is sub-par. We knew it and I would have loved to have the students help figure out how to get it more consistent. We tweaked it well enough in the short time we had (we recorded over half the voiceovers the last three days of school). The transitions between scenes aren’t terrible, but they could be better. If my students were back this week we would be looking at those things and figuring them out. Isn’t that “Real World” production? That’s polish and making something as good as it can be, or as good as it can be with your current resources and knowledge and it’s a step I believe we too often leave out.

In the end though I believe the students met their major goal of producing a video that would become a resource for them and others around the world to learn about fossils and geologic processes. Watch it and let me know what you think.

Learning is messy!

Posted on

So As Parents and Educators We Monitor and Teach Ethical, Appropriate, Safe Use

The following was written in response to Will Richardson’s request for a message to parents about safe and appropriate technology use:

Paper and pencils can be used to draw inappropriate, hate filled, pictures messages and ideas – and you could poke someone’s eye out. They could even be used to lure your child into a dangerous situation. Should we (and could we if we tried?) cut off access to keep our children safe? No, because they are everywhere and too valuable in so many ways, so as parents and educators we monitor and teach ethical, appropriate, safe use.

Over 200,000 children are injured using playground equipment each year, some are killed. Should we (and could we if we tried?) cut access to playground equipment to keep our children safe? No, because they’re eventually going to find play equipment and playing is too valuable an experience, so as parents and educators we monitor and teach ethical, appropriate, safe use.

50,000 people die or are injured in swimming accidents each year. Should we (and could we if we tried?) cut access to swimming to keep our children safe? No, because pools and lakes and ponds are everywhere and it would be dangerous if they fell in and it is too valuable and healthy a skill, so as parents and educators we monitor and teach ethical, appropriate, safe use.

30,000 people are killed and thousands more injured in auto crashes each year. Should we (and could we if we tried?) cut access to cars and driving to keep our children safe? No, cars are everywhere and driving is too valuable, so as parents and educators we monitor and teach ethical, appropriate, safe use.

Phones are used for criminal activities, even luring kids away from home. Should we (and could we if we tried?) cut off access to phones to keep our children safe? No, phones are everywhere and they are too valuable, so as parents and educators we monitor and teach ethical, appropriate, safe use.

There are some churches and religions out there that don’t have the same beliefs as yours – and some even preach ideas that you would consider blasphemous and hateful. Should we (and could we if we tried?) cut off access to religion to keep our children safe? No, religion is everywhere and it is too valuable, so as parents and educators we monitor and teach ethical, appropriate, safe use.

There are applications of technology that can expose your child to inappropriate, hate filled, pictures, messages and ideas. Technology and the internet are everywhere. Do we cut off access? (and could we if we tried?) Or are these applications too valuable? As parents and educators maybe it would be better if we monitor and teach ethical, appropriate, safe use.

Otherwise who will teach them about these things and where will they learn about them?

Learning is messy!

Posted on

Stickleback Fossil Video

sticklebackfossil1.jpeg

My class finished our latest video project on the last day of school (Wednesday). We were under such a time crunch that groups were literally doing voiceover work the last day as we also moved my stuff to the room I’ll be in next year. We started the project in November, so I guess you could say it took seven months to do – but actual class time was probably 3 weeks of 1 to 2 hours each day.

I like the entire class to be involved in projects like this and one way to do that is to divide the video up into the different scenes that are required and then assign each group in your class a different scene they are responsible for – like doing a “jigsaw” activity. This way each group “specializes” in their scene, but when the whole thing comes together everyone learns from everyone else’s pieces. We all see each others’ parts many times to critique or check for word pronouciation (over half my students speak another language so word pronounciation is difficult and practiced a ton)  so we really learn the content material well.

A little background information:

The stickleback fish fossils we found are 9 to 15 million years old – we took 90 students on the trip and every student found multiple fossils (some students had 15 or 20 and we only “fished” for the fossils for a little over an hour). We researched on the net and asked questions and got permission to use photos from experts at Stanford, the Universities of Wisconsin – Whitewater and Nevada – Reno. Watch for the cool props students made from plaster, clay, fish bones and other materials.

I’ll discuss the “Messy” and not so messy parts of this project in future posts and why this is important work for students to be involved in. They worked hard and were really impressed that their work won’t just be thrown away or sit in a drawer somewhere, but will be available for people all over the world to see and learn from. What an exciting time we live in.

Learning is messy!

Posted on

A “Must Read” – The Class of 2015

You must check out the post The Class of 2015 on Mark Ahlness’s edtechblog. He has his third graders’ blog postings about the reality of not having their blogs to write to once they leave his classroom. Have a hanky handy. Too bad Will didn’t have this for his presentation to 49 superintendents.
Learning is messy!

Posted on

An Education Summit Meeting For Change!!!

Possibly the most recurring theme that makes the rounds of the edbloggosphere is why the nation, states, school districts, schools and teachers have not been more open to change. Change in how schools do school, embrace technology and project-based, problem-based learning among other possibilities. Is it because things are going so well?

Doug over at Borderland picked up on a post by Clarence Fisher about a “grid” that would apply to classroom change. I threw in my response and Doug replied, but the gem is Marco Polo’s reply. I think he frames the issue magnificently:

a) you have to get agreement or consensus from so many different people, and b) so many of those people never meet or talk to each other.

And

The changes suggested may make perfect pedagogic and psychological sense, but be rejected because parents, teachers and other stakeholders are concerned that the changes may make the school appear “wacky”, and therefore seriously impact the employment chances of students who attend.

I know business people that feel things need to change – as well as some parents, administrators, teachers and obviously the edtech “gurus” who are also spreading that notion ad naseum, – but when does that diverse group ever get together and hash this out? We should probably add some enlightened politicos (is that an oxymoron?) in the mix too. Did I leave an important group out? Students – DUH! Anyone else?

So we’re talking about an Education Summit Meeting for Change! Any ideas? How do we pull this off? I might even talk my wife into letting me pay my way to something like this!

OK – so who’s going to organize and invite and make this happen? I would … but … umm … my plate is full this summer. But I’ll be there, promise! (Was that too obvious a dodge?)

Learning, AND CHANGE, are messy! Too messy?

Posted on

CELL-EXLL, SFA, GLAD Are Too Much and Not Enough

Since a few years before NCLB really raised it’s head, standardized testing was already a fact of life for “Title 1” schools (law for “Improving The Academic Achievement Of The Disadvantaged”) and we started to have mandatory “Research-based literacy programs” thrown at us. In my area the big programs have been CELL/ExLL (Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning and Extended Literacy Learning), SFA (Success for All), and GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design)

These programs focus on literacy and English language skills for students that are behind. One positive outcome of how these programs were implemented was that a lot of money and time were spent to train teachers in implementing and utilizing them. Training models included 5 or more days of initial training, ongoing observation in classrooms where the program had already been implemented, and ongoing peer coaching/mentoring. Before, whenever we were given a new program to implement we were given fly-by-night training and support and then to everyone’s surprise the new program failed to live up to its lofty expectations – not the case with these programs – time and money were invested heavily.

So have our test scores gone up as a result? At first yes, but they have not even remotely kept pace with NCLB’s requirements with too few exceptions. Schools, teachers and students have worked hard, the programs were implemented well overall, but we have hit somewhat of a wall as far as raising test scores (and note I’m not even questioning here whether test scores and especially the kind of test scores we are pursuing are the end all we should be held accountable for anyhow).

So why have these programs and the hard work put into them failed to be the savior of our schools? For lots of reasons, and I’m not going to suggest I know all the reasons – but I will suggest what I feel are some of the most telling and worrisome ones.

Number one is that the way teachers are trained to implement these programs makes them WAY too time consuming. Teaching kids to be literate has to be a top priority for sure, but these programs take up the entire day to the exclusion of REAL science and social studies and art and the list goes on. Proponents of these programs will argue that you “integrate” those subjects into the program. Students read about those subjects as the reading material students use to learn to reflect on and write about and discuss – and by reciting poetry and shared reading and looking at pictures of those subjects students learn the science and social studies and whatever. I agree, to a small degree. Integrating those subjects into the literacy program makes nothing but sense – unfortunately it is not close to enough.

For reading and learning to really be accessible and meaningful students have to possess the schema necessary to make sense of what they read and learn about. In my experience, and in my opinion students need real experience like that gleaned from field trips, experiments, projects, art, sports programs, recess and PE – the very things programs like those mentioned above often cut from the curriculum (none of these programs cut these vital pieces by design – it just usually happens – although many Success For All schools either completely cut field trips or schedule one or two a year because of how the program works). The program designers would say you can still do those things – hence the problem. During my own training in these programs I would raise my hand and bring up that we had just seen a “typical” day’s schedule that a model teacher presented and I didn’t see REAL projects and other hands-on minds-on pieces. And every time – every single time the answer was the same – “Oh…you can or could do those things.” NOTE – not you SHOULD do them – you COULD do them. And every single example they presented NEVER included any active learning project, art, etc. – so the message given and received – NOT IMPORTANT!

My point here is that THOSE SCHEMA MAKING PIECES ARE AS IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY A PART OF LEARNING TO READ AND LEARN AS ANY THERE ARE because without them you might as well be reading word lists instead of a book. How long would you last reading a list of words the length of a book?

Learning to read without having those experiences is like learning to fish in your swimming pool – you can cast and bait your hook and reel in a lure and row a rubber raft around a little and maybe even fall in (not that that has happened to me mind you…) but you don’t really catch fish and you don’t spend time in a natural setting or deal with weather or rough water or smelly bait or catching a bunch of fish or none or any other actual aspects of fishing – good, bad or otherwise. In other words you totally miss out on the experience. Too many of the students that attend schools that use these programs have already missed the experience, that’s a big part of why they are behind – they need the experience to make meaning and to get excited about what they read and write about.

Again, these programs are solid programs, I’m not questioning their merits. It’s just that they are not enough and the way they are used now they take ALL the time necessary to get to the hands-on experiences. Not totally on purpose, but that’s what happens. They would be stronger programs if they included much more room for field trips and REAL projects that might go over the scheduled time (oh my!).

Learning has to be messy!

Posted on

Uh-Oh! We Might Have Messed Up School Reform! (I Told You So)

From “Are We Fixing the Wrong Things?” By Yong Zhao, – University Distinguished Professor of Education and Director of the U.S.—China Center for Research on Educational Excellence, Michigan State University:

“Creativity—and not standardization—may be the driving force behind an effective education system.”

Just 8 years ago 2 school principals and 2 superintendents from Singapore visited my class. They sat in the back while I introduced a math lesson on sorting, data collecting and graphing M&M’s by color (AIMS activity). As the students got to work in groups of four, the visitors in the back came to their feet and started talking and pointing. Next came the video cameras and a few quick clarifying questions. 50 Minutes later the students went home and for the next 90 minutes I was barraged by questions about the observed lesson. Next they wondered how they could get their teachers to teach that way.
I stopped them at one point and told them I was a bit confused by their interest in how things were done at my school. I reminded them that just the week before their country had, for the second year in-a-row, scored the highest in the world on the TIMMS and my school was rated as “Inadequate” per our ITBS scores. Shouldn’t I be asking them questions? They laughed and explained that their students were good at testing but not at being creative. “America invents almost everything,” they explained, “all we’re good at is taking those ideas and making them cheaper. We want our students to invent and create like that.”

That’s why this section of Yong’s article smacked me in the face:

“Whereas U.S. schools are now encouraged, even forced, to chase after test scores, China, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan—all named as major competitors—have started education reforms aimed at fostering more creativity and innovative thinking among their citizens. China, for example, has taken drastic measures to reform its curriculum. As the United States raised the status of standardized testing to a record high in 2001 with No Child Left Behind, the Chinese Ministry of Education issued an executive order to significantly minimize the consequences of testing (2002). As the United States pushes for more centralized curriculum standards, China is abandoning its one nation—one syllabus tradition. As the United States moves toward a required program of study for high schools, China is working hard to implement a flexible system with more electives and choices for students. As the United States calls for more homework and more study time, China has launched a battle to reduce such burdens on its students.”

And this:

Sim Wong Hoo, founder and CEO of Singapore-based Creative Technology, pointed out this very fact.

“The advantage is we come from a very conscientious culture. You tell our people what to do, they’ll follow the rules, they’ll do it. The downside is they are not as creative. We fixed that by having a U.S.-based R&D team that’s doing more advanced research.” (Levy, 2005)

I mean is this the best example (or worst, depending on how you look at it) of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence? While the decision makers here suffer horrendous test score envy, the countries we are the most envious of are trying their best to be us. Who’s winning? Certainly not our students.

There are several other articles available on Challenging The Status Quo on the ASCD web site.
I guess we were right: Learning should be messy!

Posted on

Can Computers Help Schools?

Jay Mathews, Washington Post Education Reporter, delves into the topic Can Computers Help Schools? Mr. Mathews immediately shows his lack of background in educational technology or best practice use of technology when states:

“School districts have embraced the computer age with the fervor of a mother welcoming a new baby. I don’t want to seem like a wet blanket by pointing out there isn’t much data yet showing these new machines and software are helping more kids learn.”

Hmmm … it seems to me that schools and home schoolers invest a lot of money in many tools to help students access learning. Where is the data that shows that pencils or paper help kids learn? What about data showing textbooks are helping more kids learn? We spend more money on textbooks than technology – where’s the data? Is there data showing chairs and desks help kids learn? Chalkboards? Whiteboards? Crayons? Rulers? Compasses? Paint? Blocks? Playground equipment? Copy Machines? … No data? … Then no important learning happened. (Don’t I remember something about not everything important gets tested?)

And then he states:

“In the classes I visit, plenty of students are working on computers. I am happy they are mastering the essential tools of modern life. But I wish there were more evidence that those hours tapping keyboards are making them better at reading, writing and math.”

So students shouldn’t be “…mastering the essential tools of modern life…”? They’re essential tools, but essential tools aren’t important enough to spend time or money on in school? How did teaching handwriting (an essential skill at one time) make students better at reading and math? Any data? What “more evidence” are we talking about here? Could it be standardized test results again?

Why is it that some seem to believe that project based learning and utilizing technology as a tool to get at and enhance learning is antithetical to teaching reading, writing and math? (Echoes of if you’re against the war you don’t support the troops disconnect).

Don’t you love it when people say they’ve “visited classrooms” and that has led them to some great understanding of everything going on there? Like kids are widgets that are all essentially the same and learn the same and have the same issues and that walking through or checking test results gives a clear picture of what’s going on?

Mr. Mathews and way too many others don’t get it that one of the biggest reasons students are behind in reading is because of their lack of understanding of the world around them and the people and events around them. Most of my own students have their phonics and word attack skills down. What makes reading difficult for them is it is boring to read and near impossible to get meaning from what you read when you don’t understand the significance or humor or horror or sadness or history or science behind what you read. And we don’t test the subjects that build that schema and vocabulary the best – science, social studies, art, PE, projects, field trips, in fact we cut them out of the curriculum to push the “basics” for the very students that need them the most (thanks NCLB).

Mr. Mathews is correct – reading, writing and math are essential skills that most students need to master at a certain level to be successful. However there are other skills, competencies and experiences that are both part of mastering those subjects and part of the basic “toolkit” of knowledge we each need to make sense and enjoy and understand life. Besides having strong programs in reading, writing and math, students also require and deserve to have strong programs in the other essential skills of life – you can’t have one without the other.

Learning is messy!

Posted on

Legislate Or Educate?

In response to the Deleting Online Predators Act, or DOPA legislation being considered by congress and that is burning up the edublogosphere:

30,000 people are killed by in auto crashes each year and many more injured.

Air crashes kill and injure hundreds or thousands each year.

People die or are injured by the thousands in swimming accidents (50,000), and playground equipment alone causes over 200,000 injuries to children each year.

What would those statistics be like if we did no training on safe use of cars, planes, swimming, guns, playground equipment and everything else we receive safety training on?

Why do we even still allow people to drive? 200,000 playground injuries a year is almost 4 times the number of students in my district’s 93 schools. So why do we not cut student access to playground equipment? The equipment at my school is also considered a city park available 24/7/365. The reason we don’t cut access to these resources is because they are deemed too valuable to give up even though people are killed and injured by them. Without training these statistics would go off the charts. To keep our kids as safe as possible we teach them how to cross the street but that doesn’t guarantee they won’t get hit by a car.

The reason this DOPA legislation has a chance is that so few people and so few teachers understand the value of these technology resources or even know what they are so they might not put up a fight. Otherwise we would be reaping the benefit of receiving more money to offer students an education in proper and ethical use of valuable educational resources instead of blocking something that people wonder “What do you even do with that kind of technology that’s valuable educationally? I don’t perceive value, but I see evil, so yes let’s block it to protect our kids. Umm… excuse me for a moment while I call my kids home from the park. Or maybe I should run down and pick them up in the car.”

Posted on

Being Different Is A Solution, Not A Problem!

Beingdifferent.JPEG

Another example of our “Messy” learning. Being Different Is A Solution, Not A Problem! is a 60 second Public Service Announcement we made for our local PBS station KNPB.

Each group of four students designed a scene in the video after we brainstormed ideas as a class. The ending scene we designed as a whole class. We had Being Different Isn’t A Problem! as our working title, but several students voiced an opinion that it “didn’t sound right.” We spent almost 45 minutes haggling over ideas until one student … a usually quiet, shy student raised their hand and suggested the title we used. It was an amazing moment. He gave his suggestion, I wrote it on the board, the class read and re-read it to themselves and the haggling was over.

5 minutes later I was climbing a ladder onto the roof as they wrote the title in colored chalk on the playground. They love that down angle shot – they put it in every video they design (see the Don’t Laugh At Me video) – I think they also like seeing me struggle with the ladder and climb up there (since they’re not allowed to climb on the roof). 3 takes later we were ready to edit our final draft.

Learning is Messy!