EdTechTrek

Ever notice that in education, we love to wax poetic in terms of how things should be, yet when it comes to the day to day running of our classrooms, we tend to taste the realities of how it is a little more and often fall short of the very goals and ideals we give lip service to?

There have been so many challenging messages that I have been chewing on over the past months. The latest is David Perkins’ new book, Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education, has really hammered some things home for me. I am not even half way through it and I am seriously convicted. He discusses how learning is most effective and relevant when students have the opportunity to apply learning within the context of “the game” – situating learning in relevant, meaningful and authentic contexts.

Tonight in class my students were to learn about WebQuests. With a limited amount of time, I struggled with how best to approach this. A number of very good ideas came to mind, all of which would have taken a great deal more time than was available. Then I stumbled upon WebQuests about WebQuests by Bernie Dodge. After a very short overview, I decided to have my students, in groups of 4, complete a webquest of their choice listed on this page. It was almost magical to watch them engage… engage in ways not possible when I am “waxing poetic” at the front of the classroom. They managed various roles/perspectives, evaluated 5 webquests on a number of domains, compared notes and perspectives, discussed what made some webquests “better” than others, negotiated a winner and loser, and justified their positions with each other. They were deeply engaged in a high level of discourse and evaluation that I hadn’t seen before.

Then it occurred to me that they were, as David Perkins describes it, playing the game. In his book, he outlines seven principles of learning by wholes. They are:
1. Play the whole game
2. Make the game worth playing
3. Work on the hard parts
4. Play out of town.
5. Uncover the hidden game
6. Learn from the team… and other teams
7. Learn the game of learning

But there are different kinds of games. Perkins writes,

“Schools and other settings of learning ask us to do many things that aren’t all that enthralling. We feel as though we are playing the school game and not the real game.” – the whole game.

This reminded me of a sign I used to have on my office door:

I have so much more I’d like to share about Perkins’ book… and will. But we… I need to let students play the game – the whole game whenever possible. Focusing on the small components is fine and essential at times, just like getting in the batting cage. But the real excitement and passion is cultivated when the teams take to the field, the crowds are in the stands, and the pitch is thrown toward home plate. It gives practice meaning. Purpose. Relevance. Authenticity.

I don’t know about you, but I have to get my students playing the game more often… And I will.

Value Beyond School

I have been reading and re-reading some of the ideas found in the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow 2 (ACOT2) document and this idea struck me as quite relevant. In the section that discusses the concepts of authenticity and relevance, they site the work of Fred Newmann (1995) from University of Wisconsin who has defined a set of standards for Authentic Instruction, Authentic Student Performance, and Authentic Assessment Tasks which are organized into the following three areas:

-Construction of Knowledge
-Disciplined Inquiry
-Value Beyond School

To quote the section on Value Beyond School,

“The performance must have value beyond the school; that is, the work must have meaning or value that transcends the student-teacher relationship and is not simply used to rate the performance of the student for grading purposes. This value may be a result of sharing the work in a meaningful way with an audience outside the classroom. It may also have value simply because the topic and product are personally valued by the student. Or it may be that the product or task closely mirrors the kind of work done in the real world and that relationship is clearly evident to the student.”

The authors of the ACOT2 document state that of Newmann’s three areas listed above , this one has been the most difficult to realize. But with the addition of so many new publishing tools like blogs and wikis, it has become much easier to realize.

This is where I began to see things differently. The implication here is that it is the tools that bring value to student work beyond school. Granted, these new Internet-based publishing and collaborative tools make student work and thinking more accessible to a global audience, but the work of the students must still be important, relevant, and worthy of a global audience. I remember a while back when Gary Stager was criticizing (scroll down to post titled, “Mind-mapping What?”) the zeal of teachers who were putting up student-created “mind maps” generated with Inspiration. At first I reacted quite defensively, but then I began to understand what he was getting at. Students were creating “mind candy” with this potentially powerful tool. The tool’s strength lies in one’s ability to semantically map out and represent a concept or idea in detail. To produce documents that have the word apple in the middle with three adjectives stemming outward does not even come close to the potential power of this tool to make one’s thinking visible and to expose flaws or misconceptions in understanding or thinking.

The same holds true in the use of new publishing and collaborative tools like blogs and wikis. Students can share shallow thinking and contrived work or share valuable, meaningful, relevant and powerful ideas. The tools used to publish and share do not discriminate. It is up to the teacher to guide students and demand high-quality work and critical thinking.

And THAT is still just as hard to realize in a web 2.0 world. I think the authors of ACOT2 missed this critical idea in relating it to web 2.0 tools in this section. However, they more than redeem themselves a little later on in the document when they introduce the importance of “Deep Learning”:

“Deep Learning requires deep teaching. Teachers must give students challenging tasks that require them to wrestle with core concepts in the curriculum and the time to do so.”

To me, this is the linch pin upon which all else hinges. To learn well means to teach well. Effective and meaningful pedagogies have not really changed all that much over the years, but there are a great many new tools and new learning opportunities that can be harnessed and found via new technologies. Deep teaching is still required.

And, part of relevance is not just content of the concepts, but the tools used to express ideas.

To quote,

“If student work is to be truly authentic, the tools and methodologies that are used to do that work need to be authentic as well.”

Authenticity and relevance are certainly at risk in schools today…
So is deep teaching/learning. Can we have one without the other?

The headline reads: “Colleges spend billions to prep freshman.” The by-line: “High school graduates increasingly unprepared for college work, remediation falls most heavily to community colleges” A study is quoted at reporting that as much as one third of American college students have enrolled in remedial classes. Although this is often done at great expense to colleges, I think the sadder story is that it needs to be done at all for such high percentages of college freshmen. But, to shed some light on a different aspect of the problem, I share the following quotation from the article:

Eric Paris, who earned a 3.8 high school GPA but is finding his freshman year at Virginia Tech much more challenging, says the big difference is “it’s all on my own.” In class, “it’s up to me if I want to sit on Facebook or pay attention.” He, too, wishes he’d taken more challenging high school classes but thought a high GPA was more important.

We lead students to believe that grades are everything, that having a high GPA is critical to getting into a good college (and it is, but it’s not the only determiner), so they then take easy courses to boost their GPAs and end up with this false sense of accomplishment that get stripped away when they are told that they must enroll in remedial writing or remedial math their freshman year. I have had students like this. You wonder how the system has failed them. Actually, I have had graduate students who have never had to write a real research paper. I have had elementary education majors who wanted to teach high school, but could not complete the requisite math courses. They figured since they were not all that good at math that they could at least teach younger students. I want to strangle them at this point of the conversation.

You know, we have a number of highly complex problems that continue to plague American education. This should not be one of them. We desperately need strong math and science teachers at the elementary level. I, myself, am a recovering math disaster, largely due to many of my elementary teachers who did not have a clue as to how to really teach mathematical concepts. Sure, they could teach the rules of regrouping or the definitions of polygons, but all that takes is reading a few statements out of the teacher’s manual. That didn’t meet my needs. Today, I have a much healthier and sound conceptual mathematical understanding and am so thankful for some of my education professors who taught methods of teaching math and remedial math methods. I now reteach my own son when he comes home from school, not understanding the most basic of concepts.

I avoided the hard courses to keep my grades up in high school. I hope that my children do not. I hope that they are both empowered and challenged by their teachers. I hope that their teachers will see areas of need and address those needs ASAP. I hope their teachers will teach to their strenghts and strenthen those areas of weakness. I hope their teachers will value their interests and make learning relevant. I hope that their teachers use all resources and tools at their disposal. I hope that their teachers will fight for resources and tools that they do not have access to and desperately need. I hope that their teachers believe in them.

That’s a lot of hoping, isn’t it.

Should so much at stake be resting in the arms of hope?

.

Why do we learn? Many learn because they have to. It’s the law up to a certain age in this country. Others learn because they are expected to. Yet others learn because they are interested or even passionate about a topic. Some learning is a by-product of other life activities.

While reading the latest issue (August 2008) of Learning & Leading with Technology, I ran across something that made me think. If you are not familiar with this periodical, for a while now they have had a current issue in educational technology where opposing views are represented. This issue’s topic: “Is educational technology shortening student attention span?” (PDF)

David Marcovitz, an associate professor at Loyola College in Maryland presents the “Yes” argument (I suggest you read it. He has worded it quite well) while the CIO of a school district and VP of that state’s association of technology coordinators presents the opposing view.

Now, there is no doubt that the use of current tools by students in schools is a motivating factor for them. For some reason, when a traditional worksheet is digitized and put on line for students to complete with a few glitzy animated graphics and a little feedback, it is a whole new experience for students. They attend better and persist longer. However, this form of learning is no more meaningful and certainly no more powerful than the paper/pencil activity done at their desks. So much with educational technologies can be described this way… simply digitizing traditional forms of learning and calling it innovation – 21st Century Learning… Blah! Is it just about controlling students… getting them to do what we want in the easiest way possible… even if that way is inferior to others, less messy… almost “effortless”?

What bothers me most about the “NO” view presented here is the following quotation:

“Technology has the power to capture our children’s attention by making learning interactive and fun. I have walked into classrooms where students were using technology to share, create, and explore. Those students were excited and engaged in the content being presented to them.”

The latter part of the quotation has some merit in the right contexts. However, the first part of the quotation is what does not sit well with me. Yes – technology does have the power to capture children’s attention by making learning interactive and fun. But what worries me is the seductive nature of this. Let me add a few words to this statement:

Technology has the power to capture our children’s attention by making (disguising) disconnected, rote learning interactive and fun.

The result – we are able to maintain the status quo and change very little simply by making it more fun and interactive.

Later in in this same issue, there is an article on Mathcasts. To make this contrast even greater, a quotation from this piece states:

“Perhaps the greatest motivation for your students will be their increasing self-confidence and improving attitude toward math. Students who regularly create mathcasts take ownership of the math concepts they explain. Mathematical ideas become more meaningful to students…”

So, what do you think? Is motivation best when it results from increased self-confidence and improved attitude that comes from meaningful learning? Or, do we just shoot for “interactive and fun”, keeping kids entertained?

Back to the initial arguments about technology and shortening attention spans… which type of learning described above may lead more to shortened attention spans? As David Marcovitz and Neil Postman suggest (in Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business), that every technology is a Faustian Bargain (and here)- “for every positive benefit, there is an often unseen and very serious downside”.

So, how best are we to motivate children? With technology or with powerful, meaningful, relevant learning opportunities (that may or may not involve newer technologies). Sorry, I know the question is redundant. I have always told my preservice college students who want to put “fun” first in their lessons that “fun” is a result of developmentally-appropriate, relevant and meaningful learning. Engagement comes from that. Fun is a by-product – not a goal.

I would really like to hear your thoughts on all of this, as I am thinking out loud here.

I am reading the book, Blocks to Robots, by Marina Umaschi Bers, and I must say – the first few chapters do a fantastic job at putting technology into perspective as it applies to not only young learners, but adolescent learners as well. In particular, the second chapter presents to perspectives of how children should learn with and about technology: computer literacy and technological fluency.

Computer literacy “relies heavily on developing instrumental skills” whereas technological fluency “focuses on enabling individuals to express themselves creatively with technology.” Both are important and compliment each other. But what I appreciated in addition to this was the following statement that brings much needed balance to many on-going discussions today.

“While developing technological fluency is important for understanding the world of bits and atoms around us, it is just as important to provide children with the vision that technology can also be used to make a better world.”

So often this important dimension of ALL educational practice gets lost in our philosophical discussions and rants about which tool, pedagogy, style, approach, perspective, system, etc… is best. One of the primary goals of a democratic education is to contribute to humanity and make the world a better place for all. With this perspective, we need to think long and hard as to the purpose of our students’ PowerPoint on ________________ (you fill in the blank).

But amongst other great points, Bers  presents six assets or characteristics of thriving individuals taken from the work of applied developmental scientists whereby learners not only learn content, but also “to contribute in positive ways to themselves, their communities, and the world.” These six assets are:

1. competence – in intellectual endeavors and the acquisition of computer literacy and technological fluency
2. confidence – in their own learning potential through technology and their own ability to solve technical problems
3. caring – about others expressed by using technology to engage in collaboration and to help each other when needed
4. connection – with peers or adults to use technologies to form face-to-face or virtual communities and social support networks
5. character – to become aware of their own personal values, be respectful of other people’s values, and assume a responsible use of technology
6. contribution – by conceiving positive ways of using technology to make a better learning environment, community, and society.

This set of assets puts to shame any list of skills and proficiencies that have been generated over the years. It contextualizes isolated skills and gives them meaning. Aren’t we all looking for meaning? Do we really need to evaluate students’ ability to right-click or highlight rows, cells, or columns on a spreadsheet? Are we communicating to teachers and students alike that isolated skills make up learning? ISTE has spent countless hours developing, revising, rewriting, and “refreshing” a list of standards. On the NETS page, there it is: “What you and your students need to know to be tech savvy” and “Today’s Students Need Digital Age Skills”. How about a book that contextualizes skills and gives them meaning… gives them purpose.

Learning should be a gateway to better things… a better world. We forget this far too often. I forget this far too often as I get caught up in the “stuff”. Technology brings so many valuable tools to empower the learner. But meaningful learning contexts are still required.

So, what problems face your students and your community locally that they could tackle? Could they prepare a presentation to present to the school board, the town, the city… It makes me think of this video of a young girl presenting some compelling ideas at the UN titled, “The girl that made the UN silent“…. all done without PowerPoint, too