EdTechTrek

The concept of creativity and the great opportunities for problem solving that present themselves when individuals are given the luxury to be creative in schools has been on my mind for the past few days. I have been watching my son “play” with the design game, Phun, and it has been very interesting. If you are not familiar with Phun, it is a free, cross-platform creative design environment where the  user can draw what he/she conceives and watch it work. David Perkins would describe this type of software as a “construction kit“. David Jonassen would define it as a “mindtool“. Physical attributes like gravity, wind, water, slope, motor speed and direction… and so much more can all be manipulated. The Phun website describes it in this way:

“The playful synergy of science and art is novel, and makes Phun as educational as it is entertaining.”

and

“Phun is a fantastic toy for children, where they can learn and appreciate physics, science and simulations in an open ended gameplay with rich creative and artistic freedom, including colorful freehand drawing.”

But, the name is so well chosen because it is just so much fun! My son has now spent a great deal of time trying to design creations that work according to his ideas. Because he has had no formal lessons in how to use Phun, it is all trial-and-error and studying some of the predesigned scenes that come with Phun. Through his creative exploration and problem-solving, he is wrestling with concepts that drive the physical world, like gravity, surface tension of water, how water takes the shape of it’s container, how motors can drive actions that get work done, cause and effect – and I could never list them all. We have also been working at things together because I have been so engaged with it as well and want to figure out how to design things that I can conceive in my mind. The social and collaborative aspect of this has been fantastic as we learn together. He shows me as much as I show him. However, my knowledge and experience allows me to ask him the questions he need to be thinking about and considering as he builds… a perfect scaffolding opportunity and chance to make metacognition explicit.

So, how much will happen like this in school this year? How much room is there in the tightly controlled curriculum with preparation for the myriad of tests he will have to take this year for creative problem-solving and strategic opportunities for social, collaborative metacognitive problem-solving and scaffolding? I like the following quoation found on NCREL’s website:

“Recognizing what you do know in a problem, as well as what you don’t yet understand, are aspects of metacognition in problem solving that are similar to a scaffolding approach. Perkins & Solomon (1989) point out that an expert’s behavior appears to be strongly driven by prior knowledge. When faced with an unfamiliar problem, he or she may construct a similar but simpler problem. In this way, the expert learner manages his/her own gradual self-regulation and enables him/herself to grow to meet the new task successfully.”

So, watch the video below, and, if you can indulge yourself, download it and have some Phun. Challenge your students, your children, your neighbors… to have some Phun. It may be the only opportunity for this type of learning they get all year.

This video, titled “What I Want for My Children”,  is a good follow-up to my last post. I think it speaks for itself. So much gets in the way of this message becoming a ubiquitous reality in U.S. schools.

The answer isn’t PowerPoint, digital whiteboards, blogs, wikis, PRS systems, high-speed Internet, Web2.0, … But, they can be part of a solution. [Generalization coming...] Why are we not pushing many of these attributes presented in the video with the same passion that we are pushing (and adopting) new technologies? As a geek-at-heart, it sure is much easier to get excited about “potential” or promise of new technologies rather than focus what we already have that is not working. Much of the time, things are not “working” because of much bigger issues than old technologies or technical support (don’t get me wrong… technical support is crucial). So, if your students are not excited about your language arts (math, science, social studies…) program, ask yourself “Why?”. My guess is that it’s not mostly because they are not using the aforementioned technologies.

I would encourage you to read one of David Warlick’s recent posts titled, “If it’s not about technology, then what is it about?“. Be sure to have a look through the comments as well. Lots of food for thought. (It’s where I discovered this video, too.)

Is there a difference between a “good” teacher and an “effective” teacher? The LA Times recently covered an english teacher who made a significant impact on a tough group of students in one year. The story is worth reading, but here are a few quotations that struck a chord with me.

This 35 year teacher veteran coming from a prestigious prep school into a tough urban school is described in the following situation:

“Holmes had nothing unusual planned (for a lesson where a student asked to be excused for what she thought was a good reason). He considers every lesson, every minute of class time, to be important, and, at age 66, he often stays up past midnight preparing for the next day’s lessons.”

No one can say that being an effective teacher is easy. No one can say that effectiveness can be routine. No one can be effective in the classroom without a great deal of dedication, passion, conviction, knowledge, and skill.

The article goes on to describe various attributes of this teacher in his last year of classroom instruction and also reports on a number of anecdotes. The article goes on to end with this statement describing his last class teaching:

“There are no fireworks, no speeches, no round of applause. Just this: As he walks out the door and heads to the parking lot, Phil Holmes knows that today he delivered a good lesson. He didn’t waste a second. He made the students think.”

Now I know some would take up issue with the word “delivered” and take the philosophical viewpoint that instruction should not be “delivered” but rather experienced and socially constructed, but those same folks would often sacrifice “effectiveness” for poorly implemented cooperative learning, differentiated learning, on-line learning, project-based learning, technology-mediated learning, social learning, problem-based learning… The list goes on. All of these pedagogical structures have merit. But, the bottom line is measurable results that validate effectiveness as a teacher. Here is a teacher that perhaps takes an unpopular approach to teaching. The article does not even mention all of the technology-based tools that he uses to reach a digital generation. I suspect that he uses few to none. But, he gets results… excellent results. Students care about him and appreciate his skillfulness in the classroom.

How do you define effectiveness? Is technology really a required prerequisite? Or, should we let effectiveness and results speak for what should be required?

Edweek discusses a  June report released by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers that surveyed close to 2,000 K-12 public school educators from across the US. It finds that although there have been increases in technology in schools overall, there are still “significant disparities” when it comes to access to computer tools and networks. It also reportst that while many schools have computers, they are often out of date and unreliable. Here are some more statistics that are reported:

• 83% of educators report having 5 or fewer computers in the classroom; > than half report no more than 2.
• > half surveyed use computers for daily administrative tasks
• about half use them to daily communicate with other educators (communicate what?)
• about 40% use technology to monitor student progress (electronic gradebook?)
• about 37% use technology for research and information gathering
• about 32%  use it to teach lessons
• < a fifth of teachers surveyed use technology daily to post student and class information online or to communicate with parents electronically.
• a majority feel that professional development that they received was most effective for noninstructional tasks (hence, the second bullet point here)
• a majority were “highly optimistic about the impact of technology on their jobs and on their students” and that technology positively impacted student motivation

Yet…

• 89% said they view technology as essential to teaching and learning.

What’s missing here?

• No mention of teacher personal learning networks to share and collaborate
• No mention of teachers using technology to further their own professional development
• No mention of students using computers for learning in powerful ways
• No mention of students using networks for collaborative learning

What I find most curious is that the survey itself is so minimalistic in terms of what technology can bring to the teacher-learner. If focuses on access and administrative tool use, research, and teachnolgy as a teaching tool. It does not see the larger picture of the need for systemic change, the need for lifelong teacher learning and growth, and the full potential of networks and computer technologies. What is sad is that it would appear that we, in general, are failing at such a basic level. Although there are certainly pockets of innovation and change, they are not sweeping in scope. Here is a quotation from the report’s executive summary:

“The findings of this study reveal that although all educators and students in public schools
have some access to computers and the Internet, we have few assurances that they are able to
use technology effectively for teaching and learning.”

Well, that’s certainly less than encouragine, isn’t it.

So, we have schools lacking in current tools, lacking in networked access, lacking in professional development, lacking in vision, lacking in systemic change, and overwhelmed with the incredibly diverse burdents placed upon them. What do we need then? Leaders. We need leaders who are willing to put their necks and reputations on the line district by district, building by building. We need leaders who have a powerful vision of what learning can and should be and who can effectively communicate it to others. We need leaders who can inspire by example. We need leaders who reward risk-taking. We need leaders who understand the learning potential afforded by new tools and learning networks. We need leaders who understand what meaningful learning is and looks like. We need leaders (at all levels, including governmental) who value all forms of assessment – not just formal standardized assessments. We need leaders to support urban schools. We need leaders who understand the value all pedagogies. We need leaders who help their teachers be all that they can be.

We need LEADERSHIP. Without it, we will continue fulfilling this report’s outlook – “The findings of this study reveal that although all educators and students in public schools have some access to computers and the Internet, we have few assurances that they are able to use technology effectively for teaching and learning.”

A recent report by the Education Sector and the FDR Group “surveyed 1,010 K–12 public school teachers about their views on the teaching profession, teachers unions, and a host of reforms aimed at improving teacher quality.”

Here is one finding that I think merits serious thought:

Only 26 percent of teachers say that their most recent formal evaluation was useful and effective in helping them to improve their teaching. Seventy-nine percent support strengthening the formal evaluation of probationary teachers. And nearly a third of teachers (32 percent) say that tenured teachers should be evaluated on an annual basis.

I can remember some of my “formal” evaluations. They were typically done by an overburdened administrator who had the monumental task of evaluating every teacher in the building at least twice a year in addition to all of their other responsibilities. Often, those evaluation visits where rescheduled due to unexpected events that arose. And, all of those evaluations where scheduled ahead of time. The result – teachers (myself included) would plan a smashing “song and dance” lesson that included those key elements that we all knew the principal liked and was looking for. Once the evaluation was over, it was back to business as usual. In the evaluation de-briefing (which also had to be scheduled with every teacher), unless there was anything glaringly abhorrent, most constructive criticisms were insignificant at best.

So, it is no surprise to see the low statistic of only 26 percent of teachers reporting that they found their most recent formal evaluation useful and effective. Along the same lines, 32 percent of tenured teachers feel that they should be evaluated on an annual basis. That makes total sense if almost the same percentage feel that those evaluations are not all that beneficial.

So, what to do? Are K-12 administrators perhaps not the best candidates to do faculty evaluations? Are they too busy to really give useful constructive criticism? Is their own teaching craft stale and their own idea pool dry? Can we expect building administrators to really be excellent teachers as well? Perhaps you consider yourself lucky to have an administrator who is still an active practitioner and who is keeping up with teaching innovation. But, my guess is that if you did a PowerPoint, projected a web page, sang a cool song, or did a nifty craft, you would get kudos – assuming your students were well-behaved (notice I didn’t use the term “meaningfully engaged”).

Who said education reform was simple? Are new models of teacher growth and evaluation needed?