Left Lane Ends

Darren Wilson and I recently presented a session on Inspired Classrooms at the Texas Computer Education Convention (see my post below about the conference and/or read a brief review of our session). Towards the end of the presentation and during the time for questions, it was asked if we had any research to prove that Inspired Classrooms is correlated with an increase in test scores. Oh, SNAP. No you di’n't!

Folks, a computer is just a tool. That’s it! It isn’t magical, it doesn’t make people smarter or dumber and it sure as hell does not, in and of itself, increase standardized test scores! Beyond that whole thorn in my side, I am FLAT OUT TIRED of the Potemkin village that is ‘research based decision making’. But, I get ahead of myself. (BTW, I first heard the phrase ‘Potemkin village’ from Bernie Dodge. It creates such great imagery, and you might enjoy his quick post that describes his application of the word)
Let’s come back to the pencil. The pencil, according to Wikipedia:

The archetypal pencil may have been the ancient Roman stylus, which was a thin metal stick, often made of lead and used for scratching on papyrus. The word pencil comes from the Latin word penicillus which means “little tail.”

Some time prior to 1565 (some sources say as early as 1500), an enormous deposit of graphite was discovered at the site of Seathwaite Fell near Borrowdale, Cumbria, England. The locals found that it was very useful for marking sheep.

WHAT?! Marking sheep? Ahh… the irony. But, let’s continue - lest I get sidetracked down a different road.
This is my standard response to those that go and throw the question of laptop/computer research in my face:

‘The pencil is a tool, just like the computer is a tool. Just because a student receives a pencil to use in class, does not mean that they will score higher on a standardized test. Granted, they will be able to TAKE the test, but their score will only be impacted by the learning processes that they undergo while at home and at school. The same holds true for a laptop. It has no ‘provable’ impact on student achievement, only the teacher and how he/she teaches will do that. The difference that the laptop/computer offers (as a tool in a classroom) is that a teacher can now design LESSONS where students can output products never before imaginable, where students can locate information never before accessible and where students can develop social networks of knowledge never before possible. BUT, it isn’t the laptop that does that - it all comes down to HOW the laptop is used. It all comes down to the teaching.’

If it all comes down to (imagine this)… …THE TEACHING, then surely there is research out there that shows that TEACHING BETTER equates to HIGHER TEST SCORES. Now, I know by this point that you are shaking in your boots with anticipation that such a revelation may be, well, REVEALED to you - and I do not plan on letting you down! There is actually a little bit of quality research out there that does support the notion that teaching better DOES increase test scores. Take this excerpt, for example:

In data validated unanimously by the Program Evaluation Panel of the National Diffusion Network, HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills Program) students achieved spring to spring gains on standardized test scores that were 67% higher in reading and 123% higher in mathematics than national averages. These results were generated with an earlier, less refined version of the model. Second-year gains were also greater than national averages. These continued gains indicate that the results were not Hawthorne effects. Since then, we have not been able to do another systematic study, but schools are now reporting results that substantially exceed the best gains reported in the earlier study. Students in one site gained 5.6 years on the Stanford Diagnostic Reading test (fall to spring) in the first year, and 20% of the 5th and 6th grade Chapter 1 students posttested beyond the high school level. Tapes of these students reveal them to be highly articulate and sophisticated learners, an indication that the extent of the gains was not a statistical fluke. (1992, p. 88)

By now, I expect that you are standing, applauding and nodding your head while you continue to read. Please keep doing so - the standing ovation, that is, and while you continue to applaude, I would like you to consider the major point of that excerpt - teaching ‘better‘ means teaching kids to THINK. Teaching kids to think, means designing lessons that move students up through ALL of the different levels of Blooms Taxonomy. Designing lessons at ALL levels in Blooms Taxonomy is what we believe Inspired Classrooms should be all about - and the computer as a tool in that environment is simply an enabler, or catalyst, for a teacher who is GOOD at teaching. So, stop asking the wrong questions, and start asking the right one. It is a simple question, really:

‘How do we teach more effectively?’

While there is a plethora of research out there on the topic above, I feel the need to make you aware of one final thorn in my side: ‘Research based decision making’ has been to the education world what ‘Inside Edition‘ or ‘E! TV‘ is to pop culture - a shallow way to justify popular fetishes at the state, regional and local levels. There, I said it. Growing up with a father who taught Statistics (picture me as a 4th grader getting upset with my teachers for not knowing what APA was), I feel comfortable looking at published research and making a decision as to what is good and what is not. Even with good research, it is more than easy to make it say what you want it to say (after all, I found the above research excerpt in just around a minute or so!). Far too often, I see decisions made, and then the research is found to support it, OR the ‘research’ that led to the decision is nothing close to valid (in the news, at the state/local educational levels, etc). Be wise in your quest and let us throw in the unimaginable as we make our selves better teachers in this world today: common sense. When we combine common sense with qualified and validated research, it is easy to realize what is best for kids - when are we going to do it?

I must say that I was pleased with my response to the person that posed the question at the end of our presentation. Darren told me that I did a nice job of withholding the sarcasm that you may/may not have felt from the above. I did, however, hold my ground and tell that person that asking for research to prove the effectiveness of computers in the classroom is the wrong question to ask. Next time, I’ll be sure to have an arsenal of research at the ready that does support quality teaching, which is what I want to see in both Inspired Classrooms and 1:1 laptop programs. Until then, I wait with baited breath…

Well, it appears that I am becoming all too familiar with the ‘rant’ writing style these days, which may be a clue to a variety of things. Never-the-less: DO NOT take the pop culture interstate as you journey through life and through teaching others. It is boring, filled with predictability and gives you no way of getting out into the exciting places where the left lane ends.

OH - AND DON’T GO THROWING LAPTOP RESEARCH IN MY FACE!!!

(are you looking for a good tool that cross references Bloom’s Taxonomy with Technology Integration? Check out LoTI.)

If you do nothing else with this post, check out the artist (Brett Dennen) that I link to below. He is GREAT - in concert and on CD. In fact, you can bet that his Mosaic Project CD (which can also be found on iTunes) will be a staple in my children’s playlist’s! How can you RESIST a CD titled: Children’s Songs for Peace and a Better World???
This is a really spontaneous post, originating from a dialog in my head, an entirley separate (forced) conversation and my own personal feelings on the matter. Read at your own risk:

Open source in education has been on my mind this week and I keep wondering more and more - why do we not make the move to open source software in schools? Every day, I do more of my work on Internet based applications then the day before, so what is holding us back? A working browser? I can boot up a version of a Linux operating system off of a CD and do everything I’m doing now (writing, posting, email, etc) on it. (AND, I am NOT a person with very much knowledge on open source!!) I’ll toss out two reasons that I believe are the primary factors in keeping us from using open source.

So, the argument goes that if we don’t block YouTube, our students will go home and video tape themselves going for a ride in the dryer like the video that they saw online. Point taken. But, there are fallacies to that argument:

1. The same ‘ride in the dryer‘ video is available on multiple sites, not just YouTube.com
2. Students were creating these videos the day after they got their hands on a camera - well before the creation of YouTube or other social video sites. (we’ve seen some creative ones here in our 1:1 environment that is going on its 6th year)
3. Even a block of the general category (video sites or social networking or network file storage/backup) will not prevent someone from creating their own website (like back in the olden days … remember those days??) and posting the video there

At this point, you may be asking ‘what’s the point?’. Well, the real power of sites like YouTube are demonstrated at places like Global Voices Online (go ahead - check out the chinese demonstration video that their government is trying to erradicate from the online world!!). I just don’t see how it could NOT be powerful education to draw similarities and differences between a current demonstration video in China and our American system of government. How can our students participate in this live history that is taking place before our lives if we block them out of it? Or is the simplistic history as outlined in a textbook the real way to go?

Teaching is always new to me, and I am continually fascinated by my students’ creativity and learning. The opportunity to empower my students through thier involvement in community issues, and to help them find relevance in history by connecting it to today interests me; mixing this with new technological approaches makes it even more exciting for us all.

~Michelle Forman, High School Teacher

• Example 1: Silence Speaks - Stories to heal
  
• Example 2: A Lesson Germ - How do economics, capitalism and social justice intersect?
• Example 3: SFETT ICAN Festival de Cine
• Resource 1: Center for Digital Story Telling
• Resource 2: Article - Implementing a Social Justice Curriculum in an Inner City School
• Resource 3: eMINTS - eThemes

Digital storytelling can take a variety of forms, but what truly makes it a powerful medium? There are a variety of programs out there from MovieMaker to PowerPoint to Producer to Photostory 3. However, simply because there are free tools available certainly does not mean that we, as educators, need to use the newest and greatest software out there just because we can. While there is a place for it, I can’t tell you how many times I see students required to spit information out through MovieMaker instead of PowerPoint with the assumption that the student has learned more.

No, I believe that it is imperative to focus on the instructional content and that it is imperative that we search for avenues that allow students to be drawn into our educational environment. What is important to them and how does that intersect with the curriculum? This certainly does not mean that we only teach what the students want - absolutley not. There are many topics that our students may not be aware of or that they may not have thought through to which they can directly identify.

What amazes me is how involved students get when they start to investigate the stories around them. Take, for example, the immigration issue that came to the fore in the spring of 2006. Our students (here in Texas) became very engaged with this specific social issue - and teachers leapt on the opportunity to help enable students.

I did not have to stretch to find the connection between social justice and state standards. I did not spend my free time with my manuals and try to “fit” social justice in. Rather, I made the mandated curriculum “fit” into the social justice pedagogy and practice that I was using with my students on a daily basis. When we had to manipulate and compute very large (up to billions) and very small (decimals) numbers, we looked at census information, the number of Native Americans that were killed, infected with disease, or relocated to reservations, the amount of money corporations make as compared to the wages of the working class that those corporations employ and exploit.

~Laurence Tan, Teacher, Los Angeles

So, it’s time to get creative … find out how we can enable our students to change the world … and how that passion is tied to our history, the beauty of mathematics, fluid writing and reading, scientific history and knowledge and beyond.

We can gripe all we want about the state of assessment, but it is my opinion that we take what we have (while still making a concerted effort to change what is wrong) and make it work. We are going through two days of eMints training (you can see our resource page here) which entails a buffet of concepts that range from coaching strategies to developing essential questions.

There was a quick mention yesterday of triangulating our assessment that caught my attention. I did a little searching through my blogroll and found this thought from Mike Muir that he jotted down as a result of attending a presentation by Jim Moulton (both involved in the Maine 1:1 implementation).

Assessment: Assessment for learning & Assessment of learning. Assessment of learning is the test - do you know it or not? But where the learning takes place is assessment for learning. The course corrections we make along the way.

We say the word assessment, and everyone flinches today. But it is foundational to remember the proven fact that feedback and assessment are key to our student’s success. Does that mean high stakes testing? No! But why not take traditional tests and build them into a triangle of assessment in our classrooms? (after all, teachers are all but forced to ‘embrace’ these tests). Putting the traditional test aside, it would be interesting to see a classroom teacher that would commit to establishing three (3) different assessment components for each ‘learning set’ that takes place in their classroom (a learning set would include a variety of standards and objectives). Pieces of this triangle could include:

…and the list goes on. The concept that stands out, however, is forming a more solid foundation of assessment and feedback in our classrooms. It just makes sense to me that providing three (3) forms of feedback to any given instructional set would only make the learning and assessing of the learning more valid.

Yes, this is a basic, foundational concept. But too often we focus on the negatives of assessment and how to teach in a 1:1 environment without looking at our systems of feedback within the classroom. The key, from my POV, is to broaden the base and to incorporate more forms of feedback not just throughout the year, but to add to the foundation within each instructional set.

Are we really assessing where the learning takes place? Or do we stick with one standard set of feedback tools, used independently of each other? Maybe we’re just stuck on the highway…

I came across Mike Muir’s blog this morning thanks to a post from Vicki on her coolcatteacher blog. Her post is well worth reading and ties well to my rant that was inspired (more like prodded to life) by Angela (author of musingsfromtheacademy). I should just title this post - links worth reading!

Mike is a professor of educational technology at the University of Maine at Farmington and has done extensive research on their 1:1 program as well as played an integral role in its implementation. We visited them a little over a year ago and have been in touch through our 1:1 symposium. These are all great to add to your aggregator… Great to see you online, Mike!

Irving ISD is not an affluent district. We are, in fact, an entirely title 1 district and a really neat place to work. We’re an urban organization with over 33,000 students in our system. On top of that, all of our high school students have laptops along with one middle school and one elementary school that are 1:1. Our community and leadership has simply committed to a 1:1 program.

North Hills is a private, and prestigious, prep school here in Irving. You may be aware of the push towards privatization of education, and North Hills would typically be considered a ‘better’ environment by those who support the concept of privatization. If you are not aware of this, it is time to read.

Sebastian Bozas, principal at de Zavala Middle School (the middle school that is 1:1), reported earlier this week that he received an email from a parent stating that her daughter had been accepted into North Hills, but had been debating whether or not to go to de Zavala despite the ‘opportunity’ to attend a more prestigious prep school. Public schools won out - Mr. Bozas continued by telling us that the daughter had decided to attend Irving Public Schools!! What a smile that put on our faces!

Now, and this is important, I am sure it is NOT the fact that de Zavala has computers that influenced this student’s decision - it IS the fact that de Zavala teachers have embraced teaching with technology and that they have a leadership that pushes them to shift towards teaching at a higher LoTI level and higher thinking levels. Again, it is not the computer that is the independent variable in this equation, it is the quality of instruction and what is possible when technology is available as a tool within a better instructional environment.

Lovin’ it - this is where the left lane ends…

Screen plays/scripts always provide context at the beginning of the document, a way for the reader to mentally adjust to the environment of the piece of writing as well as the purpose. Well, here’s some context:

Ms. Stephens, who writes Musings from the Academy, asked why I hadn’t posted for a while. In response, I felt forced with my last writing (a review of the ASCD conference) and have been busy with class work, work and work. So, the writing bug just hasn’t hit me. THEN, she sends me this article by Lowell W. Monke from ‘Educational Leadership’ (a publication from the very ASCD organization itself) - ‘I think you should read the attached article and write about it on your blog.’

Ok, I’ll bite.

I’ve gotta tell ya’ - I am plain tired of the ‘techno-ego-centric, ‘they don’t know anything but’, ‘teenage biobots with super human text-message capable thumbs’ line. In fact, any time an educator refers to ‘them’, ‘they’ or ‘those kids’ - I shudder.

Now, normally, I would respond to this kind of article by laying out the good points and contrasting those with the bad points - but I’ve done too much of that for courses this semester and do not care to add to my list of pointless dead-end ‘publications’. This article, printed in a well respected publication, is harmful to education, primarily to those that look for pandering to one-sided perspectives in the development of national requirements, and even more importantly, budgets.

Nearly everything children do today involves technologies that distance them from direct contact with the living world.

Hmmm. ‘They’ are in trouble. ‘Those kids’ need to stop watching junk and learn. I just don’t understand ‘them’ - how can they isolate ‘them’selves like that? Oh….don’t even get me started - as if the adult political world is THAT much more connected to the ‘living world’?!?!

I heard a line recently that described how adults view text messaging compared to kids. Adults view it as very impersonal, even lacking ‘direct contact with the living world’. Interestingly enough, kids view text messaging as hyper-personal. They feel more in touch and more able to develop relationships. It seems that this may simply be an inability to see things from another Point of View (POV). I’ll come back to that.

With that in mind, lets move on to the real meat - the needed message. It is time that we stop looking at technology solely as an independent variable. Let me say that again.

IT IS TIME THAT WE STOP LOOKING AT TECHNOLOGY SOLELY AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIABLE.

Being the ‘Tech Monkey’ that I am (that is how we sometimes feel in Instructional Technology), this is a familiar concept to me. Study after study indicates the effect that computer integration has on test scores, on student thinking and every other possible dependent variable out there. It is as if one were to simply add the presence of computers (suspended from the ceiling, even!) to a classroom, that something will change. Test scores will get better or worse. Students will become more or less engaged. ‘Those’ kids will pay more attention or be more distracted. Don’t get me wrong - I am a firm believer in research, but where does research meet culture? When do we understand that these are real kids? When do we realize that it isn’t the technology that impacts the classroom, but THE TEACHING? When do we accept the fact that technology is merely an accelerant? Let’s run with that.

I read the book ‘Good to Great’ a while back and one of the last chapters struck me heavily. So much so, in fact, that I wrote the following (and previously unpublished) thoughts in March of 2003. Technology is merely an accelerant. It acts as a catalyst and makes things happen faster. However, not only does it make your communication quicker and your location of information speedier, it makes a good teacher better - faster. An effective teacher who uses current strategies to engage her students simply has more resources at her fingertips to utilize when designing/implementing a lesson. On the flip, and scarier side, technology also makes a poor teacher worse - faster. Have you heard stories about the management issues? Students being off task and not engaged? Do you really think that it is the technology that is the problem? This should be a HUGE red flag to the education world: If this is the case (technology as an accelerant), where, then, should our concern lie? NOT with the type of equipment; NOT with how well a teacher knows basic technology skills; NOT even with how technology is integrated into the curriculum. It is IMPERATIVE that our concern lie with, and HEAVILY with, the effectiveness of a teacher according to today’s definition of an effective teacher. If we do not place this concern as a priority, we are CREATING less effective teachers in our schools - FASTER. Don’t you see - it isn’t technology that is the problem, it is how we develop and embrace effective teaching.

What should we be doing? Teaching our kids through the use of POV. Getting our kids involved in the local, national and international community through the power of technology. Developing school systems that support and develop effective teachers. It is true, technology is their life - so let’s embrace that fact and find ways to help OUR kids think more effectively within that environment.

Technology is NOT the problem. Lousy policies, a national administration with a lack of vision and a lack of a balanced POV, AND a lack of vision within the educational environment - these are the problems.

If nothing else, Monke’s article is merely munitions to cut a budget that has already been proposed for elimination. After all, it seems that the policy makers and the budget creators seem to only look for bits-and-pieces that support their own POV. Please, don’t give them the quick quotes that they are looking for.

Saturday Morning: Opening Session

Neural Pluralism. For the most part, we encourage, if not insist upon, religious pluralism, ethnic pluralism and linguistic pluralism. BUT, when it comes to recognizing the different learning needs, the different way that we are neurally constructed, we deny the diversity and start to label. Mel Levine spoke to this issue and described his work in brain research and how we, as educators, must take it upon ourselves to accept the diversity in student learning needs and use the current research about learning and how the brain develops to customize our teaching in a way that is ideal for each individual student. This requires a shift for teachers in order to learn more about the development of the brain (based on current research) and apply that knowledge in the classroom.

You can review the ASCD notes about the presentation, OR (and I recommend this one!) listen to a story about Dr. Levine on NPR’s Website. This is outstanding material and well worth the time in reading/learning about it.

This has huge implications when you look at developing a solid one-to-one program. It all comes back to developing a faculty that is sensitive to the needs of different students in an effort to create an environment that engages. It all comes back to taking responsibility for engagement, and working individually with all kids.

I am in Chicago at the ASCD conference, and having a great time! The sessions are great (quality) and I am bathing in the extra time I have for self reflection (and some good Chicago jazz!).

I started Friday in a pre-conference session all about boredom. Richard Strong started with a quote that went something like: “If boredom is different for everybody, then (are we being taped?) … we’re screwed.” We often look at the students in our classroom through the standard lens of labels that are fed to us, not by our own will. A student is labeled by TAKS, LD or ADD, and these labels blind us to the individuality of each student. When we stop to notice our own personality style and how we teach, and then compare that to the personality styles of the different students in our classroom, it becomes apparent that we frequently teach to one type of student, and label the rest.

Richard ended the full day pre-conference session by discussing the meaning of the word responsible, or as he put it - response-able. The claim was that, through diversifying our teaching and learning to match a variety of personality/learning styles, we can develop faculty and students that are ABLE to RESPOND to different needs of others, to different situations and to their life. This should be our goal.

As noted by Richard, boredom is simply a form of depression. We know through research that working with the different personality types as noted by Richard and Harvey Silver, we can trigger engagement in each student. Strong and Silver are in the process of working on a specific framework so that teachers can pinpoint how to bring out the different personality traits, not just through a general lesson, but through specific pieces of one lesson - mix and match your teaching day - RESPOND to the students’ variety of personality types.

Some quotes or thoughts from the session:

I believe that we are in danger of scientificizing education. We should not take a one-eyed view. Culture is the other perspective and we must approach our classrooms with stereo vision.

How many people have planned a great lesson, and it failed? How many people have walked into a class without a clue and had a great day? Half of teaching is design and half of teaching is response.

Boredom is a form of depression - it manifests itself in the inability to find meaning. It comes in three shapes: 1) deprivation shape (I am bored because something is not there); 2) The stimulus lacks meaning; 3) when it takes us to the edge of despair.

People have different ideas. In science, ideas become powerful with evidence. In culture, ideas become powerful within conversation.

A teacher is only as effective as, not what they know, but what the students really walk away with.

Assess, align, adjust, achieve

Concept: turn students into coaches that praise, prompt and probe. Increase feedback, increase response time

Personality types:
Sensing+Thinking=Mastery
Intuition+Thinking=Understanding
Sensing+Feeling=Interpersonal
Intuition+Feeling=Self-Expressive

You can download the PowerPoint and visit their website for further exploration. Not realizing how the morning general session would tie into this concept, I started thinking about how these ideas flow into a 1:1 environment. It is my firm belief that a solid one-to-one laptop program is centered around an institution that has solid instructional practice. That being said, the over-arcing message is that we, as educators must take responsibility for the education of our students. We CAN NOT say, ‘these students just don’t want to learn’, or ‘these kids are different today’. They are OUR students, our kids. We must take responsibility to engage our students and take the time to learn about each one. This is a tough challenge, and the solution is hard work. When we make that commitment, we establish the foundation for a successful 1:1 laptop program - a program where the computer flows through instruction as a tool that is a part of individualized instruction which engages all students.