Find

The following video was recently posted by a colleague on a nascent district network that will go “public” in a few short weeks.  In what I see as an emerging “best practice” in setting up and facilitating online networks, we are busy adding rich instructional content prior to inviting members.   In other words, making it look -even upon first glance- as if “someone is home.”  Far too many folks try to set up a network on the Ning platform only to have it flail about in cyberspace because it doesn’t immediately grab people as a place where they can imagine investing a little of their time.  Take five minutes to watch the video before reading further…

How great is that?  In Angie’s (a fellow instructional coach) description immediately below the video, she said: “A great video with amazingly appropriate music to show goal setting and teamwork to achieve a goal.” I certainly do see those ideas reflected within the video.  However, I clicked to view the video full screen before reading, and my personal reaction was somewhat different.

Think

To me, even more than goal setting and teamwork… this video speaks to the idea of honoring a constructivist approach to learning… and the gentle scaffolding required to get students to the ultimate goal within such a framework.

It seems that I chose to see the video not through the interactions with “momma squirrel” but instead through those that happened between the baby squirrel and the human observer. To me, the human (with the bigfat human brain) was the person in that situation who clearly knew how to achieve the objective.  You could easily argue that the momma squirrel didn’t get it.  Although, we truly have no idea what the ultimate goal was.  Perhaps going a different route, one that avoided the wall altogether, was not an option.  Though perhaps it was.  This we’ll never know.

Like a teacher honoring the fact that all true learning takes place within the brain of the learner… the observer(s) didn’t intervene at first.  They allowed the most powerful personal learning (in the brain of the baby squirrel) to take place first. They gave credit to the struggle that is inherent in accomplishing anything of real and lasting worth. They allowed small failures themselves to “teach.”

However, they ultimately they chose a strategy in which to intervene in a “least invasive” way… and then carried it out.  This initial strategy did not prove immediately successful for the learner.  The baby squirrel simply didn’t succeed after the “help” was applied.  The observers then took a step back, rethought the situation, likely looked around for other pertinent resources, and then applied another strategy to facilitate the baby squirrel’s accomplishment.

This series of calculated interventions is a good metaphor for what I see as one best case scenario for teaching and learning. Of course with today’s tricky world, and the complex sphere of standardized assessment we live within… allowing this full continuum of experience to play out with every learning objective is just not feasible. Yet, if we are truly focused on constructivism as a “best case scenario” for learning, then we will all make room for that very thing within our classrooms.  We can’t exist in a purely constructivist world today.  However, this is not an “out” for studying and practicing this approach to learning.  It is merely something to consider as you map out the classroom environment for you and your students as learners.

Once a teacher gives credit to the power of this approach to learning… they then begin to see its potential in more and more places. I think this is the point where we become sharp about when to allow this type of learning to run its course and when we have to “cut and run” to nail down the less “essential” objectives in order to allow the time for everything we want (and are responsible to) for our children.

Conclude

So yeah, in short… I love the video as a reflection and teaching tool. In fact, I wrote 75% of this blog post in the comments section of that particular video on our network.  I could link to my comment there, but then I’d have to break my rule of going public with a network before it is already a microcosm of what I want it to eventually become.  You wouldn’t want me to hedge on my own philosophy for this would you?

Ask

So what do you think?  Did you see something different?  What metaphors did you see in the video?  How might you use this little clip as a teaching tool?

Artwork

I spent far too much time today on this image…….

But first

What are the key elements required for a transformation of teaching and learning through the use of technology?  There are obviously many reasonable ways to look at this.  From what position do you view this issue?  Are you a teacher, instructional coach, building principal, technology facilitator, director of technology, chief administrative officer of some flavor, superintendent, parent, or student?  For you, this issue will likely run through the filter of your current position.

It will also run through the filter of your experience.  Are you an eighteen year old student who lives a life that is highly digitally integrated, or are you a teacher of 20 years or more who is just now trying to become familiar with the Internet as it relates to teaching and learning?  Are you a superintendent or head of school who is beginning to open to the importance of a smart approach to technology integration, or are you a technology facilitator who has been a digital evangelist for the past five to ten years?

Those filters should all be applied to the problem of how to retool schools along the lines of technological transformation.  (Though I didn’t think it worked in the title of this post, you will see below that I would rather use the term transformation as opposed to integration.)  At this point, the vast majority of school systems are behind the curve in this area.  Being this far behind might just have one distinct advantage.  If there is no way to see any of the individual trees in a forest, you are likely going to be forced to start your mission with a whole-forest view to begin with.  This is not a bad thing.  It allows you to realize two important things:

1) You don’t need a flashlight.  It’s not that dark in there anymore.  Trust that there are others who have proceeded down this path before you, and they have learned many important lessons.  Collaborate.  Learn from their successes and failures.  Do not go it alone.  Resist the temptation to slap a digital device in the hands of each student and call it success.  Have a plan.

2) Rarely do we get to make decisions with the clarity that a little distance provides.  Take your time (but hurry).  Ask yourself: what can we do with these new tools available today that we couldn’t do before?  If we could remake our curriculum any way we wanted, how would we do it?  Think transformation of the way teaching and learning is done in your district, as opposed to integration into it as it exists.

Allow me to run this challenge through my own filter for the next several paragraphs.  For more on my filter for these ideas, consult the About page.  Also-  I certainly do not profess to know all of the answers.  I am currently sitting on top of a nice little foothill of educational technology leadership…  and staring up at some pretty massive peaks ahead.  Allow me to talk about a few things that make these peaks seem climbable from where I stand.

It is my belief that all schools (and/or school systems) need the following four pillars below any technology “integration” effort…

An Innovation engine

All systems need what I will call an “innovation engine.”  Whatever the system, whatever the setup, schools and school systems need pockets of sponsored innovation.  Without some folks directly charged with instructional innovation with digital tools, we will always be just trying to fit technology into what we do on a day to day basis.  It is far better to build innovation directly into the system, and to foster it purposefully.  I know this may seem somewhat fringe in the world of public education, but it can’t afford to be much longer.

“At enlightened, forward-thinking companies, managers understand the connection between learning, innovation, and higher productivity — in fact, employees at these companies may even be encouraged to spend time learning and experimenting with new technologies.”

~Joe McKendrick, FASTforward

So who will drive this engine of innovation in your school?  Will this be a technology facilitator?  Will it be a technology coach?  Perhaps an instructional coach.  A ad-hoc committee of teachers?  A requirement of your leadership team or department heads?  If you are thinking of this from a district perspective, where does this responsibility land?  Will you just hope for it, or will you truly sponsor innovation in new approaches to teaching and learning afforded by digital technologies?

Administrative support

An innovative technology leader will be of little use beyond their immediate world without direct, purposeful and inspired administrative support.  Administrators:  join forces with your innovation team.  Learn what they learn.  Push them to new heights.  Allow them to bring innovative approaches to the classrooms and teachers of your school.  Support your teachers every step of the way as they slowly transform the classroom environments they create toward new and better approaches to learning…

…and then hold them to it. Hold staff accountable for bringing their skills up to the present realities of the 21st Century.  We’ve been living passively in this century for almost ten years now.  It is time for all of us to sit up and take a direct and active role in the changes happening within the learning profession.  Without strong administrative support, advocacy, and supervision, no real and lasting changes of the magnitude are possible.  Guidelines for such leadership aren’t exactly guesswork.  Grab a copy of the NETS and familiarize yourself with these standards today if you have yet to.  They come in three fine flavors:  for students, teachers and administrators.

Unfiltered ubiquitous access

So now you have innovation closely coupled with administrative support.  With those two things, you can get a pretty immediate return for your buck, provided one more terribly important thing:  that you don’t filter the very usefulness out of the web. A school can have instructional innovation and local administrative support and still fail with regard to technology integration.  How do you kill innovation quickly?  Tie it down.  Even today, many schools filter all of the good, interactive raw materials right out of the web.  Figure it out, people.  Ask a school who only lightly filters.  Ask.  Don’t assume there isn’t another way.

Our school system does currently block Facebook and MySpace.  However, our general approach is to put the filters in place required by law, and then keep the real Internet open for education.  Yes, that means we have open access to YouTube, Flickr, UStream, Ning, Twitter, Blogs, Wikis, etc…  We have our hands on far too much fuel for innovation to even worry about looking at Facebook and MySpace at this moment.  They are where our students already are.  But for now, we are luckier than 95% of school districts I encounter.  This fact has allowed us to move quickly toward figuring out the advantages and disadvantages of these powerful new tools in an educational setting.

Oh, and ubiquity.  Access to these tools must be easy and everywhere.  Soon after access is all around you, it doesn’t even feel like “technology,” it just feels like the way things are done.  This is a good thing, for when technology becomes invisible, we can finally focus on the value added from new uses of these tools.  The world is moving quickly toward wireless access in all corners.  If your school isn’t wireless, then only your students have wireless access.  That’s right-  via their phones.  You have a cell phone policy in your school?  Don’t kid yourself.  Your students are on the raw, unfiltered Internet via the 3G connection of their cellphone more often in the classroom than you care to admit.  Why ignore this…   or worse yet, why punish it?  Embracing might just be the answer.  Try it.

If your school isn’t at a 1:1 ratio of students to laptop computers… and the students don’t take them home with them night by night, all year long… then you don’t yet have an ideal learning environment for 2009 in my opinion.  However, there are other ways until that time to assure ubiquitous access.  Our school currently employs MacBook carts at a ratio of 2.5 students to one computer.  60 of these machines will be available for checkout from our Media Center in the fall.  Our Media Center/Library will also be open well beyond school hours.  It isn’t perfect, but it is allowing us to move ahead intelligently.  We are moving quickly toward the 1:1 environment everyone knows is inevitable in schools.

Instructional model

So now you have innovation on the ground level, administrative support, and unfiltered access.  Be proud.  If you can honestly say this characterizes your school or school system, then you are in a very small but fortunate minority.  You work with smart, visionary people who know how to plan and have been doing so for some time now.  If your lone goal is to have students, teachers and administrators all gleefully pushing buttons and gazing at computer screens…  then your work here is done.  Congratulations.  However, if what you were wanting out of this nationwide technology push was something a bit more…  substantial, then you had better finish reading.

The fourth pillar of “instructional model” is more than a quick soundbyte allows.  I see three levels of this notion with increasing value as follows:  1) You have thought about and encouraged good instructional practices in your building/district.  2) You have a well-articulated plan for effective instructional practice that is building or districtwide.  3)  You have a true learner-centered instructional model in place in grades K-12 that credits the constructivist nature of human learning.

I am fortunate to say that though our district has awakened late to the call of real and purposeful transformation via educational technology, the toughest of our four pillars has already been built.  The final pillar of a student-centered constructivist model for instruction that is carefully stated, professionally-developed, supported, and supervised…  is in place.

As I stated earlier, we are looking up at some pretty tall challenges ahead of us.  Locally, we have unfiltered access to all of the content and interactivity the web affords.  We have pedagogical experts in district leadership positions who have put in place an ideal instructional model for the future.  We have a quickly multiplying group of administrators at both the district and building levels who are responding to the call of the digital world, and we are making plans to foster innovation and creativity in our classrooms.

I feel like I am at the foot of a mountain that a handful of good people have climbed…  20,000 feet below the summit, yet armed with the best climbing gear and support I can get my hands on.  Our immediate future should be interesting indeed.

Where are you?

So where does all of this leave you?  How many of these pillars have been already constructed around you?  What have you done to help in that construction?  What do you see as the greatest challenges in this mission?  What can I or others do to help?  Are there other pillars that you believe I have missed here?

This post was initially intended to be a part of “Leadership Day 2009“ as conceived by Scott McLeod.  I am posting it at 1:30am on July 13th instead of on July 12th.  This is not to shabby considering my two baby girls thought that since it is technically summer here…  it should feel like it today.

Artwork

Refocus

I’m certainly not the first person to utter that sentence in reference to the integration of modern technology into the world of education.  This was originally posted to our school’s professional learning network, Virtual Southside, here.

*Full size image linked in citation below.

Then what is it about?

Folks… our mission really isn’t about the “technology.” I think most of us are starting to come to that realization. I would love for you to weigh in on this assertion. I am becoming less and less fond of the “…if we’re gonna be the ‘technology school’…….” phrase. Are you?

To be honest, I never did want that. The reason we used the “technology” moniker is that: 1) it was largely “given” to us, and 2) it is familiar to all who hear it. As you know, familiarity can distort meaning. What we believe in is a move toward a student-centered, constructivist learning environment. The fact that we believe the best way to achieve this goal is through the integrated use of emerging 21st Century technologies… does not make us a “technology school.” A technology school is a school that is centered upon gadgets and tools. Some would say this is all “semantics.” I couldn’t disagree more vigorously.

Our goal as high school teachers is to deliver a relevant and rigorous curriculum laden with the concepts and facts of many different schools of knowledge… as well as (and perhaps most importantly) the processes of learning. “Technology” is not our curriculum. Nobody writes “use chalk here” in a curriculum guide, and mentioning any other technology will only date your work in about two years.  Technological tools are way to interact with said content and process… but they are only the curriculum itself in a scant few of our courses.

Honoring PD in this area for once

I never wanted us to “teach technology.” I have always wanted us to use modern and emerging technologies to access and extend our current curriculum. Are there times we need to directly teach the best uses of a tool? Yes, of course… but this is just the first tiny step.  The first waypoint in this mission is to ensure that we are collectively savvy as a faculty first.  Continuing to put laptops in the hands of kids, all the while skipping directly over the lead learners in the room is just…  wrong.  It is ineffective, irresponsible and wrong.  I’m so glad that we have a staff who believes in this important part of our mission.

Therefore, I would like to propose a new set of language about what we are doing as we move forth into year two of our initiative:

Really think about what this title says.

Finding our own way

I think the kids who have had the opportunity to interact with our cohort teachers this year are far more adept at accessing information and in finding creative new ways of demonstrating their learning than ever before. We have all absorbed that which we found most valuable throughout this first year. Our development should be allowed to be as close to the constructivist ideal we seek for the classroom.  Why wouldn’t we?  Some of us have even carried the torch directly into our classrooms at a very high level already. I have seen it with my own two eyes. The district “tech study committee” saw this as well in our classrooms in a recent walkthrough of our building.

With the coming summer of reflection and relaxed study, we will surely begin our second year far more prepared to bring this learning to our students in the classroom in a very regular and integrated way. What do you think?

.

Tough connections

Me: “Jeeeez Gramps, doesn’t it seem weird to call this job ‘painting’ when we only paint about once in every ten days.”

My Grandpa: “You know… some of our competitors just show up to a job with brush in hand.“

This post has been rolling around in my skull for a while now.  Honestly, once the due date for our new babe arrived, that is really all I have been able to think about.  So now on a lazy Saturday, I will tap this one out while pining for birth.

Blogging does fun things inside my head.  It seems the furniture up there is now more regularly re-arranged through a very connective filter.  While contemplating the roles of a coach this past week, one of those good, solid life lessons learned from positive adult proximity came back into my short-term.  While attending the funeral of a beloved uncle yesterday, my grandpa again nailed a good one on memory.  While realizing something he couldn’t quite recall, he remarked that those memories aren’t really lost…  it’s just that you can’t always bring them back the very moment you need them.  Amen.

Well this one did come rushing back when I needed it.  When pondering the wit of the moment, the memory above came bolting back to latch onto this post on coaching roles while it was still in mental space.  The arrival of this memory, while walking out of the funeral home, was welcomed, warm and wonderful.

The human graph

Two summers ago, I had the pleasure of attending a coaching workshop in downtown Chicago.  Robin Fogarty and Brian Pete, authors of From Staff Room To Classroom, orchestrated three very worthwhile days of learning.  During one of those sessions, all participants were asked to queue up into one of four columns along the front wall.

Those columns formed around what Fogarty considers the four roles of a coach.  We were to decide on the one word that applied most often to the work we were currently doing as a coach in our building.  Though this workshop was aimed at instructional coaching, I am quite certain that the wisdom here applies to coaches of all flavors.  In fact, allow me here to make the case that this logic also transfers into many other educational roles.  Before transferring, let’s be sure we can at least somewhat agree on applicable definitions for four words that tend to overlap a great deal.  Allow me to summarize:

instruct: to give a person direction, information, or authorization, aka: to teach

encourage: to give support, confidence, or hope to someone.  to raise awareness to the point where one might attempt to do what is difficult

empower: to the give someone the authority or power to do something.  to make someone stronger and more confident

inspire: to create a feeling in someone.  fill someone with the urge or ability to do or feel something, esp. to do something creative.  to animate one to action

The strategy that began with this column construction was coined the “human graph,” and for good reason.  Before step two even commenced, I was already making inferences about the “data” filing in.  Step two then was to turn to the folks in your immediate vicinity to discuss why you decided to land there.

This, of course, was the meat of the strategy.  Discussion was deep as folks defended their decision to plant in any given column that had now formed.  After a period of time, each column was asked to anoint one or two as speakers to share the rationale of that group’s placement.  Once the four reports were made, the participants were allowed to switch columns based on the new information.  Finally, we were asked to speak up with an analogy of the “data” represented in the columns.

In a group of over 100, I remember speaking up first by announcing that the graph reminded me of what was then the “Cingular” ad depicting “more bars in more places.”  That was pretty much the visual.  There was an almost perfect progression from low numbers of those who aligned with instructing, to the highest numbers found in the empower and inspire lines.

So what?

When the instruct line explained their rationale, they said they felt that more often than not, they were acting more as a trainer.  They were modeling, demonstrating, and overall doing most of the doing themselves.  Progressively up the scale, each group provided descriptions that tended to include less and less concrete action performed by the coaches themselves.  At that point, I felt like my coaching role tended to land mostly in the empowerment role.

As I recall, many of the folks in the instruct line were elementary school coaches.  The secondary school coaches of differing roles tended to fall into the two roles at the other side of the graph.  I think this is natural tendency given the fact that elementary teachers are more closely aligned with general expertise in a wide range of disciplines, but more or less as experts in kids.  A coach in a secondary school lives in a world of content experts.  At best, we are masters of instruction within our realm of world knowledge.  At worst, we are subject matter experts with a disconnect from kids.

Arriving brush in hand

What does this mean for those who are not coaches?  Can a teacher be a coach?  Isn’t the move from instructor to facilitator essentially a move toward coaching?  Wouldn’t this same lesson work to start some good conversation with your faculty?  Imagine this at PD#1.  If every school day were carried out with this lesson on coaching in the back of our heads, wouldn’t we naturally become more reflective about our day to day roles as educators?  I know it works for me.

So then why are teachers still standing in their classroom door on day one…  brush in hand?  Why do we still hand out textbooks and “assignments” on the first day?  Why do we blindly begin the year instructing when we have yet to figure out where our instruction needs to begin?  We spend 100% of our time with a focus on Bloom’s cognitive domain without an organized approach to what he knew was also crucial:  the affective domain.  I will likely dig into in this domain many times here in the future.  This will surprise my principal none when I do so.

I would like to say, “you wouldn’t paint a house before scraping off loose paint.“  I would like to say, “you wouldn’t open a can of paint before you had washed every ounce of dust from a home.” I would love to say, “move the first friggin benchmark exam back three weeks so teachers feel empowered to meet their students-  let alone learn about them.“  However, my radical voice would be outnumbered by those who show up each day in order to follow the plan as opposed to making the plan.  Adherence is far safer than creation.

I will go so far as to say that those who are respected as educators know how to inspire their students.  They know how their field of study impacts the world and how to bring their students to at least some of this understanding.  And most importantly… they do so before trying to instruct them on the mundane facts of cHaPTeR oNE!!1!!!  (sorry-  i get dizzy in middle age when i get this fired up)

I dare you

Walk up to a house in disrepair.  Look at it from the street, put your arm around a kid and say “This will be beautiful when we get through with it.“  Do that.  Do it, and mean it.  Mean it, and then deliver it.  If you put a scraper in a kid’s hand in September and expect him to rejuvenate a home by May, you had better darn well have inspired him first.

Artists:

Which letters to use?

Call it what you like: “problem-based learning”, “project-based learning”, “project-based science”, etc. Heck, use an acronym if you want to come off as in-the-know (or snooty depending on who you ask). Regardless of your fondness for the names or symbols, they all surround a solid educational tenet: learning should be experiential. If you cannot provide kids with a particularly valuable experience, then engineer one. Allow virtual experience. Create experience by proxy. Ideas experienced are far better than ideas discussed.

Bottom line in naming almost anything: in order to market something, you can’t just market “something”. Simple enough? I thought so.

In my district, an administrative push toward constructivism in our secondary schools has come complete with labels. It is important to note that I do understand the need to possess a common language. Getting to the heart of any issue is simpler if the involved parties do not have to talk the long way around issues. Get a common set of terms, figure out what they mean, inform all parties, stick with them. I get it.

However, I would assert the thing that gets lost in translation here is the commonality. Science inquiry, reading and writing workshop models, math investigations, and problem or project-based approaches in social studies…  are all learner-centered constructivist approaches. In reforming curricula for school toward the 21st Century, it is important -in my opinion- to focus on student ownership and engagement. Omission of these facets risks an educational system that is even more disconnected for future students than it is for so many today.

The rub

However, there are arguments that fly in from both sides on this issue and they can be quite direct at times. Even a quick search will net individuals and groups who contend that constructivist practices are the hope for the future, and at the same time, the bane of the current day.  Both sides of this argument hold merit.  How can this be, you ask?  Usually when pure arguments fall flat either way, it is due to the fact that the reality is far more complex.  I would go so far as to say that the only people likely failing our children today are delivering instruction in a completely laissez-faire or purely direct way.

If you could just sign the dotted line on your teacher contract and follow one or the other school of thought until the day you retire with little thought, then you could argue that teachers might be paid too much.  In reality, those reading this blog likely know that this is simply not the case.  Learning, and thus teaching, is an incredibly difficult and nuanced endeavor.  My biology background allows me to see human beings as the complex entities that they really are.  Perhaps that is part of my personal angle into charting a path for my students.

My personal approach

I would suggest that my classroom is as constructivist-leaning as possible in secondary science in my corner of the world.  We try to focus on process over content.  As a generalist instructional coach in a high school, I have been perhaps able to more quickly make a move further down the constructivist pipeline considering I have to prep for far fewer classes.  In fact, all you have to do for a glimpse of this reality is peek into a classroom reflection from October 24th.  To be perfectly honest, October 24th of this year marked the first day where what most would refer to as “direct instruction” was utilized in my classroom.

My students are “big kids” and I tend to let them in on these decisions.  It is interesting here to see how many of my students were huge advocates for the “direct instruction” approach to biological molecules.  Even kids who had been brought along this year with nary a hint of teacher-driven content still harbored a longing for it.  However, perhaps they just inherently knew that this was a curricular piece where they would have floundered at first on their own.  We talk about scaffolding in class.  They get it.  They also get those instances where the gap between the curricular goal and background knowledge is just too large to scaffold in an appropriate time period.

I would have to say that has been building for some time.  A favorite friend and coach (Jincy Trotter) and I, years ago, would lament how our practices at the beginning of the year would leave us “behind” most of our colleagues.  Though we knew we were bringing our kids into the fold the best way we collaboratively knew how, we still felt pressure to “keep up” with the curricular bullet train.

In a constructivist classroom

*The following suggestions are from In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms by Brooks & Brooks, 1993, and were adapted by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory in 1995:

Student autonomy and initiative are accepted and encouraged.
By respecting students’ ideas and encouraging independent thinking, teachers help students attain their own intellectual identity. Students who frame questions and issues and then go about analyzing and answering them take responsibility for their own learning and become problem solvers.

The teacher asks open-ended questions and allows wait time for responses.
Reflective thought takes time and is often built on others’ ideas and comments. The ways teachers ask questions and the ways students respond will structure the success of student inquiry.

Higher-level thinking is encouraged.
The constructivist teacher challenges students to reach beyond the simple factual response. He encourages students to connect and summarize concepts by analyzing, predicting, justifying, and defending their ideas.

Students are engaged in dialogue with the teacher and with each other.
Social discourse helps students change or reinforce their ideas. If they have the chance to present what they think and hear others’ ideas, students can build a personal knowledge base that they understand. Only when they feel comfortable enough to express their ideas will meaningful classroom dialogue occur.

Students are engaged in experiences that challenge hypotheses and encourage discussion.
When allowed to make predictions, students often generate varying hypotheses about natural phenomena. The constructivist teacher provides ample opportunities for students to test their hypotheses, especially through group discussion of concrete experiences.

The class uses raw data, primary sources, manipulatives, physical, and interactive materials. The constructivist approach involves students in real-world possibilities, then helps them generate the abstractions that bind phenomena together

While Jincy & I were busy turning kids on to the beauty of science, assessing their prior knowledge and experiences, engaging them in collaborative situations to teach classroom procedures, and building rapport, our friends nearby were blazing ahead on the prescribed pathway.  Though we mostly caught up by year’s end, we preferred to err on the side of deep student engagement and learning as opposed to curricular coverage.

Original purpose

So perhaps the real bottom line here is that I suck as an educational blogger.  I have been doing this for so little time that whenever I want to drop a cool link on my readers, I end up attaching 18 years of experiential baggage.  Honestly, once again while I read the GenYES blog by Sylvia Martinez, I felt moved to write.  Her post entitled:  What Makes a Good Project inspired me to scribble a few lines in the direction of project-based learning.  Look at what that got me. I guess succinct is just not my style

So to cut to my original goal, the document Sylvia refers to is located here in .pdf format.  This document outlines “eight elements to guide great project design.”  I would have to agree that these are all solid things to consider when planning a project or problem-based learning experience.  The article references Seymour Papert’s constructionism.  This is a very closely-aligned idea in many ways.  The “questions worth asking” is also an important section, especially from the perspective of a coach.  Outside consultation is always a valuable commodity in any worthwhile undertaking.

The important thing to keep in mind here, which is one of the criticisms of “project”-based learning, is that often in these classrooms, the approach means less than the “product”.  If this is your hang-up, then be sure to key in on this quote while you take this article in:

“…artifacts are commonly thought of as projects, even though the project development process is where the learning occurs.”

To me, the bottom line is that this type of learning is often deeper, richer and more memorable than other approaches.  It takes longer to develop.  Even with a thorough understanding of the ways in which a curriculum can contain both coverage as well as depth, this is no easy task.  Our secondary schools largely contain content experts with a smattering of pedagogical input throughout their brief teacher certification experience.

Connect

So to the millions of content experts without a background in curriculum, hang in there.  Creating a learning environment where the prior knowledge of students is honored is a big step.  Respect of student autonomy and initiative should be encouraged, as well as higher-level thinking and rich student dialogue about content and understanding.  If you are feeling frustrated about a curricular piece that doesn’t seem to fit this approach, it very well may not.  Our curricula have input from many outside influences and implementing one approach to solve all issues rarely works.

If you wonder where, when and how constructivist practices should be implemented into your classroom, find a consultant.  Find someone to help you reflect along the way.  Grab the shirtsleeve of your coach, call your curriculum coordinator, bug an experienced colleague.  Whatever you do, find someone.  Implementing engaging and rich experiences for our kids deserves the best collaboration and reflection you can get your hands on.

What do you call constructivism in your corner of the world?  How do you manage student vs. teacher generated elements of your practice?  Weigh in if you dare…

Artwork:

Questioning

The art and science of teacher questioning is a powerful force in any flavor of direct instruction. Marzano and associates (2001) found a roughly 22 percentile gain in student achievement when skillful questioning was an instructional focus. Furthermore, a focus on maximizing student questioning can be even more powerful. However, when asking teachers to begin a focus on the practice of questioning in the classroom, it is best to begin close to home.

For this coming Wednesday’s job-embedded professional development, our principal asked each teacher to drag a colleague into their room to chart all questions asked in five or ten minutes of instruction. This will serve as a baseline for discussion in our PD session.

Coaching questioning

This blanket strategy of “questioning” is one I have been asked to work on with teachers from time to time. The enlightened teacher is one who realizes that only an objective and friendly observer can truly assess the goings-on of a classroom. In 2008, a teacher is charged with juggling a plethora of variables in the classroom at any given moment. Therefore, it is easy to miss some of the more subtle things that go on. As a generalist instructional coach in a high school, this is one area where my work with teachers frequently begins.

Ideally, this relationship will move from quick consultation toward more in-depth one-on-one coaching experiences. When a teacher enlists the ongoing services of an objective observer who possesses an eye for instruction… the gains can be rewarding for both teachers.

Enter: Bitstrips

As this latest round of questioning has approached the PD deadline, I have been asked in to do a quick assessment many times in the past few days. When several days of coaching feel the same, it tends to warp the mind. Trust me- rarely is one day the same as the next in this job. Thus the questioning cartoon. This one features none other than my wife- a talented and conscientious biology teacher. I can lay this baby out on the web because I know she can handle the parody.  I’ll let you guess who the coach is in panel number seven.

This artwork features the online cartooning software Bitstrips. This site has all of the characteristics of web 2.0. It is creative, interactive and often viral. It allows participation and recommendation to others. It is highly social and even allows collaborative remixability.  On Bitstrips, you can create yourself (as an avatar that can then be used for cartoons) as well as your friends, enemies and acquaintances.  How fun is that?  Can you imagine some sort of educational application for this webapp?

So today while I was sitting in Mrs. Nash’s classroom for ten minutes to chart all questions asked, I decided to share out the results (with her permission of course).  Today’s topic plays out amusingly as a comic strip.  However, the reproductive strategies of organisms actually do provide quite a valuable look into one of the major forces driving all animal behavior.  In fact, MO Biology CLE 3.A reads that students should be able to “Distinguish between asexual (i.e., binary fission, budding, cloning) and sexual reproduction.“  So from those ten minutes, you get a small chunk of questioning data, and a bit of classroom humor and fun in full cartoon color.  Learning about primitive animals, like sponges, isn’t always the most exciting thing.  Today, however, featured some great discussion.

Charting questioning

Lately I have taken to making my own classroom diagrams for teachers.  I hate feeling restricted by left-brained forms.  I wasn’t happy with any of the current forms I was using, so one day I just grabbed some printer paper and a tracing template I once used to help middle school gifted students with tesselations. I decided to do things a bit differently en route to a classroom last week.

Most generally, as soon as I take a seat in the classroom, I begin sketching out the lay of the land -so to speak.  Once the page is a customized black & white of the classroom, I scribble circles in the exact spots where students occupy a seat.  Looking at my watch, I jot down the time and begin to take in the classroom happenings for the agreed-upon time frame.  In that period of time, I trace an arrow from each person asking a question to the person they were addressing.

If the teacher directly asks Clint in table three a question, then the arrow traces from the teacher to that student.  If Katy at table two asks a question of the teacher, then the arrow points from Katy, directly to the teacher.  If Clint then directs a question toward Katy, the next arrow will be drawn directly from Clint to Katy.  The final piece of data would be to record teacher-generated questions that are directed to the entire class.  These are seen as hash-marks in the upper right hand corner of the sheet.

This type of exercise generates a mere slice of data.  Depending on the particular five or ten minute slice of time, you expect widely-varying results.  Therefore, it is important to take several slices of data of a period of time to see overall numbers and trends.

Reflections

Even this brief glimpse by an objective observer can generate a valuable “Aha” for a teacher.  Comments I have overheard recently include:

• “I didn’t realize I was carrying on such a one-to-one conversation with that student.”
• “It looks like all of the questioning in my classroom is coming from me.”
• “I wish they (students) would direct more questions to one another instead of relying on me so much.”
• “I really did do a good job of engaging nearly all student at least once in that short time.”
• “It seems like I don’t even pay attention to the left side of the classroom…  weird.”
• “Jeeez…  I ask a ton of questions… but most of them are pretty short and easily answered.”

Again, brief samples of classroom questioning such as those highlighted above can be interesting and helpful.  However, the real deal comes into play when the teacher wants to take the relationship further and delve more deeply into the art and science of questioning.  Once the relationship between teacher and coach moves toward a longer-term, one-to-one relationship, great things happen.  With trust, and open mind, and several small successes early on, this relationship is one of the most productive and rewarding to be shared by education professionals.

Here’s to hoping my wife finds her caricature somewhat flattering when this hits the web tonight.