Balance

An important point that can be extracted from Oppenheimer's The Flickering Mind is this: you need balance. This is no shocking revelation, in fact it is a quite simple notion that many people live their lives by. Education is no different. Education cannot live by one pedagogy alone, nor one tool alone. There must to be a blend, or a balance. Oppenheimer describes P.S. 234 in Tribeca, New York. This school overflows with constructivist projects that challenge the students. But the principal admits that to her constructivism in "its pure form is too relaxed, in her experience, for keeping up with today's hard-nosed state standards." So they mix in more teacher guidance (direct instruction?) and they do well on the city's test scores.

This is a balancing act that many teachers face -- how to make learning interesting, hands-on, relevant, powerful, and also ensure that they will perform proficiently on the standardized test. I often use inquiry-based projects in my own classroom, but I don't use it for everything. They do take more time than other teaching practices, but I believe it is powerful learning. Now that there is a push to link test scores to teacher evaluation, this could possibly force teachers like myself to be less balanced in their instructional practices. Oppenheimer earlier in the book describes how in Texan schools, all instruction shuts down for several weeks of test prep. This could easily be considered an exaggeration, but I personally know a teacher that moved to Texas and she has confirmed this practice. Could this be my future as a teacher?

Going back to P.S. 234, they manage to be successful without computers as any kind of emphasis. Though despite their success, through a parent drive, they now have a new state-of-the-art computer lab. Technology is coming, like it or not. Knowing how and when to use will be the key to balanced instruction. Many of the technology points that Oppenheimer makes in 2003 are mute now in 2009. Technology is getting better, and educators are getting better at using it and evaluating it. But he is right about one thing, technology is not the answer to all of education's problems. Rather there is a mix of many answers. A key part to any mix is communication. In many of the successful schools that Oppenheimer describes, talking, discussing, communicating ideas was an integral part of it; learning is a social process. Now there are many Web 2.0 tools that are social and communication tools. Should blogs replace classroom discussions? Of course not, but that's not to say that blogs can't be a tool to be used. I have my students use a wiki to create what they think the classroom rules should be. Do I need to use a wiki? No, they could use paper and pencil. But with a wiki, when they are at home and get an idea they can add it to their group's list. It's just a matter of picking the right tool for the right task. The tech tool will not always be the best one; sometimes it will.

Software, Research & Hype

This quote gave me pause, because I think it is true.

"The education community expects people to be just like they are, that they're there because they want to help kids. If someone comes in with a motive to make money, you've got the most gullible population in the world just eating out of your hands." -Former senior employee of School Renaissance Institute

Oppenheimer's description of Accelerated Reader makes apparent that educators can easily be manipulated by testimonials and self-serving research. Educators want to believe the hype because they want to help their students and AR is all about the hype. I visited their website; sure enough there was the claim that it is The world's most widely used reading software. Can fifty million Elvis fans be wrong? Hopefully teachers can judge for themselves whether or not a program has any merit. But seldom does the classroom teacher get the opportunity to pick and choose the programs that they get. We have AR at my school site, I use it, but I wouldn't describe it as reading software. It doesn't teach reading. It's an easy ten question quiz that kids take after reading a book. The information it gives is purely summative and does not help me teach reading. I had one student that would regularly get 4 out of 10 correct. AR didn't show me how to help this kid. For our purposes, it was simply a way to hold students accountable for independent reading -- that's all.

Last year at my school, we were in a "spend it or lose it" mode and we had several brand new computers that the PTA purchased sitting unused in classrooms. Our principal decided that with no teacher training it was best to go a software based approach. So he purchased three different software programs: Acelerated Reader, ST Math, and Ticket to Read. Accelerated Reader only cost us $1500 because we had it several years before and the re-start up was slightly discounted. AR was recommended by our CIO (my principal's boss). My principal admitted that he didn't read any research on it, but the research around independent reading as an indicator for success was extensive. 55 minutes is the optimum time for students to read independently on a daily basis, which is the crux of the AR program. Kids who read this much test off the charts in comparison groupings, AR or not.

I asked my principal about how he came to purchase the other two programs. He explained that the math department had looked at a bunch of computer programs for Extended Day Math and really liked ST Math, but it was too expensive. Noteworthy is that ST MAth is produced by Mind Research Institute which is a non-profit organization. Hmm... We paid $40,000 for a site package! My principal explained his thinking:

"The kicker was my coach, Dr. Ward, had been contacted by a school principal in LA who was using ST Math and getting phenomenal results. With this testimonal in hand I felt confident we should purchase it. Again I tend to trust testimonials from people I know versus "research" posted in software sales literature. It is interesting to note that almost every software program has some sort of research to back them up. Usually it's pointing to schools doing well on standardized testing. Not sure that it is trustworthy research."

Ticket to Read, which is produced by Voyager, was included with an intervention program and was chosen for similar reasons. I used all three programs last year, and the only one that I felt was not very effective was Accelerated Reader. So why is it The world's most widely used reading software? It does have some things going for it. It is motivational for some kids and now the program is web-based and has just about every children's book there is. However, the designer in me has several ideas that could make AR much more of an instructional tool. It could be much more formative. Rather than it being a quiz taken at the end of the book, there should be a quiz after every few chapters. That is assessment information that would be useful to me. Also, instead of simple comprehension questions, there should be a variety of questions that address different reading skills (inference, character analysis, etc.).

It seems that no program is going to be perfect; there will always be things that could be better. Also it seems that the research will never completely prove that whether a program truly works. There are just too many variables. But certainly software designer should be using research to help them make a tool that works. It will be up to educators to evaluate them.

Flickering Mind Indeed

There was much that resonated for me while I read through the first third of Todd Oppenheimer's The Flickering Mind (2003). Much of the time I found myself having to reread sections because my own flickering mind had wandered off from the book to think about my own experiences. 1985 in high school typing on an early word-processing program. 2003 as a first year teacher at Sherman Elementary never once touching the computers in my classroom (there were only two, and I don't think they worked). Comparing my own current distance-learning experiences with the COMET program with situations that Oppenheimer described. My experience did not match his portrayal of the brilliant student Andrew Hunt having a rough go of it. Since Andrew's episode happened several years ago, perhaps distance-learning has improved greatly. Perhaps since I am in an Educational Technology program, the professors know what they are doing in regards to distance-learning. There are always many variables to consider, and the findings are often inconclusive. While I didn't agree with everything I've read so far, I always try to connect it to my own experiences. In the first section of his book, History of Technotopia, I fear some of what he describes in other districts will be doomed to repeat here in my own.

Oppenheimer describes how first film was going to be the magic teaching tool, then radio, then television, and now of course computers. He goes on to describe how Apple lobbied for tax rebates on donated computers and that everyone wanted to get computers into the classroom. Computers were going to fix education. Enormous amounts of money was spent, equipment was not used or flawed, teachers did not know how to use it, achievement was not improved. Computers did not fix anything, they were just another example of history repeating itself. Film, radio, TV, computers. But what he does not emphasize is the rate of advance of technology. He describes a class wasting much time searching the internet for information that could've been found in books. Of course, they were using pre-Google search engines. That makes a huge difference. His book is only six years old, but things improve so fast that some of what he writes about has lost some of its relevance.

But one thing that he talks about that has not changed is the expense of this equipment and determining whether or not it is worth it. The San Diego Unified School District has $2.1 billion from Prop. S, and a healthy chunk of it will be spent on technology.

Proposition “S” will wire classrooms for interactive learning and school campuses for WiFi. It will enable students to access lessons online. It will also help teachers and students interact directly. Proposition “S” will bring technology upgrades to every school in every neighborhood.

I have seen the roll-out plan and the lists of what each grade level will be getting -- smart boards, clickers, computers. Personally, I'm excited. But I can't help but notice that I haven't seen any kind of training plan for using any of it. I fear that a lot of this costly equipment will go unused. I also fear that this equipment will be used ineffectively. These are two big ideas from the first third of Oppenheimer's book: the technology is not cost effective and that sometimes it is used for it's own sake. Unwillingly, I find myself agreeing with him. Until teachers are taught how to use these tools in pedagogically sound ways, are we getting the most bang for our buck? Perhaps not.

Live from Room 14

I was reading a blog entry written by Alan November called Creating a New Culture of Teaching & Learning, in which he was discussing points to consider about technology and education. His second point was something I had never really considered before.

2. Coming attraction: live videocameras in every classroom

I wasn't at all sure how I felt about this idea. My first thought was there's no way the teacher's union would ever allow this. No teacher is going to want to be videotaped for administrators and parents to be able to watch at any given time. After looking at many of the pros and cons, I would have to conclude that having live videocameras in the classroom could prove to be beneficial. Having video of lessons readily available could assist with improving teachers' instruction. Having parents be able to view their children's classroom would connect parents and help build community.

Many teachers fear administrators would use video to use against teachers. Certainly there is precedence for this fear. For example, a superintendent in Washington secretly videotaped a teacher, who was subsequently fired. How would administrators use video being openly obtained? Hopefully they would be using it to help their teachers improve instruction, which is also something that teachers should be doing themselves. I have been videotaped many times as a teacher and I always find it a valuable experience after watching it. But those are isolated experiences, that require pre-planning and set-up and are not always readily available. Just imagine if a teacher could go and playback any lesson and reflect. This kind of documentation would enable teachers to constantly evaluate their instruction and also promote more interaction between teachers. Teachers love to share success stories, and video could facilitate this sharing. When I switched from 5th grade to 2nd grade, it took me some time to adjust. My principal suggested I use a prep day to observe one of my 2nd grade colleagues, which really helped me. With videotape, it would've been a much easier and immediate process.

Another benefit of having this type of documentation is to track student progress as well. Videotape is already being used in some special education classes, and the videotape is shared with parents and other resource teachers that are involved with the children. It helps to build a learning community, and in some cases is even beneficial to the student to watch themselves. Some would argue that allowing parents view their children's classroom is just an invasion of privacy or would encourage parents' micro-managing. But in many situations, including behavior problems, increased parent involvement is needed and videotape allows them to be connected. Many schools have cameras for surveillance and some already have made their way into the classroom.

As a teacher, I always make communication with parents a priority and my classroom is always open to them as well. I have a class web site that I use for communication as well as email. I consider their children's education a joint venture. Often I will post resources that will support parents with their kids. I have often thought how great it would be if parents could see my math launch everyday so they could help their kids with homework. Live videotaping would help this happen. If kids are sick and have to stay home, they can still "come to school" over the internet. Live-streaming from classrooms could have lots of possibilities for instruction. And if you believe what many bloggers say, it is only a matter of time before it's a reality. Push the cons aside and start to think of how you can use it positively.

Alan November writes: We can either react to it by circling the wagons and shooting inward or think about it now as a way to strengthen the relationships of learning and teaching.

Future Watch #3

Gagne on the rocks?

Which learning theories or models are the best? Although constructivism seems to be the current popular choice, does that mean poor old Gagne is out the door? Or would it be better to mix and match, and blend? Allsion Rossett describes, "Learning theories are not like religion." People's learning styles do not restrict them to just learn one way of learning. Jared Carman, president of Agilant Learning, writes in his whitepaper "different theories apply to different situations" and he suggests a blended theory approach would be better for creating effective learning experiences. According to his article Blended Learning Design: Five Key Ingredients, Gagne is still very much in the mix. Another reason a blend of theories makes sense is because of the growth of e-Learning. With the versatility of e-learning, it is better to have a variety of theories and models to draw upon.

An example of this type of blending of theories is described by Gunter, Kenny, & Vick in their article A Case for a Formal Design Paradigm for Serious Games. They contend that a new game design paradigm must be developed and needs to include sound educational practices to increase the learning effectiveness of serious games. And guess who they suggest? That's right...my guy Gagne! In fact, they pair him up with another guy I like, Keller. They aligned the components of the 9 Events and the ARCS model with common game features to develop a model for serious games design (RETAIN).

Using Gagne to design serious video games? Sure! They write:

"Given the fact that Gagne's Nine Events were the result of work performed while studying simulation as a tool of education, it follows that the events have a natural application in video game structure."

Gagne's 9 Events seem to have a natural application in many situations, which is why it is one of my instructional loves. It seems the 9 Events will continue to have a place in the future of instructional design, whether blended or on the rocks.




Carman, J. M. (2005). Blended Learning Design: Five Key Ingredients. http://www.agilantlearning.com/instructionaldesign.html

G. A. Gunter, R. F. Kenny and E. H. Vick. A case for a formal design paradigm for serious games, The Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 93-105, 2006.

Wearable Technology

When is small small enough? And when is fast fast enough? Those were two questions that came to me when I began to consider how nanotechnology could be used to improve a specific job or task with which I am familiar. A task that immediately popped in my head was that of following a recipe to prepare a meal. A fairly simple task; one which usually requires a job aid, also known as a recipe book. Generally speaking, people do not memorize recipes and therefore depend on a recipe book for directions. How could nanotechnology help me with this?

From the example of Kevin Warwick's capsule implant that contained microprocessors, it seems it is only a matter of time before there are tiny supercomputers that could be implanted in us. It is already amazing to me that my little iPod can hold as much information as it does. It is very commonplace for people to take pictures, check their email, and perform all kinds of applications on their cell phones. So through nanotechnology, I am envisioning my "iPod" being even more powerful, with more memory, and so super-tiny so that it can be implanted in me. Wearable technology. So this is when the two questions came to me: When is small small enough? And when is fast fast enough? Well, I sure wouldn't need that big recipe book anymore. Just how fast do I need that recipe anyway? It already seems that information is merely a few key strokes away. Do I really need a little computer inside me?

Of course, helping people make lasagna was not the motivation behind nanotechnology. The BrainPop video that is linked to the picture above describes nanotechnology and gives some hypothetical applications for it, specifically the possibility of creating nanobots and having them do pretty fantastic things. But a fantastic technology such as this should do fantastic things. So even though it's not practical for helping me with my cooking, I'm sure implanting a microscopic computer into a human would have some positive applications.
Warwick's capsule could tell the lights to turn on. That seems like just a convienence, which would fall into the how fast is fast enough catagory. But the idea of having it programmed to communicate with other devices in your environment has some definite potential. For example, if your chip could talk to the chip in the car speeding towards you, it could tell it to slow down and stop. A perfect combination of small and fast working together. Now that would be fantastic.

3 Big Ideas

After watching the five videos of FutureWatch 1, it was clear to me what the big ideas were:

1. Use the technology tools that students are using already to engage them.
2. Students need to be taught how to think and learn, rather than focus on content.
3. Since what needs to be taught is different, the role of the teacher needs to be different.

Digital Natives are considered to be the people growing up during this technological revolution and are considered to be more intuitive with things like computers, iPods, Web 2.0, etc. So now we have Digital Learners, aka 21st Century Students. The idea is that these kids use these tech tools, they like to use them, so why not use them for teaching? I have seen first hand how much more engaging a PowerPoint can be than just me up at the whiteboard talking. But it is more than just entertainment value, there is also opportunities for interactivity with many of these tools. I remember hearing from someone (professor?) that since students use technology, they expect their teachers to be using them also. According to the article written by Gregory R. Roberts, Technology and Learning Expectations of the Net Generation, "a key component of the Net Generation's definition of technology is customization, or the ability to adapt technology to meet individual needs, rather than vice versa." Customization? Meeting individual needs? Sound like good teaching to me.


Teachers are faced with the task of preparing students for the 21st century workforce, which apparently means we need to prepare them for jobs that don't exist yet! So what needs to be focused on is a skill set that can be transferable to all things -- thinking and learning. A simple example of this idea is comparing and contrasting. This is a thinking strategy, whether it is looking at different representations in math or comparing writing styles of two authors. It is a thinking skill that can be transferred to other disciplines. So are we teaching our kids to think or are we teaching them to pass a test? Are we teaching them how to learn? This is the information age; the idea of going to a library to research a topic seems almost absurd! So, are we teaching students how to find the information that they need to learn about a topic or to solve a problem? That will be a skill that they will need for that job that doesn't exist yet!

To be able to teach students how to learn, how to acquire information, the role of the teacher must evolve. The Networked Student video describes Connectivism: "learning occurs as a part of a social network of many diverse connections and ties...made possible by various tools of technology." The teacher does not lecture, there is no text book. The student is guided through an information gathering process, with the teacher acting as a facilitator (though as you can see in the photo, more descriptive titles have been used). I remember learning in my Ed Psyche class during the credential program that when a student learns or discovers something on their own, it is stronger learning. The role of the teacher as lecturer is disappearing; the role of teacher as facilitator is increasing.

So here is the problem -- many schools do not have access to the technology. But many schools are starting to catch up. With the passing of Prop. S, the San Diego Unified School District has developed a plan to upgrade the technology in every school. Every classroom will be an 21st Century (i-21) Interactive Classroom. So here's the new problem -- the teachers in these classrooms are mostly digital immigrants. There is nothing intuitive to them about blogs, or wikis, or podcasts. You can give teachers all the tools there are, but if they don't know how to use them there is no point. So training will be the key for a successful transition to 21st Century Classrooms. Teachers need to learn to use the tools, learn to be a faciltator, and focus on teaching how to learn.
There should be lots of work for us Ed Tec graduates!

Team Work?

So I'm reading about two different models (GSTE, SUTE) for implementing change at an organizational level (e.g. school district), and for the most part it's all theoretical. So I found myself trying to make connections to what's going on or has gone on in the past in my own school district. Currently the San Diego Unified School District has a new superintendent, Terry Grier, who is still in his first year. He is the third superintendent we've had since I began teaching. By far the most infamous of the three is Alan Bersin, whose sweeping reforms angered many teachers.

Bersin definitely was shooting for systemic change; there was nothing piecemeal about what he was doing. I had a discussion with my current principal, who was my vice principal during the Bersin era. At the time Bersin took over, overall district test scores were dismal, so the school board hired him to bring about change quickly. "Bersin is a sledgehammer," my principal described. This really goes against these models of change I have been reading about. Both models describe lots of team forming. GSTE describes Starter Teams, Leadership Teams, different levels of Design Teams. SUTE describes Community Forums, Strategic Leadership Team, Cluster Improvement Team, Site Improvement Team. All these TEAMS! Collective effort of teams. These models do seem to be rather lengthy processes, in fact a continuous ongoing process. But the average life span of a superintendent is about three years. That's not a lot of time when you are charged with getting immediate results. Also, one of the necessary conditions for the SUTE model to be successful is "Senior leaders who act on the basis of personal courage, passion, and vision; not on the basis of fear or self-survival." I'm sure that many of our senior leaders do exhibit some of the first three qualities, but since school board members are also elected officials, I'm not sure self-survival can ever truly be removed form the equation.

Another condition for success was "Senior leaders who conceive of their districts as whole systems; not as a collection of individual schools and programs." Bersin was treating the district as a whole system, but this was also one of the things that most angered people. Many of the failing schools had large English Learner populations, so he felt needed longer periods of literacy instruction (to his credit, Bersin did not come up with his ideas all on his own -- he relied on studies and experts). Thus the 3 hour Literacy Block was born and ALL schools in the district were expected to implement it -- even the schools that were high-achieving. I have doubts that an entire district really can be treated the same, any more than a classroom of children can all be taught the same way. Decentralizing the district has actually been suggested recently.

One thing Bersin was very good at was soliciting funds for his programs which included extensive professional development for teachers, which I personally benefited from being a new teacher at the time. Even though test scores did go up, Bersin was constantly criticized for his top-down management style. Curiously enough, Terry Grier is not also starting to receive the same criticism. Grier so far has only made piecemeal changes; their is an emphasis on analyzing student assessment data to direct instruction. Teachers are now saying that they are having to give too many tests. Instructional Leadership Teams is another thing he has put into place. These teams are made up of a teacher from each grade level, which meet together once a month to go over student progress and come up with ways to improve. But since most teachers don't volunteer to be on the ILT, the principal ends up asking the teachers s/he thinks will be willing to do it. Many of the other teachers simply see the ILT as a vehicle for the principal to implement the changes s/he wants to make. Again, top-down. Mostly I think teachers just do not like to be told what to do. This is where all those teams come in to play. The teachers are the major stakeholders in systemic change, and they need to be on board for any change to be successful. But then again, trying to get a room full of teachers to agree on anything can be a formidable task as well.

Differentiationism

My sister often tells me about how she is displeased with her children's teachers. Usually it is because she does not believe her kids are being challenged enough. Undoubtedly, she will bring up differentiated instruction in these conversations. Although individualizing instruction is not a new idea, it has become a more common battle cry among many parents (not just my sister). Certainly there is no argument against differentiation. All would agree that it is needed, whether it is to challenge a GATE student or to try and raise the achievement of English Language Learning students. You can not use a "cookie cutter" for all kids.

Now think of all the different instructional theories there are (behaviorism, constructivism, information processing theory, situated learning, cognitive load theory, etc.), and all the different learning modalities and styles there are (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, multiple intelligences, etc.). How on earth can you figure out what is best for each and every student? But that is what we are striving for isn't it? We want each student to have their own individual plan that takes into account what type of learner they are and what kind of instruction they will best respond to. That is why Differentiationism will be the learning theory of the future.

Having read a bit about different instructional strategies, I have come to these two conclusions: 1) They are all reasonable theories. 2) No one can prove which one works best. So, seemingly it is a matter of taking three things into consideration when designing instruction. What is it that you're teaching? What is the learning style of your learner? What instructional theory best fits these two factors? And there you have it: differentiationism.