A good session on 21st century skills. Led by Dr. Nadene Davidson (UNI) and Dr. Jody Stone (Price lab Schools). This session gave an overview of the skills in the 4 areas (employability, financial, health, and technology).
Some of the high points:
• Highlighted the foundation of the work... Partnership for 21st century skills, NCREL's enGauge, and SCANS "What Work Requires of Schools" report
• Identified 5 key pieces for implementation in your Iowa Core plan... professional development in instruction/assessment, collaboration with other faculty and community, high expectations, changing the school environment (be it project-based learning, time allocation, or student ownership), and technology breadth.
• Used clips from New Tech schools in California to highlight 21st century teaching and learning, much like Judy.
• Presented a 21st century skills inventory (created by Stone) which schools can use as an alignment tool
• And, put forth some key questions for planning implementation.
Those questions for planning include:
1. Where are the 21st century skills addressed?
2. At what level are they addressed?
3. Which skills are not being addressed?
4. How can we restructure programs and the classroom to ensure they are fully implemented?
5. And in the classroom, how do I know students are getting it?
Handouts from the Iowa High School Summit can be found here.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Judy Jeffrey from the High School Summit
Blogging from the 5th Iowa High School Summit.
Judy Jeffrey led off in a very somber mood. It soon became obvious why.
Jeffrey brought up two studies, the 1996 Carnegie/NASSP report (which she said "unleashed a powerful tool of reform) and the 2002 Foundation for Change's "Focusing on Iowa high schools. She bulleted the suggestions detailed in the reports and gave her interpretations on how we were doing. It was clear she thought we were on the right track, be in the mandatory core curriculum (check), each student having an individualized education plan (8th grade transition -- check), the emphasis on continuous improvement (check), the clear educational agenda (check again), and so on.
Then she showed the trajectories. High schools remained stagnant again in reading and math, while 4th and 8th grade continue to climb. And while some progress has been made in the achievement gap, the progress is not as fast as it needs to be.
Something is not computing.
Iowa has taken a far more aggressive pitch with high school reform than middle school or elementary. We've invested time and resources heavily there. And, you could hear the disbelief in Jeffrey's voice. There was a point in her keynote when she said "If anyone has any ideas, I'll be around these two days... come and talk to me."
There is something truly difficult here. It isn't that the test scores are stagnant, though (that can be fixed). It is the perception that high schools are making the changes outlined in the Iowa Core Curriculum.
This is a wide stroke to paint, but in general, you ask any teacher, principal, or superintendent, they would say "We are in good shape". There is this belief that they are ahead of the curve of the Iowa Core. It is Lake Woebegon... no one feels they are behind the curve.
When there is no perception that anything instructionally is wrong, there is no chance for change.
Jeffrey mentioned her visit to a New Tech school in Austin, Texas, which the DE is using as a model of where they would like to go with Iowa high schools. In her visit, there were several things that stood out:
I haven't seen New Tech high schools. It appears they are magnet schools, and much like UNI's Price Lab school, they have opportunities for innovation that might not be truly the same as the circumstances of Iowa's schools. But I do know this: Iowa's schools don't do these things. Or as I'd imagine the conversation going, "Well... we aren't in that good of shape."
This is exactly what Jeffrey must do. She must get schools beyond the generic buzzwords that schools can latch on to. "Yes, we have a rigorous curriculum." "Yes, we have engaging classrooms." "Yes, we conduct formative assessment and use sound teaching for understanding principles".
No, we aren't in that good of shape.
Judy Jeffrey led off in a very somber mood. It soon became obvious why.
Jeffrey brought up two studies, the 1996 Carnegie/NASSP report (which she said "unleashed a powerful tool of reform) and the 2002 Foundation for Change's "Focusing on Iowa high schools. She bulleted the suggestions detailed in the reports and gave her interpretations on how we were doing. It was clear she thought we were on the right track, be in the mandatory core curriculum (check), each student having an individualized education plan (8th grade transition -- check), the emphasis on continuous improvement (check), the clear educational agenda (check again), and so on.
Then she showed the trajectories. High schools remained stagnant again in reading and math, while 4th and 8th grade continue to climb. And while some progress has been made in the achievement gap, the progress is not as fast as it needs to be.
Something is not computing.
Iowa has taken a far more aggressive pitch with high school reform than middle school or elementary. We've invested time and resources heavily there. And, you could hear the disbelief in Jeffrey's voice. There was a point in her keynote when she said "If anyone has any ideas, I'll be around these two days... come and talk to me."
There is something truly difficult here. It isn't that the test scores are stagnant, though (that can be fixed). It is the perception that high schools are making the changes outlined in the Iowa Core Curriculum.
This is a wide stroke to paint, but in general, you ask any teacher, principal, or superintendent, they would say "We are in good shape". There is this belief that they are ahead of the curve of the Iowa Core. It is Lake Woebegon... no one feels they are behind the curve.
When there is no perception that anything instructionally is wrong, there is no chance for change.
Jeffrey mentioned her visit to a New Tech school in Austin, Texas, which the DE is using as a model of where they would like to go with Iowa high schools. In her visit, there were several things that stood out:
- Administrators and teacher were completely facilitators... there wasn't a single lecture-type lesson in Jeffrey's visit in any classroom.
- Students were responsible for their own learning. She mentioned the collaborative work groups, and the fact that team members could "fire" a team member if they weren't pulling their weight, and those members would be responsible for doing everything themselves. She also said that this rarely happened as students understood the responsibility involved.
- Along with #2, students were responsible for determining what they didn't know, and then asking for a "workshop" to teach them. In this respect, if a student knew how to do citations, let's say, that student wouldn't have to sit through an informational lecture on how to do them.
- The school had voluntary Saturday school, where both teachers and students came and worked, without financial incentive or being forced to. The culture of the school was one where they were eager to spend their free time there.
- And, the school required rigorous work, including 2 years of engineering, 12 hours of college credit, 50 hours of community service, and a senior internship to graduate.
I haven't seen New Tech high schools. It appears they are magnet schools, and much like UNI's Price Lab school, they have opportunities for innovation that might not be truly the same as the circumstances of Iowa's schools. But I do know this: Iowa's schools don't do these things. Or as I'd imagine the conversation going, "Well... we aren't in that good of shape."
This is exactly what Jeffrey must do. She must get schools beyond the generic buzzwords that schools can latch on to. "Yes, we have a rigorous curriculum." "Yes, we have engaging classrooms." "Yes, we conduct formative assessment and use sound teaching for understanding principles".
No, we aren't in that good of shape.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Tech coordinator on your Iowa Core Leadership team?
Does your district have its technology coordinator on your Iowa Core Leadership team? Shouldn't it?
Considering the power the coordinators have, it would be a good idea to make sure they are a proponent of the best interests of the student.
Considering the power the coordinators have, it would be a good idea to make sure they are a proponent of the best interests of the student.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Depth of Technology Integration
Technology integration is not monolithic; that is to say, just using computers does not mean you are fully integrating. There are degrees to the definition.
Those that do talk about the degree of integration often talk about the frequency, not necessarily the purpose. But both are components.
I've tried to represent this visually:
What are the levels of integration?
FREQUENCY
• Sporadic - Very occasional use of technology, perhaps a free day in the lab or one-time "research" looking up websites.
• Limited - Integration is influenced by factors. Students have to work on assignments at home because computers are not available. Or activities are modified for the one-computer classroom.
• Scheduled - Integration happens once a cycle, during scheduled time.
• Intensive Unit - Students are not working with technology regularly, but do so intensively during a particular unit (such as three weeks spent making an iMovie).
• Daily - Not only intensive, but there is a daily integration to technology. Can be ongoing projects or things as simple as daily student blogging or checking the message board.
• 1:1 - Daily integration to the nth degree. Now students are in possession of the computerized device, extending learning beyond the classroom time slots and walls. Also, integration becomes school-wide instead of classroom-wide.
PURPOSE
• Compliance - Integrating only because you are forced to as a teacher. This isn't much deeper than no integration at all.
• Convenience - Integration only where it is easier to do the lesson than in the absence of technology. Showing streaming video in the same way you would show analog video is convenient integration. So is using Microsoft Word for word processing. In some districts, Power Point is reaching convenient integration, where the technology is not a tool for learning but rather an easier method to the desired product.
• Unstructured - Free "play time" with technology. Can lead to student learning through their own inquisitiveness, or to a waste of time.
• Unconnected - Integration that isn't tied to the curriculum. Actually, this could be used as a descriptor for convenience, unstructured, or procedural integration than its own category. While the learning could be deep or shallow, the main feature of this is that it is teaching a tool/doing a project for the sake of experiencing the technology, not for the sake of learning the curriculum.
• Procedural - Training integration, where students receive explicit instruction on how to use technology (this can be a pre-cursor to other types of integration, or in the case of computer applications courses, it could be the only model).
• Constructivist - Integration is used by students to create products, artifacts, or authentic work, which allows students to construct their own meaning.
• Connectivist - Integration is used to connect students to a variety of resources and people, building their "knowledge net" and their exposure to the infinite number of learning items in the world.
A note: while there is general correlation between the two sides, there is by no means a requirement to be at the same level. For example, in a 1:1 school, you will probably have quite a few teachers at the constructivist level and also a few at the compliance level. And some creative teachers in a limited setting can find ways to develop constructivist learning.
If we made this chart into a chart of frequency used in schools, there would be several "hotspots". A lot of "integration" is Scheduled-Convenience. There also is a large portion of (what I would consider) quality integration that is Intensive Unit-Constructivist. Just as often, there is Intensive Unit-Unconnected (as my principal mode would say, tell me again why you are having the kids do this?). There are "dead-spots" as well, obviously with 1:1 and Daily, as well as Connectivist integration.
It is my premise that The Deeper, The Better. We should aspire to the Digital Curriculum at the bottom. This is where technology is not a conscious effort, or even worse, a foreign experience. It is where technology use in the classroom has become so native that is invisible, just like using a pencil.
To get there, though, we have to correctly identify where we currently are. We are not there just because we had students look up sites on the Holocaust last Thursday. We are not there even if we have that one cool unit where they make a podcast. If they are isolated events in the curriculum, technology use remains foreign for students. This was okay when people did not work and live with computers, but it is not okay now. Just like the work world and the private world, our technology use must be native.
Those that do talk about the degree of integration often talk about the frequency, not necessarily the purpose. But both are components.
I've tried to represent this visually:
What are the levels of integration?
FREQUENCY
• Sporadic - Very occasional use of technology, perhaps a free day in the lab or one-time "research" looking up websites.
• Limited - Integration is influenced by factors. Students have to work on assignments at home because computers are not available. Or activities are modified for the one-computer classroom.
• Scheduled - Integration happens once a cycle, during scheduled time.
• Intensive Unit - Students are not working with technology regularly, but do so intensively during a particular unit (such as three weeks spent making an iMovie).
• Daily - Not only intensive, but there is a daily integration to technology. Can be ongoing projects or things as simple as daily student blogging or checking the message board.
• 1:1 - Daily integration to the nth degree. Now students are in possession of the computerized device, extending learning beyond the classroom time slots and walls. Also, integration becomes school-wide instead of classroom-wide.
PURPOSE
• Compliance - Integrating only because you are forced to as a teacher. This isn't much deeper than no integration at all.
• Convenience - Integration only where it is easier to do the lesson than in the absence of technology. Showing streaming video in the same way you would show analog video is convenient integration. So is using Microsoft Word for word processing. In some districts, Power Point is reaching convenient integration, where the technology is not a tool for learning but rather an easier method to the desired product.
• Unstructured - Free "play time" with technology. Can lead to student learning through their own inquisitiveness, or to a waste of time.
• Unconnected - Integration that isn't tied to the curriculum. Actually, this could be used as a descriptor for convenience, unstructured, or procedural integration than its own category. While the learning could be deep or shallow, the main feature of this is that it is teaching a tool/doing a project for the sake of experiencing the technology, not for the sake of learning the curriculum.
• Procedural - Training integration, where students receive explicit instruction on how to use technology (this can be a pre-cursor to other types of integration, or in the case of computer applications courses, it could be the only model).
• Constructivist - Integration is used by students to create products, artifacts, or authentic work, which allows students to construct their own meaning.
• Connectivist - Integration is used to connect students to a variety of resources and people, building their "knowledge net" and their exposure to the infinite number of learning items in the world.
A note: while there is general correlation between the two sides, there is by no means a requirement to be at the same level. For example, in a 1:1 school, you will probably have quite a few teachers at the constructivist level and also a few at the compliance level. And some creative teachers in a limited setting can find ways to develop constructivist learning.
If we made this chart into a chart of frequency used in schools, there would be several "hotspots". A lot of "integration" is Scheduled-Convenience. There also is a large portion of (what I would consider) quality integration that is Intensive Unit-Constructivist. Just as often, there is Intensive Unit-Unconnected (as my principal mode would say, tell me again why you are having the kids do this?). There are "dead-spots" as well, obviously with 1:1 and Daily, as well as Connectivist integration.
It is my premise that The Deeper, The Better. We should aspire to the Digital Curriculum at the bottom. This is where technology is not a conscious effort, or even worse, a foreign experience. It is where technology use in the classroom has become so native that is invisible, just like using a pencil.
To get there, though, we have to correctly identify where we currently are. We are not there just because we had students look up sites on the Holocaust last Thursday. We are not there even if we have that one cool unit where they make a podcast. If they are isolated events in the curriculum, technology use remains foreign for students. This was okay when people did not work and live with computers, but it is not okay now. Just like the work world and the private world, our technology use must be native.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Connectivism - Common Craft style
This is from Wendy Drexler, who working with her son, have put together a synopsis of what a connectivist student's day would look like. Note the similarity to the digital curriculum.
What worries me is that connectivism has not been mentioned with the Iowa Core. The "new way of teaching" pushed by the core, be it authentic intellectual work or project-based learning, is really constructivism. Not a bad thing, mind you (better than the behaviorism model of learning that permeates quite a few of our classrooms). But again, behind the times.
My worries notwithstanding, a nice video:
What worries me is that connectivism has not been mentioned with the Iowa Core. The "new way of teaching" pushed by the core, be it authentic intellectual work or project-based learning, is really constructivism. Not a bad thing, mind you (better than the behaviorism model of learning that permeates quite a few of our classrooms). But again, behind the times.
My worries notwithstanding, a nice video:
Monday, December 1, 2008
What are 21st century skills -- part 2
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills released their framework for English classes, which joins social studies as subjects completed by the partnership. The framework map gives educators outcomes and examples for the various 21st century skills identified by the overall framework.
The skills that the partnership identify are:
1. Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes - including global awareness, civic literacy, financial literacy, and health literacy
2. Learning and Innovation Skills
- Creativity and Innovation Skills
- Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills
- Communication and Collaboration Skills
3. Information, Media and Technology Skills
- Information Literacy
- Media Literacy
- ICT Literacy
4. Life and Career Skills
- Flexibility & Adaptability
- Initiative & Self-Direction
- Social & Cross-Cultural Skills
- Productivity & Accountability
- Leadership & Responsibility
Tools for the Elementary Visual Arts Classroom
At my son and daughter's conferences, I had a good visit with their elementary art teacher. Both of my kids love art class, and they both love computers. The discussion turned to Comic Life, the Plasq program that allows you to take your photos and quickly create a comic strip from them. Thus, it's not only an art tool, but also a digital storytelling tool.In addition to Comic Life, there are several other programs that my kids have found accessible and interesting:
• SketchCast - Best used with a sketchpad, this tool will record an animation of the user sketching the drawing. Can also record voice as well.
• GoAnimate - For upper elementary students, this tool introduces animation and cartoon creation. It comes with templates and stock images to help the learning process
• Warholizer - Easy-to-use tool turns your photo into the Marilyn-esque pop art reproduction of Andy Warhol.
• Gliffy - An online diagramming tool for all grade levels, whether it be flow charts, organizational charts, or floor plans.
• Gifup - One of many quick online tools allowing you to upload a photo and then try out basic effects.• Bubblesnaps - A free, online version of Comic Life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)