Quote for today

“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of other’s opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” - Steve Jobs

Have seen this a few times today...

...so must be noteworthy.

We don't fail if we have tried, we just now have more information on what will work and what won't. We only truly fail when we don't do anything.

Personally and for my children, this is perhaps the biggest lesson of all.

Do you like to share?

Read this post here from a pre-service teacher asked in her classes to use social media for learning and sharing:

I know I am not going to be perfect, and I know I am going to make a lot of mistakes-- but that is the beauty of it, and the beauty of learning! You just keep going, and never give up on the possibilities you can achieve.

This is a person who gets it and what she shares there is now starting to move through the universities and filter their way down. She discusses her resistance to sharing and the change in the way she must learn. We are all human and have all been through these same thoughts. She eloquently shares them and has terrific insight.

Does technology improve learning?

From the blue skunk blog:

He asks a better question about technology and learning:

At a conference last week, Mark Weston from Dell computing stated that asking the question, "Does technology improve student learning?" is the wrong question.
The question should be, "Does technology support the practices that improve student learning?"

This is where I am at (and I think an unpopular viewpoint.) After making this product and that product, if the technology just creates an alternative to a traditional assignment, then it is not an improvement in learning (though may be more engaging.)

The change needs to be in pedagogy and that is where we need to work.

In regards to my reliance on a wiki, it changes how information is shared, and how students can collaborate. I use it primarily not just for that but also in an attempt to go paperless. It has been the one thing that has really bugged me over the years as I am very much an environmentalist.

Tags: technology, education

Goals of science education

Read this article here. It is excellent about the goals of science education. The last paragraph has a interesting statement:

I hope these goals are lofty, children deserve no less than our highest expectations.

They do. I am becoming accustomed to the fact that it does not matter what we do, we can always approve and there is someone who does not agree. When I focused on lecture and worksheets, etc., much of the public did not believe we actually taught and deserved respect (were they right?)

If you make a change, it makes others uncomfortable. These goals however are not new. They have been a rallying cry since 1990. I wrote about it here.

An outline of some of the goals that are discussed in the article that are of interest:

• Student Goal 1) Students will demonstrate critical thinking.
• Student Goal 2) Students will demonstrate a deep understanding of content and be able to apply this knowledge to problems in and out of the classroom.
• Student Goal 3) Students will demonstrate creativity and curiosity.
• Student Goal 5) Students will be responsible and conscientious members of communities.
• Student Goal 6) Students will exhibit confidence. (I like the willing to try again when they fail. The "failure is not an option" mentality does not serve them for their future.)
• Student Goal 7) Students will set goals and assess their own learning and progress. (I like this and need to find evidence of this being used.)
• Student Goal 8 ) Students will be active in their own learning.
• Student Goal 9) Students will use communication and cooperation skills effectively.
• Student Goal 10) Students will understand the nature of knowledge.

I am interested in what others think and what it will take to see the need for a focus on the goals and not just the content of science. Content can be easily attained through the focus on these goals. What do you think? How would this change what you know if your science experience were different?

Why looking at textbooks does not excite me...

Read this great article from a former teacher turned editor for a publishing company here.

The problem with books:

• They use a lot of resources
• They are devoid of anything really meaningful. Better stories and context can be found online. The basic information can also be found there too.
• There are so many errors in textbooks. Last year I researched our biology book and was amazed at the errors I discussed here. I have never been one to use the book exclusively. Prior to receiving a laptop cart in my room, students often asked whether they needed to bring it as they hardly ever used it.
• The materials that come with book adoption have generally not been used exclusively by me either.
  

When it comes down to finances and resources, what would be a better choice? I understand the arguments for having books and the class set I have in my classroom has been used from time to time (students always have the right to sign a book out.) I would adopt a textbook that has an online component for the following reasons:

1. We adopt books every 7 years or so. Before we get the books they are already out of date in terms of information. Having an online option means that it is updated more frequently. students have access to the online portion.
   
2. The simulations in some of these online portions are actually quite good.
3. Online activities also have information checks for understanding.

I do like the idea in the article about thin little books that contain the important related information. As we look at books, I am interested to see what publishers gimmick to sell their wares.

What are your thoughts about the current state of publishing and textbooks in any subject area?

Brain compatible instructional strategies

Last month I signed up for and attended a webinar on Brain compatible instructional strategies. Before I post my rough notes, I want to point out a blog post from my reader. It is a list we have mostly seen before but you have to love that a neurologist turned middle school teacher is the writer (and the fact that she claims teaching is more difficult than brain surgery.) Enjoy her thoughts here.

Thoughts and discussions from the webinar on 3/19/09 (any thoughts of mine are in bold):

• Are the activities that we do enhance the social, intellectual, and emotional well being?
• Emotion is the gatekeeper to performance
• Intelligence is a function of performance
• There are multiple ways to demonstrate intelligence
• Learning is a 2 step process
• This is our goal for the year - what do you take away from this class. What is it about your subject that gives you the greatest pleasure? What I love about my subject is the interconnectedness that brings greater understanding and clarity of life and the earth. The identity with process makes me marvel at the complexity and beauty of life itself.
• Life in school is constantly start and stop. Agreed. It was sad when block scheduling did not pass in our district. I am all for team taught interdisciplinary blocks with just 3 subjects per semester.
• Have lost context while chasing content. How do we change minds about the content?
• Remove items and people in the room to reduce the sensory input. Need a filter system to keep them focused. Today's students are too engaged. She made a point of removing extraneous things in the room (poster, etc.) and only keeping with the theme of the teaching for the day or unit. Find this interesting. A bulletin board specifically engaging with thoughts and items on that unit of study that is thought provoking.
• Brain compatible elements

1. absence of threat, nurturing
2. meaningful content - this year we reduced the extraneous material to the important information learned deeply
   
3. movement to enhance
4. choices - as much as we could we would let material be expressed in their choice of format but can still improve on that
   
5. adequate time - tough to do in 43 minutes and with so many standards in biology. I am really thinking of eliminating dissections from biology to free up time
   
6. immediate feedback - not next day, same day - we are still next day as class time too short, but worked on a massive amount of formative assessment. We also used checklists for information learned and verbally check student knowledge (best for dissections)
   
7. collaboration - tried many forms with more resistance this year than last. Last collaborations have been on gathering data only
   
8. mastery - Of all the changes we have made, this I like the best. The assignments are tougher as we are looking at critical thinking and process skills. Because of this, answers that are not on the mark are given driving questions and students have the opportunity for re-do in order to improve upon knowledge and consequently grades

• mirror neurons - montessori - explicit modeling and behavior
• use a theme in a day
• teach kids to move
• in order to make any right decisions that impact future, science is the most important - she suggests that all subjects should center around science. For example, English should be taught around the reading of science, history can be framed in science (really it is when you think about it). Places like the Science Leadership Academy in Phila. is centered around this philosophy
• While we are reading, we are not learning content. Start by not reading fiction. Read non-fiction and learn something. We don't read non-fiction and then listen to others about what they believe - Excellent point. Students spend so much time on non-fiction and then learn about what impacts their lives from the ideas of others in the news, community, etc. Students need to make meaning for themselves and can only do that through interacting deeply (reading and questioning) with the material. How do you make reading for understanding integral AS MOST STUDENTS DO NOT LIKE OR WANT TO DO THIS ON THEIR OWN
• Is it correct, is it complete, is it comprehensive - does it have a mental range of grasp.
• Create a common playing field for all students
• Need as much hands on and going places to activate the maximum numbers of senses for learning.
• Homework would be : what would you ask the character if you could? Where else could this story be found? Regurgitating back facts is not homework. That is excellent. Especially in the harder topics, we kept the easy stuff as group work and activities and the synthesis and analysis as homework with plenty of time to ask questions for clarification
• Immersion wall that has the focus of what you will be doing. What is the goal. What is the wow of what we are going to do? This can be done for every unit and would be a great map of where we are in our journey of understanding.
• mastery - How do we get them there? What is the target? How can they use it in an everyday situation? Have them describe where they use it outside of school.

This webinar gave me plenty to think about. The profession of education is much like that of other professions. They are practices. Some basics stay the same, but as we learn more about learning, we need to absorb more ideas into our practice.

tags: Brain compatible instruction

Embracing change

Excerpts from Embracing change (reflections from going one-to-one). All of the bulleted points are from the post:

• We’ve made the transition from teaching in ways that are comfortably familiar to teachers to designing learning opportunities that are centered in what our students need, a transition from teacher-driven to student-driven pedagogy.
• Curriculum must be the driver, not technology.
• Traditional assessment does not provide an accurate measure of learning when an innovative curriculum is in place nor does it accurately measure the acquisition of the previously defined literacies. Traditional assessment measures a concrete culmination of learning, an exam or final project, and fails to adequately acknowledge the learning process or provide information on how to modify that process in a timely manner. Technology and a 1:1 environment allow the learning process to be transparent, provides mechanisms for rich formative assessment with instantaneous feedback, and more adequately monitors and assesses the development of literacies.
• Learning spaces are not redefined but become undefined.
• The final fundamental lesson that 1:1 has provide is that Professional Development is necessary but must be individualized, blended between face to face and virtual opportunities, and available on demand. Ownership of professional development has to be transferred to teachers who need to feel supported and persuaded that it is an important part of their daily job.
• Every year it will be a little different and you evolve and get better at it. Just when you think you have things figured out...the rules change and you have to evolve again.

This really is an exceptional post about massive changes in not just providing a computer to every student, but in complete transformation about what can be.

Purpose of inquiry, annotations, and border crossings...

Earlier, I posted about my reflections on a post I read about concerning Border Crossings in Science (I really had not come across these before and they gave me pause to think.) The poster discussed the different types of border crossings that students must make in order to understand the language of science and to create meaning of concepts. Every science teacher has seen students who just get it and those that have difficulty constructing meaning. One reason we are in science is because we get it.

Currently the debate rages on between content and process and which is most important (this debate is being played out here and here and here for a start...) In the time of high stakes testing, content is important. But ask what they remember later or listen to what is needed from education and to be able to make decisions and construct ideas later and it is really process. Can you do both? And how do you get students to learn the basic processes which are actually global processes inherent to a large amount of content in science?

Can you also use technology for these border crossings? After having taught for 20 years, we have always heard to attend to students misconceptions. I get that, but identifying what the misconceptions are and challenging them to understand the scientific concept are two completely different things.

When we talk about borders, we talk about the beliefs that create them. We are not talking just about religion when the word belief is used, though that is one lens that can be used. Beliefs are the constructs that we make from the natural world. They are the experiences that we have had that have led us to here. Whether you have had the opportunity or had the inclination to play with materials, visit, explore, question, seek answers, etc. leads to your experience. Therefore, every persons understanding is relative to them and their construct of meaning is unique. Even two individuals with the same experiences can have very different constructs of the meaning. Think about how you view magic as a child and then as an adult. Your view as an adult is not because someone told you how the trick is performed (though that may be true in some instances.) Your view changed because you have more understanding and experiences from which to draw.

Does it really matter? Yes and no, I suspect. How do you get to deeper understanding with all students with different constructs and experiences that created their meaning to this point?

I have been mulling it over for some time. One technique we looked at, is having students annotate our lecture notes. What were we looking for? Initially, we wanted students to inquire about the material and become more acquainted to asking questions. What we also asked for was students to connect to what they already knew. So their annotations using the comment feature in Microsoft Word showed what knowledge students had, what connections they could already make, and where the sticky points of the material were. We started this in some of our harder chapters. To do again, I would use this throughout the year, as more practice with easier material would perhaps make the annotations even more meaningful later.

So what did we see/think from this?:

• The students who initially had annotations that left no blank spaces on the page were the students who also were uninhibited to frame questions normally in class. Ironically, they were not necessarily the students with the top grades. Do they ask more questions and seem more fearless in class because they actively do this as readers already?
  
• The majority of students admitted to tuning out when reading most passages assigned in schools. In the past (14 years ago), when I asked students whether they read an assignment, many students said "no, teachers just tell us the material anyway. Why read it?" This may be true some of the time, but sometimes it is because some aspect of the material is difficult. Is it worth our time then to cultivate activation of some knowledge as an important study skill? I think it is.
  
• Do some students just see this as another assignment vs. learning experience? When large gaps of missing annotations exist, I would comment on whether there was anything in that passage that they recognized. Students would always find something and I urged them to annotate it. I really wanted to see what they knew, try to identify misconceptions and find those sticky points.
• After annotating, students listened to a podcast lecture and added notes in the margins, etc. Some of the notes answered their own annotation questions and some did not.
  
• Lecture then consisted of a great discussion of the background information which in my experience became the best lecture discussions we have had. More time could then be spent on those sticky points that were tough to understand. Students also had great questions that they would then ask.
• An informal, raise your hand poll in class revealed that students found they understood the material better than if I would have just lectured the material straight. (I am planning on doing this the other more traditional way soon, to see if they still think this.) I know informal polls are not valid, but I was so excited to see how they were interacting that day.
  
• Some students still do not engage fully with material (and seem to apply Fatima's rules - see my link to original post above.) Is this just how they are moving through school or is there indeed some border crossings that are difficult to address? And, how do we address them? Or do they come with time?
  
• After having students work deeply with material and use inquiry, I see a definite change in many in their ability to work with material and ask questions. Would there be a bigger change if this were used all year long?
• Additionally, this is not just my class. Another Academic bio teacher agreed to follow the same and reflect with me.
  

So here are my initial questions before beginning the annotating exercises:

• How does student use of annotations of passages (identifying background information, finding problematic words and texts, questioning concepts and ideas) influence better understanding of the topic of study and learning the process and content of science topics?
  
• How do understanding of student thought processes evident in the annotations change the structure and activities in class?
  
• Do the use of annotations (and revisiting and continued use) influence learning and continued questioning by students?

The rationale:
If the language of science is a barrier to students, how can we get them thinking about their thinking? My thoughts on this have led to students taking a more active role in their thinking through the use of annotations not only for understanding the concepts but in increasing study skills for the future. (Ironically, my rationale was developed prior to reading the post on Barriers in Science.)

Data collection

The data that I will collect includes the collection of student annotations of reading text. This will help identify student thinking throughout the reading of the text. It will also serve as an indicator of material that is/is not problematic to the students. A survey will be used to determine student opinion of annotating (yet to be done.) Observation throughout the annotating process and individual discussions with students will provide with artifacts from field notes. The use of reflection by both the teacher and the student will provide information about the learning experiences.

I chose these particular assessments as quiz and test data are not an indicator of student thinking and questioning throughout the reading of passages of text. I am planning on using an online survey tool and will be collecting students digital annotations.

Addendum: Results from student survey are below (added 4/23/09). The survey results do not show more than we have already thought on our own. The largest response (scale 1-5) is that using the annotations, podcasting, etc. increased understanding of students. Though I know worksheets might do the same, I can state that student engagement in the discussions were deeper and more interactive than at any other point of teaching in the last 20 years. I had thought that students would have transferred the idea of annotations as a study skill in other topics but that does not appear to be the case. Mostly, because it is perceived as an assignment and not one in other classes, or perhaps because students do not have the same pre-discussion notes in other classes. At the end of the year, I will find it interesting to see what they think about the different opportunities for learning we used all year and their usefulness.

The results:


The survey questions:

Do borders stop students from understanding?

From the Art of Teaching science Blog: The world might be flat, but in Science class, there are borders to cross. According to research, flattening the classroom is a bit more difficult in science classes due to a different worldview than they experience. Their social worlds (and the way they view things) influences and interferes with the way they view and understand the natural world. Science requires identifying with a different subculture and way of thinking that is foreign and difficult to many. Identifying where a student is, past experiences and misconceptions, and how to make information relevant to them is a way to reach all students. Here are the groups of students suggested according to the research (and quoted from the Art of Teaching Science blog):

1. Potential Scientists: Worlds of family and friends are congruent with worlds of
   both school and science. These students will have smooth border crossings that will most likely lead to deep understanding of science. These students’ self image closely aligned with Western science.
2. I Want to Know: (this category was added by Glen Aikenhead to the others shown here that were developed by Victoria B. Costa). As described by Aikenhead, these students have adventurous border crossings that lead to a modest yet effective understanding of science (there are hazards, but students want to know). Their self-image and lifestyle resonate with the world of science, but the nature of Western science concepts is often a challenge to them.
3. Other Smart Kids: Worlds of family and friends are congruent with the world of
   school but inconsistent with the world of science. Many students in this category can easily do well in science, but show no real interest in science. They get by in science class. And according to some researchers, they apply “Fatima’s Rules” to manage themselves in science class.
4. I Don’t Know Students: Worlds of family and friends are inconsistent with
   worlds of both school and science. For these students, they will make hazardous border crossings in the world of science, but according to researchers, they can get by in science class through perserverence.
5. Outsiders: Worlds of family and friends are discordant with worlds of both school
   and science. For some of these students, they simply drop out physically or intellectually. Science simply does not fit their self-image or their life styles.
6. Inside Outsiders: Worlds of family and friends are irreconcilable with world of
   school, but are potentially compatible with world of science. But in general these students face impossible border crossings, perhaps due to institutional discrimination.

In another blog post on the Art of teaching Science, a case is made for informal learning as a means for making the border crossings with students. No matter how much we say and understand the connections between material ourselves, it is perceived mostly like disconnected ideas. The current model of teaching science does not address the border crossings.

We can make it relevant for students, but what this points to is a need to make it relevant for all students. And that means meeting them on their terms, in their interests, for every student to make that border crossing. Again it makes the case for individualized work that is collaborative and relevant and based on student interest allows students to identify the content and the relevance. Border crossings are then much easier.

So there are always students who do well. What about other students who are smart but have difficulty in class, needing much more time to understand science? Why do some of us "dig it" and others are just perplexed by the verbage? We have to think who we are teaching. Some students have lost all curiosity or did not have an opportunity to explore growing up. Many students have deeply ingrained misconceptions as well as their social structure they live in.

Why is there a lack of inquiry to determine the truth. Is it years of spoon feeding curriculum without opportunities to seek, identify and develop their own thoughts? Or is it deeply ingrained beliefs not having to do with scientific concepts but make border crossings difficult? Really, our society has this problem. We rely more on what we think others believe we should think. Deep culture and religious values can also interfere (this is not faith bashing, but it is a factor that changes how we see the world and how we connect ideas.) Unless we address where students are coming from and how we think through material, students may not make it across the border. The push for knowing content and passing tests does not help us deal with these border crossings which are highly individualized to the student.

A post by pharyngula provides this quote:

The difference is not in intelligence. It's on the foundation of their education. Intelligent people who are indoctrinated into a faith can build marvelously intricate palaces of rationalization atop the shoddy vapor of their beliefs about gods and the supernatural; what scientists... must do is build their logic on top of a more solid basis of empirical evidence and relentless self-examination. The difference isn't their ability to reason, it is what they are reasoning about.

Open mindedness and thinking critically (again to show how people connect evidence differently):



Resources:
Fatima's Rule : (Where deep learning seems to have happened but actually memorization of key terms and processes have instead happened. This is a negotiated practice with the leaner.)
Science education: Border crossing...
Learning Science in Informal Environments: Peoples, Places, and Pursuits

On covering less...

Snippets from Education.change.org:

Sadler and Tai have previously hinted at where this was going. In 2001 they reported that students who did not use a textbook in high school physics—an indication that their teachers disdained hitting every topic — achieved higher college grades than those who used a textbook.

...and from Jay Matthews at the Washington Post:

Based on a sample of 8,310 undergraduates, the national study says that students who spend at least a month on just one topic in a high school science course get better grades in a freshman college course in that subject than students whose high school courses were more balanced.

Interesting. The question is whether we want kids to do well on a standardized test or do well in college? Even if the answer were the former, with less standards, the questions on the test will change and maybe they will do well on both? I can say that as a Bio teacher, there is an incredible amount of standards for the subject and we only have one year. It is actually insane and a disservice to how we learn best. Unfortunately the decisions of the standards are left to those who are not actual stakeholders in education.