Teaching Practice

I've been reading Bob Marzano research studies for years, and while I don't always agree with the conclusions that he draws -- especially about the glory of the Interactive Whiteboard -- his work has helped to define the actions that I take in my classroom.

One Marzano finding -- more than any other -- is burned on my full-time classroom teacher's brain

I whipped it into a slide this morning.  Here it is:

(click to enlarge)



Download Slide_23Years

 

Think about that for a minute, y'all.  If it's going to take 23 YEARS to adequately cover the standards in the K12 curriculum, we have some difficult choices to make.

We can EITHER add another 10 years to the time that our students spend in school OR we can start to make some critical decisions -- based on what we know about the kids in our community and the skills necessary to succeed in tomorrow's world -- about what we ARE and ARE NOT going to teach. 

Which of those two choices are YOU prepared to make?

_______________________________________

Related Radical Reads:

Stuffing Kids with Content

How Guaranteed and Viable is YOUR Curriculum?

Brainpop and the Overloaded Curriculum

Calling Out #atplc Nation

 

I've been reading Bob Marzano research studies for years, and while I don't always agree with the conclusions that he draws -- especially about the glory of the Interactive Whiteboard -- his work has helped to define the actions that I take in my classroom.

One Marzano finding -- more than any other -- is burned on my full-time classroom teacher's brain

I whipped it into a slide this morning.  Here it is:

(click to enlarge)

read more

Poking around my feed reader the other day, I stumbled across a great Smartblogs bit titled Build Your Desired Culture with Do Messages written by S. Chris Edmonds. 

The author's central contention was one that I've heard before -- norms for professional teams should always be written as positive instead of negative statements. 

What I hadn't heard before was the rationale behind that choice. 

Turns out your brain can process positive messages -- do statements -- faster than it can process negative messages.

read more

Poking around my feed reader the other day, I stumbled across a great Smartblogs bit titled Build Your Desired Culture with Do Messages written by S. Chris Edmonds. 

The author's central contention was one that I've heard before -- norms for professional teams should always be written as positive instead of negative statements. 

What I hadn't heard before was the rationale behind that choice. 

Turns out your brain can process positive messages -- do statements -- faster than it can process negative messages.

That pesky "don't" that we put at the beginning of so many of the statements that we make to govern behavior just plain gets in the brain's way -- and the consequences can be pretty severe:

(click to enlarge)

Download Slide_DosandDonts

 

Pretty interesting stuff, huh? It's already making me rethink the words and phrases that I use in my classroom with my middle school students. 

If Edmonds is right, one simple language change could save me a whole BUNCH of frustrating moments and help me to create a learning environment where my students will be more successful by default. 

#hopethishelps

It was an interesting -- albeit hectic -- week in Radical Nation, y'all.  You see, Dell Computers paid my way to MIT to participate in a Social Think Tank event focused on Innovation in Education.

Not only was I rolling like a big-shot on a college campus that I could only DREAM about attending, I was hanging out with some pretty bright minds including Michael Horn, co-author of Disrupting Class – a book that changed the way that I think about the role that technology will play in school reform.

The conversation was pretty darn engaging from start to finish -- and as a guy who really digs engaging conversations, that turned the event into a much-needed intellectual pick-me-up for a professionally exhausted full-time classroom teacher. 

What I loved the most about the event was seeing first-hand the level of consensus that exists around the changes that have to happen to move our schools forward. 

EVERYONE sitting at the table -- representatives from businesses, central office and higher education staffers, community leaders from organizations like the PTA and the Boys and Girls Clubs, student leaders -- knew that our buildings needed to move towards places where students learned to experiment and imagine INSTEAD of remaining places where students spend their days listening and memorizing.

And EVERYONE sitting at the table knew that doing so would require the efforts of broad groups of committed stakeholders working together. 

Each panelist listened with the intent of finding ways that the groups THEY represented could affect change INSTEAD of with the intent of finding ways that they could point the finger at other groups that were dropping the ball.

That's reason for celebration, y'all.  It's a tangible reminder of the fact that we DO know a thing or two about what needs to change in our schools -- and we DO have partners willing to do some of the heavy lifting with us. 

But all-in-all, I left the conversation with reasons to be pessimistic, too. 

Here's three:

 Despite my own willingness to create meaningful learning environments, I
know that I haven't got the tools to make those environments a reality for my students
.

Perhaps my favorite voice in Thursday's conversations belonged to Mitch Resnick -- LEGO Papert Professor of Learning Research at the MIT Media Lab.  

Mitch talked passionately about the fact that schools need to become more like kindergartens -- places where kids are encouraged to imagine and to create.  He talked about the joy he gets in watching his own students ask and answer powerful questions.

"We've got students around here who are trying to develop cameras that can see around corners," he said, "and other kids who are trying to develop innovative player pianos -- and while they are designing and creating, they're learning.  We need to give students in our schools more chances to do that."

Now, I couldn't AGREE MORE with Mitch's central premise that designing and creating need to play a larger role in our schools.

But as a public school science teacher, I'm not sure Mitch -- who works in a building that has 8 floors of top-level engineering labs stocked with a seemingly unlimited amount of supplies -- realizes what's possible in the typical K-12 classroom.

Seriously, y'all: The ENTIRE supply budget for our sixth grade science program this year was $600.  That's for a department of four teachers serving nearly 400 students. 

Every time a beaker breaks in one of my classrooms, I worry because I don't know that I'm going to have any extra money to replace it.  Every time we do a lab activity, I have to beg the parents of my students to send in consumables and hope that I get everything that I need -- or go out and buy materials out of my own pocket.

Talk about design on a dime, huh?

#anditsMYdime!

The truth is that teachers aren't OPPOSED to creating the kinds of learning environments that Mitch imagines.  We just don't have the resources necessary to make that kind of creative experimentation happen on a regular basis. 

Despite the obvious willingness of stakeholders outside of the classroom to get involved, few people understand just what TEACHERS can do given the professional context that we work in.

Another barrier to creating the kinds of spaces that Mitch described is the fact that NO ONE is holding teachers accountable for encouraging kids to "design and create." 

Instead, we continue to develop content-heavy curricula that we test with content-heavy end-of-grade exams that carry incredibly high stakes for both students AND teachers. 

Don't believe me? 

Go and ask any high schooler taking AP classes how much "designing and creating" they do before their final exams.  Chances are, you'll hear a WHOLE lot more about the "memorizing and cramming."

What worried me during the course of our conversations on Thursday was that other participants -- who were all passionate, intelligent, capable and aware people -- seemed to believe that the content-heavy worlds our kids live in was the fault of classroom teachers.

"Teachers need to stop protecting their roles as content leaders," one participant argued. 
"Instead, they need to start seeing themselves as people responsible for
developing skills.  In today's connected world, content is less
important than skills."

"We hire teachers to be risk takers, right?" said another.  "We want them to model that
kind of behavior for our children.  They need to make risky choices about what to work on
in their classrooms."

But here's the thing, y'all: Teachers are responding to YOUR system.

We're not encouraging kids to design and create because we have massive, content-heavy curricula to churn our way through before the end of the school year.  Designing and creating takes time that we just don't have. 

What's more, we're not taking instructional risks because there's NO reward -- and increasingly severe consequences -- for failure in a high-stakes world.  That's certainly not a culture that supports the kind of "fail quickly and fail cheaply" behaviors that define the most innovative businesses.

If
you REALLY want risk-taking teachers who spend their days showing kids
how to design and create, then start DEMANDING that your elected officials
-- who are the real power players in conversations about what's
happening in our classrooms -- rethink what we're holding schools
accountable for. 

Despite the obvious awareness of the need for change from the other panel members, members of the general public seemed to have a poorly-developed sense for what change really looks like in action.

One of the most revealing moments of the entire experience happened when the moderator of an Education Nation panel discussion on change in schools -- who happened to be an MSNBC anchor -- commented on what she thought the classrooms of the future would look like.

"So what will teachers be doing," she asked panelists,"when students are all working quietly behind their own computers getting lessons delivered based on their own ability?"

#ouch

Her comments caught me off-guard and I was jazzed that Jim Shelton of the Department of Education corrected her, explaining that digital tools should create MORE collaborative workspaces instead of MORE kids working "quietly behind their own computers."

But her comments are also indicative of the real problem that we face in reimagining our schools:  The average community member doesn't have a clear view of the kind of schools and classrooms that we need to create.

Instead, they still imagine classrooms that look a lot like the classrooms that they sat through decades ago, with students working quietly on individual tasks.

That DOESN'T make them bad people, y'all. 

But it DOES serve as a reminder that educating the general public -- helping them to understand that today's students CAN'T succeed if they're sitting in yesterday's classrooms -- is a critical first step towards driving productive change for tomorrow's schools.  

 

Long story short: I'm jazzed to have been involved in Dell's conversation -- and jazzed that Dell is committed to bringing stakeholders together to wrestle with important ideas no matter where the conversation leads.

#thatscool

But I walk away realizing that the fight to change our schools is STILL just starting -- and while there are more people who are willing to lower their shoulders and push, we're fooling ourselves if we think the work is going to be quick and easy.

#sadBUTtrue

________________________

Related Radical Reads:

The Economy's Impact on Education

Stuffing Kids with Content

What I'd Hold YOU Accountable For

 

It was an interesting -- albeit hectic -- week in Radical Nation, y'all.  You see, Dell Computers paid my way to MIT to participate in a Social Think Tank event focused on Innovation in Education.

read more

While I can't find an article to support the assertion, I heard an interesting statistic on ESPN's  Mike and Mike Show this week:  Of the 18 quarterbacks taken with the first pick in the NFL draft, NONE -- including legends like Terry Bradshaw and Peyton Manning -- have led their new teams to a winning season in year one.

In fact, the BEST performance turned in by a quarterback taken with the first pick was a seven-win season.

That doesn't bode well for Andrew Luck, does it?

read more

While I can't find an article to support the assertion, I heard an interesting statistic on ESPN's  Mike and Mike Show this week:  Of the 18 quarterbacks taken with the first pick in the NFL draft, NONE -- including legends like Terry Bradshaw and Peyton Manning -- have led their new teams to a winning season in year one.

In fact, the BEST performance turned in by a quarterback taken with the first pick was a seven-win season.

That doesn't bode well for Andrew Luck, does it?

The Colts won TWO games last year, y'all.  Then, they lost -- or cut, or waived away -- a TON of the name-brand talent to free-agency. To make matters worse, Indianapolis enters this season with a first-time General Manager AND a first-time head coach calling the shots. 

While excitement in Indy may be higher than ever, expectations -- of
fans, of the organization, of the national sports media -- are
justifiably tempered.

No one is going to be screaming for Luck to get canned when the
Colts finish yet another disappointing season this year.  Instead, we'll
recognize the situation for what it is:  Luck -- like most football
players taken with the first pick -- is a talented player on a REALLY
crappy team.

What's more, EVERYONE who cares about the Colts will hold Indianapolis management accountable for making things BETTER for Luck in the next few years. 

The expectation will be that Colt's owner Jim Irsay will pony up serious cash to build Luck's offensive line and to surround him with a set of stars at talent positions like running back and wide receiver.  Investments will be made in the starting defense in an effort to keep games close and to give Luck more chances with the football. 

Long story short: People will expect great things from Luck, but they'll also understand that great things don't happen in a vacuum. 

If Luck struggles in an underfunded, dysfunctional system that needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up, it'll be the system -- not the star who is struggling alone against impossible circumstances -- that bears the brunt of the blame.

That's a lesson that I wish #edpolicy wonks would learn when whipping up new plans to hold teachers accountable for their performance. 

The uncomfortable truth for education's most vocal critics is that teachers struggle in the same kinds of underfunded, dysfunctional systems that Andrew Luck will face this year all of the time -- and in the face of a sluggish economy, those systems are MORE underfunded and dysfunctional than ever.

We face ever-growing class sizes as districts freeze hiring in response to budget cuts.  Those classes have more students with special learning needs than at any point in the history of the public school system, yet there are fewer special programs teachers to provide ongoing support to students in the regular education classroom. 

Professional development dollars are limited at best, leaving few opportunities for teachers to acquire the kinds of new skills necessary to adapt to ever-changing school populations.  Supplies that we once took for granted -- simple things like computers, copy paper, and colored pencils -- are few and far between.

Heck, the budget is so tight in my district that janitorial services have been cut to the quick -- which means that if I want the tile floor in my science lab to be cleaned, I've got to go find a mop and a bucket and do it myself.

Can you even IMAGINE the Colts cutting their custodial services and instead asking Andrew Luck to pick up a mop a few times a week?

#meneither

I guess what I'm trying to say is something that teachers are FINE with being held accountable for our performance when we know that we are working in systems that give us a fighting chance to succeed. 

But it's unrealistic -- not to mention unhealthy and unfair -- to point the finger at classroom teachers for the struggles of the system while simultaneously refusing to surround them with the tools that they need in order to succeed. 

#truth

_________________________________

Related Radical Reads:

Holding Teachers Accountable Ain't That Easy

What I REALLY Reject....

Barkin' Dawgs and Miserably Poor Policies

What I'd Hold YOU Accountable For

 

Poking through my feed reader this weekend, I stumbled on this GREAT bit on the Mindshift blog featuring the thinking of Howard Rheingold -- a leader in defining the kinds of changing skills needed in order to learn efficiently in today's digital world. 

Rheingold makes a simple point early in the Mindshift article that really resonated with me:  Kids NEED to learn to carefully tame their attention span while they are searching the web. 

He writes:

"You
need to make decisions. ‘Am I going to click on that link? Am I going
to maybe open a tab for it on my browser and look at it later? Am I
going to bookmark it to look at it much later or am I going to ignore
it?’

You need to make those decisions consciously and I think most of us
make them unconsciously… We wouldn’t have so many cute cat videos if
people didn’t click on impulse."

Stew in that for a minute, will you?  And then ask yourself whether or not you've ever taught your classes to be THAT intentional about the sites that they are clicking on when they are researching.

I know that I haven't spent any time encouraging my kids to think systematically about what they are clicking on when we are researching -- and I'm a guy who really DOES spend a good chunk of time teaching kids how to sift through information efficiently. 

So I whipped up a handout based on Rheingold's suggestions that I think I'm going to ask kids to use the first few times that we do online research. 

Check it out here:

Download Handout_WhatWillYouClickNext

It's pretty detailed -- which means it will also be pretty time consuming for kids to use -- so I'm not likely to require that they actually write down every answer to every question every time that we go to the lab.

But I AM going to continuously remind my students that they should be clicking with a purpose -- and that clicking with a purpose requires that they think carefully before, during and after sitting down at a computer to research. 

Any of this make sense?

__________________________________________

Related Radical Reads:

Google's Redesigned Related Search Feature

Google's Reading Level Search Feature

The Anatomy of a Hoax Website

 

Poking through my feed reader this weekend, I stumbled on this GREAT bit on the Mindshift blog featuring the thinking of Howard Rheingold -- a leader in defining the kinds of changing skills needed in order to learn efficiently in today's digital world. 

Rheingold makes a simple point early in the Mindshift article that really resonated with me:  Kids NEED to learn to carefully tame their attention span while they are searching the web. 

He writes:

read more

Syndicate content