Persistence in Educational Shifts

We know that there are major changes needed in education to prepare our students for a future that we cannot predict.  We call this type of learning many things: transfer goals, overarching standards, life skills.  There are a lot of ideas about how we can go about making those changes.  When we want to tackle an issue in education, it is tempting to insert it into the curriculum as a stand-alone item so that we can check off the “done” box.

My first experience with this idea was when we noticed that many of our students were not fluent with keyboarding by the time they reached middle and high school.  To address this, a keyboarding program was purchased and elementary teachers were asked to teach the program for a specified number of minutes per week.  While this program did a great job at teaching the kiddos where the keys were located and which fingers to use to strike them, the overall keyboarding performance was not enhanced.  This is because keyboarding is a skill that needs to be reinforced and practiced over time.  To be fluent, students need real-life application and a chance to practice over an extended period time.  In short, it would take reimagining how students complete assignments in those elementary classrooms to get them to proficiency in keyboarding.

My next experience was with the education craze STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math).  STEM is a teaching strategy where ideas in these areas are fused together in lessons so that students can see the connections between them.  To address this, many schools created a STEM class, where students continued to go to their regular math, science, and technology classes, but were given the additional option of going to a STEM class.  This class is designed to be full of real-life problems and experiments, which is a great learning environment for kids.  The problem is that it does nothing to connect the learning they are doing in their regular math, science, and technology classrooms.  The students understand that they really like their STEM class but still leaves them wondering why they need to learn Newton’s 3rd Law in their science class and how to solve for F given “m” and “v”.  

This brings me to my current, and most relevant, experience.  Almost my entire blog, and a lot of my professional effort, has been devoted to the 4Cs (communication, critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity) and the most effective way to increase student learning through the development of these skills in the classroom.  Again, the easiest way to introduce these concepts and “ensure” they are being taught is to create a class and have all students take it.  Let’s teach them how to collaborate and communicate!  However, when we remove these concepts from content, students will continue to struggle to make the connection between seemingly disparate pieces of information.  They are able to collaborate and communicate around topics important to them, but they cannot transfer those skills to other subject areas where they may have less personal interest.

I believe teaching our students proper keyboarding skills and technical literacy is important.  These are skills they will continue to use for the rest of their life.  I believe in the concept of STEM and other cross-curricular strategies.  It can connect subject areas in meaningful ways so that students stop asking “when will I need to know this?”  And most importantly, I believe in teaching the 4Cs skills in our classrooms so that we develop learners who are able to think critically about the world around them and apply creative solutions to real problems.

I also believe that this will be difficult work and that it cannot be marked as “done” within a year or even two.  To address these issues, it will take pedagogical, structural, and curricular changes through trial and error and a kind of persistence that is not necessarily common in education.  There is no textbook to adopt that will tell you the right way to implement any of these ideas.  If we don’t see the results we expect in a short period of time, educational trends tell us to cast it away for the next big thing.

We cannot give into that way of thinking.  I am advocating for us to plant our flag on these big ideas.  We must approach integrated teaching and learning that requires students to practice higher-order thinking and apply technical literacy to their own learning.  The result will be worth the effort.

Cultivating Trust

I am an advocate for using Twitter as a tool to expand an educator’s professional learning community.  I follow several teachers, educational researchers, and various subject-specific hashtags.  I even participate in a few twitter chats, which connect me with other education professionals around the country.  For more on this, please read my earlier blog post, Collaborating Like a Boss.

Although the topics of these Twitter chats vary, from technology integration to the 4Cs to personalized learning, I find myself referencing trust as a key component to success in almost all of them.  My most recent example was during a chat on mindset.  The discussion question asked how we can turn resistance or opposition into an opportunity to learn and grow.  Immediately I began to think in terms of a feedback loop, regardless of whether this loop is between colleagues, student peers, or a teacher/student relationship.  The ability to disagree respectfully, to give and take criticism, and thoughtfully apply feedback to our own point of view is essential to being productive members of a classroom, an organization, and our society.

When educators engage in a Professional Learning Community (PLC), we gather with our peers to publicly discuss our work.  PLC members must be willing to not only show our work but also be open to the possibility our version may not be the best it can be.  In this environment, trust needs to be present on both sides.  The person bringing forward his/her work has to trust the colleagues in the room.  They need to trust that their colleagues have something to contribute.  They need to trust that their work will be given thoughtful consideration and that the feedback given can be used to improve the product.  But trust is a two-way street.  The people giving the feedback have to feel that their opinions will be valued and considered.  They have to treat the situation and the person presenting with respect.  And, above all, they have to have demonstrated a willingness to engage in a discussion around possible solutions.  Sometimes we view feedback as criticism of the person we are instead of the work we produced.  This is particularly true when trust isn’t present within a group.  This environment isn’t mandated, it is built over time.

We cannot ask our students to engage in an effective feedback loop unless we have experienced it ourselves and work to cultivate the same level of trust within our classrooms.  We should be encouraging students to present ideas in a more raw form, at a time when feedback, opposition, or dissenting opinions can help to shape a more productive solution.  This strategy will not only produce better products in our classrooms but develop better problem solvers and creative thinkers.

As a bonus, it will also produce more thoughtful citizens.  Our schools have the ability to show students how to engage in a thoughtful debate of ideas that result in a better solution for everyone.

Being the Tech Bad Guy

I was recently participating in a MOOC (massive open online course) and one of the assignments was to assess our own digital footprint.  I was a bit nervous about Googling my own name, but forged on anyway to find out what my public online presence might look like.  I was mostly relieved to discover that I had been, largely, practicing what I preach about digital citizenship.  What surprised me was the number of pictures of my children that were associated with, not only my name, but also their names.  I’m usually careful about where I post pictures of the kiddos and how they are tagged.  It really hit me that I have already started to create their digital footprint without their knowledge or consent.

I tell you this story because it relates to so many of the conversations I have been having in schools over the last two years.  I have found myself in the very uncomfortable position of being the “anti-tech” person in the room.  For a person with the job title “Instructional Technology Coordinator,” and someone who is as interested in innovating practice and I am, that is more than a bit worrisome.

Let me be clear.  I believe in the power of technology to change teaching and learning.  It can create new collaborative opportunities, deepen learning, facilitate student choice, speed up the feedback loop, and automate tasks so that time can be spent on personal interaction.  So much has been written on technology’s role in education and almost everyone agrees that it has the power to radically shift classroom environments.

The big “but” in my story is that the technology comes at a price.  Those free apps and online accounts aren’t really free.  For those of us who remember agreeing to our first iTunes account, did you read the 31 pages of the Terms of Service before clicking on the “I Agree” button?  If you are like me, you were in too big of a hurry to experience this new thing that Apple was providing to you!  Since iTunes launched so successfully, the Web 2.0 apps and websites are full of these types of Click Wrap agreements.  By clicking the button, you agree to everything contained within.  In

exchange for using the product, you likely give permission to them to use your information for advertising, research on usage, ownership of the material you create on the website, and the list goes on.  That’s a lot to consent to with one little button.  The government agrees, which is why they have ruled that anyone under the age of 13 cannot enter into such an agreement.  Sometimes parental consent can override that restriction, but not in all instances.

But there is so much out there!
We just want to be innovative in our classrooms!

I hear this all the time, and I understand.  Here’s where I get the “anti-tech person” label.  My job is to make sure we can balance legal compliance, student digital footprints, and classroom innovation in a way that is responsible to all our learners.  I have to ask of any technology that we use as part of our classroom what it does, how it relates to the content, and the impact it has on a student’s digital footprint.  The reality is that the technology is not a magic bullet.  The technology is only as good as the teacher, the purpose, and the implementation of it.  Bringing in technology for the glamour or the appeal of the flashy new thing does not enhance learning.  It merely shifts it from one mode to another.  Instead, let’s focus on great teaching and learning, and the technology that can get us to transformative.

Fostering Creative Problem Solving

Have you ever had an idea that you were convinced would change the world?  I think we have all had this moment where we think, “This is fantastic!  Everyone else will think so, too.”

In a pretty famous study, kindergarten students are asked to identify as many uses of a paper clip as they could.  It found, “... kindergarten children measured 98% of them at genius level in divergent thinking.”  Some of those uses were practical while others wandered into very imaginative.  The general conclusion from this study was that kindergarten students are less hindered by “what is” or “what has always been” and are therefore free to imagine more.

Sadly, the study went on to find, “Five years later, when they were aged 8 to 10 years, those at genius level had dropped to 50%. After another five years, the number of divergent thinking geniuses had fallen further still.”

This is where creativity bumps against critical thinking.  I believe this is one of the most critical puzzles in education, especially in elementary classrooms.  How do we continue to cultivate the spirit and innovation of our students while balancing the critical thinking skills to evaluate and improve ideas without abandoning them as impossible?

My son is fascinated with math.  This weekend he asked me to give him two double digit numbers to add.  I assumed he had been introduced to this concept in school and he was eager to practice.  After giving him the numbers of 24 and 36, he produced this document:

I have to admit, I didn’t understand what he was doing on this page.  What I did see was that he found the correct answer.  Again, I assumed his teacher had shown him a strategy to solve these problems that I had not seen before.  At parent-teacher conferences this week, I showed the paper to his teacher.  I learned three things.  The first was that they had not yet begun to add two double-digit numbers in their first-grade class, so this was something he wanted to explore on his own.  The second was that she was also unfamiliar with the process Simon had gone through.  It appeared to her that he was using several of the other strategies they had used already used with single and single/double digit addition.  The last thing I learned was that this was not the first time he had tried a strategy on his own to solve a problem.  I was incredibly thankful to his teacher who not only encouraged him to use his alternate strategy, but fostered a classroom culture where he felt that it was ok to do so.

I don’t have the tested and magic solution to this question.  What I do have so far is anecdotal evidence to support a theory.  I believe we often prize a correct process to finding an answer as much as we prize the correct answer itself.  As such, students feel there is a single track to follow on the way to success.  I know I conveyed as much to my students on occasion when I was uncertain that what they were doing would lead to a successful outcome.  Man, the things I wish I knew then…

Another practice I see often is when brainstorming leads to the elimination of “impossible” ideas.  Imagine a classroom full of students trying to find a solution to a problem.  Step one is almost always time for students to think about the problem and generate a list of possible solutions.  Step two is often a culling of that list of those that seem possible from those that seem impossible.  What is our criteria for the impossible?  Only our limited experiences and knowledge.  

So here is my theory.  I think we would better suited to allow students to pursue any one of those initial brainstorming options that seem most interesting to him/her.  Allowing the student to go down the road of the solution they are most passionate about will undoubtedly give them the chance to evaluate, reflect, tweak, and ultimately decide whether their solution will actually solve the problem.  As teachers, it becomes our responsibility to foster the creative solution, but also to provide the critical thinking tools to identify and overcome obstacles.  Then the student can decide whether the solution warrants further study and may, eventually, actually change the world.

What should it mean to be creative in our classrooms?

If you have read more than one of my previous blog posts, first, thank you.  Second, you may have noticed that my focus has been to break down each of the four “Cs” in a way that might help us connect it to our classrooms.  This blog will be about creativity, which I believe is the most misunderstood of all the 4Cs.  So often I hear the word “creativity” used to describe students and adults who engage in artistic endeavors.  Of course, this is one definition.  But it is so limited.  In an effort to better understand the confusion, I went to look at a few of the definitions for creativity:

• Google’s pop-up definition:  
• the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work.
• Dictionary.com definition:
• the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination
• Webster’s Dictionary definition:
• the ability to make new things or think of new ideas

Oh, Google, I love you.  But in your effort to be helpful, your additional information in the definition created a limitation and a distraction from one of the most important components.  Notice in the other two definitions, highlighted is the idea of creating new ideas or new things and absent is the highlight of artwork.

EdLeader21, drawing from the P21 definition, includes the following basic domains for creativity:  Think Creatively, Work Creatively with Others, Demonstrate Courage to Explore, and Implement Innovations.  Further guidance shows even more emphasis on the connection between creativity and critical thinking.  

• Takes an original, unique, and imaginative approach to idea generation; offers ideas that are broad in their diversity.
• Sorts, arranges, categorizes, and prioritizes ideas in ways that turn options into creatively productive outcomes.
• Uses convergent thinking skills and/or design thinking strategies as appropriate to develop creative ideas into tangible solutions or contributions.

A few years ago I converted my classroom to a project-based classroom.  As a quick recap, in a project-based classroom students are presented with a problem and are asked to create a solution.  Through the process, information is discovered by the students or content is presented by the teacher as needed.  I believed this was a much more authentic style of teaching and learning.  However, my students did not appreciate it in the beginning.  I heard the statement, “I don’t understand.  Just tell me what you want me to do,” on a nearly daily basis.  I believed I was freeing them to do what they wanted.  I didn’t have a template for the “right” answer and my logic was that there were now 100 different solutions to the problem presented.  This should be easier and/or more fun.

This was not how my students saw this.  Because I hadn’t spent enough time helping them develop their ability to engage in creative thought, they felt lost and reverted back to the comfort of seeking the one right answer.  This video by Fable Vision is a great illustration of the difference between following directions and engaging in creative thought.

In our classrooms, we need to start by giving our students permission to explore new ideas.  Yes, there is a destination, or learning target, in mind.  However, there are so many pathways to that learning target.  But we cannot stop there.  We must also intentionally develop the skill of creativity in our students.  But how?

Let’s start with our feedback and formative assessment strategies.  If we continually engage in a conversation with our students as they work through problems and solutions, we will slowly remove the idea that there is one right answer.  Instead of a single opportunity to stamp a student product with a final grade, build in a feedback loop of present, reflect, and adjust.  By the end of the process, the grading process is a much more manageable task because you already know exactly what each student created and what they were thinking along the way.

As teachers and school leaders, this clarification of the creativity component of the 4Cs starts with us.  We must strive to understand, model, and focus on the creative thought of our own process.  Then we can model and focus on the creative thought of our students.

Listening for Understanding v. Listening to Respond

Are we teaching our children how to listen for understanding?  I fear that, if they are learning by our society’s example, we are teaching them only how to listen to respond.  And that is doing a major disservice to our next generation.

I get a lot of grief about my love for protocols.  I’m looking at you, Bismarck friends.  But I believe they can give structure to human interactions so that we can minimize instinctual reactions and engage in more meaningful and reflective dialog.  The Communication Model shows us that effective communication has both a sender and a receiver.  It also shows us that for communication to be complete, the receiver must decode the message.  

In many instances, our natural reaction to information we don’t fully understand or is in opposition to our status quo is to verbally refute it.  Protocols can give us a construct where participants are required to reflect individually on the information before forming a verbal or written reply.  When we know ahead of time that we will have time to formulate a response, we don’t need to spend our effort multi-tasking our listening.  We can listen to understand and then think to respond.

In my post on presentations in the classroom, I focused heavily on evaluating the communication sender.  My primary goal was evaluating what they had learned and how they had learned it.  However, I stated that my second goal was to help other students cover any gaps in their own learning/understanding.  If that goal was to be achieved, I should have also evaluated that achievement.  Unfortunately for my students, I didn’t learn about many of my favorite protocols until I was no longer teaching in a regular classroom.  In not providing a protocol for this, I completely cut off the second part of the communication model.  There was no context for decoding the message and providing feedback to the sender.  I wasn’t even teaching listening to respond, let alone listening for understanding.

One of my favorite protocols is the 3-2-1 Protocol.  In it, the listeners are given time (2-5 minutes depending on the length of the presentation) to write 3 things they learned, 2 things they found interesting or “ah-has”, and 1 thing they still have a question about.  Students can then share out in small groups or whole class items from their list.  This list can also be turned in as a formative assessment of their listening.

The thing I like best is that this protocol lends a voice to those students who do not feel comfortable “blurting” or do not process as quickly as other students.  It is not a race to articulate your opinion.  Rather, the focus is on thoughtful reflection. As a bonus, this can focus the small or whole group discussion on what they heard during a presentation or demonstration.  This can be a great check for understanding and gives us the opportunity to clear up misunderstandings.

This is my "Protocol Badge"
given to me by my Bismarck friends.
Like I said, I get a lot of grief
over my <3 of them.  

There are many sources for protocols, but my favorite is the National School Reform Faculty website.  You can find hundreds of resources on protocols online.  The best one is one you feel comfortable implementing and will help achieve your goal.

Communicate What You Know - AND - How You Learned It

I often get asked the question, “What technology tool can I use to make presentations more interesting?  My students are bored with (insert common tech here, i.e. Slides, PowerPoint, Prezi, etc.).”

Yes, there are many online tools out there to help us create presentations.  However, I believe that the students aren’t bored because of the tool.  They are bored because all of the presentations give the same EXACT information they discovered on their own and put into their own presentation.  They are literally hearing the same information 5-20 different times.  Honestly, I’d be bored, too.  

And I was.  As I teacher, I used standard presentations in a lot of my group assignments.  I tasked my students with a learning objective and then, tagged on to the end of the assignment, they were asked to present what they learned.  Often this included a rubric where they were given what should be included in the presentation and even (ugh) the number of slides required.  Consequently I saw, essentially, the same presentation over and over.  And then I wondered why I wasn’t getting “better” presentations.

In my classroom, I had 3 objectives for the presentation:

1. Discover what the students learned in the project.
2. Ensure all students were exposed to each other’s learning to cover any gaps in their own project.
3. Develop student communication skills.

These are OK objectives and seemed to justify why presentations were included in most of my projects.  I usually achieved Objective 1, but I will admit that I could have done as good a job discovering that by reading their submitted project.  I thought I was achieving Objective 2, but as the boredom or disinterest set in, this benefit diminished.  And then there is Objective 3.  It seemed that, presentation after presentation, the students were not improving.  Just more of the same.

It wasn’t until I had the opportunity to watch presentations as a third party that the lightbulb went on.  I kept asking myself these new questions:

1. What if we didn’t save presentations for the end?  
2. What if we devoted an equal amount of class time (for me this was 2-3 class periods) to preparing presentations but sprinkled it throughout the project?  
3. What if the focus of the presentation wasn’t on the end result, but rather on the decision making parts of the project?  

OHHHH!  Every student or group goes through a different process in a project.  From the way they assign tasks to the decision to include/exclude information, they are all different.  It is in this process that learning happens.  It is also in this process that reflection can happen and deepen that learning.  I felt elated to discover a way to help students evaluate which assumptions or decisions led to their final conclusion.

The objectives for the presentation can still be the same.  However, we have a much better shot at actually achieving those objectives when the students are interested, the presentations are varied, and the focus is on their own process rather than on the outcome.  As a bonus, it doesn’t matter which tool we use.  The interesting part of the presentation isn’t the visual aid.  The interesting part is the presenter and his/her story.  And isn’t that where the focus should be, anyway?