MeTA musings

Dear "21st Century School" Authorities:

I've been thinking a lot about your ongoing discussion at Dangerously Irrelevant regarding what a "21st century school" might look like. You have kindly suggested that a 1:1 laptop initiative is one possible characteristic of a 21st century school. While I don't disagree, I feel like the student to computer ratio is attracting far too much attention in the current paradigm and may be harming educators' ability to understand how a "21st century school" is different from any other school. Does the hardware and software combination define the "century" of the school? I hope not.

Some recent commentary by Ryan Bretag on Web 2.0 tools illustrates a new train of thought:

"Yes, teachers are using some of the tools or even a lot of the tools. While this is great and provides wonderful new contexts for students, I'm not convinced this will fundamentally shift education if we continue to retrofit these tools instead of embracing the philosophy of participatory and connective learning. In other words, it is time we start seeing these tools as the tip of the ice berg not the identifier of classrooms or schools that have become 21st Century, that have become participatory."

If a given school has a 1:1 computer to student ratio, but is not using them to do "new things" then is it truly a "21st century" school? Simply putting a computer in each student's lap doesn't mean new, innovative, engaging or even effective teaching and learning is going to take place. Contrast this with a school that has a 1:2 or 1:4 computer to student ratio that is using the hardware and software more effectively via student-centered activities, education-friendly networking, rigorous and relevant project-based learning and the like. We often get hung up on the hardware and stuck on the software rather than their connection to teaching and learning.

From hardware/software to pedagogy
I realize that mentioning 1:1 initiatives is merely one possible characteristic of a 21st century school. A "shift" in our educational system is not going to happen due to fancy new websites and hardware tools. It will begin to take place when we take steps away from "retrofitting" these new tools and instead spend our time and effort brainstorming how the tools might match up with pedagogy that "works." To better emphasize this, I would like to suggest that a "21st century school" should not merely be measured by its hardware purchases, but rather by what happens with the tools for educational use. Answering the question, "How are research-based strategies being used in connection with 21st century technology tools?" seems to be an appropriate filter to add to the paradigm. The TPACK framework is a great first step for helping educators connect technology, pedagogy and content.

A simple change in "marketing" 21st century schools as more than a "building with up-to-date hardware" may be a useful first step in helping others begin to identify examples of this "undefined" term. Let's continue the conversation in lieu of how schools are using the technology rather than simply their ability to secure as many laptops as possible.

Sincerely,

Matt

I have been conversing with a few colleagues about traditional grading practices. Everyone knows what the "points" system is like where all assignments, tests and quizzes are assigned some pre-determined point value. Sometimes the categories (homework, projects, tests, lab reports, etc.) are even weighted separately in order to come up with a percentage that translates in to a "letter" for the purpose of quarter/semester grades. The fuel for this conversation comes from some notes from The Homework Lady and a book entitled, Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student Learning by Guskey and Bailey (2001). Here's a quick snippet from p. 49.

"Teachers must decide, therefore what purpose each source of evidence is to serve and then tailor their assessment practices to fit that purpose. In particular, they must be careful in their efforts to increase quantity of evidence available for grading and reporting that they don't use formative assessment information for summative purposes...It would be inappropriate, for example, to use the results from formative quizzes constructed to check students' learning progress and prescribe corrective activities, or from homework assignments designed to offer additional practice on difficult concepts or skills in determining students' summative grades in a subject area or course." (Emphasis mine)

In other words, "practice" assignments/activities shouldn't really be a part of calculating a final (summative) grade. I think it's fair to say my math department believes that "practicing" well (and being allowed to make mistakes and ask questions) should and will lead to "performing" (testing) well, but are we practicing what we preach in the way we report student learning?

Consider the following example. Assume that homework is graded on completion and quizzes/tests on content mastery.

Student A: Homework: 50% Quiz: 60% Test: 100%
Student B: Homework: 100% Quiz 100% Test: 100%

Student A did not understand the concepts and therefore did not complete the homework. Somewhere between the "quiz" and the "test" Student A came in for extra help and finally "understood" the concept which explains his/her sudden improvement on the "test."

In the traditional grading system, which student earns a better grade? Student B, of course. A traditional points system penalizes "later learners." On the "test," both students demonstrated the same level of understanding, but Student A is penalized for initially struggling. Do we have a realistic expectation that students will "get it" the first day we teach concepts to them? If so, then why not have daily tests?

Two questions have come out of this conversation:
1) Why not simply grade homework for completion?
This clearly skews the reporting process. For example, what does a "95% - A" grade mean? Some might argue it means a students has completed 95% of the assignments. Others might claim it means a student has mastered 95% of the concepts. Yet another group suggests some blend of effort and mastery.

2) If I don't grade homework/assignments, then why would students do them?
I think precisely the opposite is true. We are encouraging our students to copy, cheat and only turn in the assignments they feel are "worth it" when they are assigned a point value.

"Students begin to view academic wealth as determined by the number of points they can accumulate. Teachers set the currency rate when they establish their grading standards and simplify the required bookkeeping with modern computerized grading programs. Savvy students keep track of current exchange rates, calculating far in advance the exact number of points they need to attain the grade they want, and adjust their efforts accordingly. They know they must plan cautiously since they can lose points or be fined for certain transgressions, such as not completing a homework assignment or turning in a project late. They also make note of contingencies that allow them to earn points or bonuses, such as doing special projects or volunteering for work outside of class" (Guskey & Bailey, 2001, p. 19).

Most secondary educators have experienced students asking, "how many points is this worth" or parents emailing about "turning in late assignments to boost their child's grade." I want my students to "practice" or complete learning activities for the sake of learning. I'm guessing I am not the only one with this mindset.

"Sadly, this emphasis on earning points in order to procure the grade commodity diminishes the value of learning"
(Guskey & Bailey, 2001, p. 20).

I believe the answer to this "grading" issue is related to creating an increased awareness and classroom culture of formative assessment and reporting out student learning via standards-based grading.

Teachers must seek an appropriate balance between the formative instructional purposes of assessement of student learning, and the summative evaluative purposes required in grading"
(Guskey & Bailey, 2001, p. 31).

This balance is an ongoing challenge for me. What arguments for/against the "points" system are missing from the conversation? What strategies are you trying out in order to better report student learning?

Previous related musings:

• Posts tagged as standards-based grading
• Posts tagged as formative assessment
  

In a previous post, I suggested personal learning networks as an ideal model for differentiated professional development. In the midst of diffusing this idea through communication with virtual colleagues as well as in a face-to-face format locally, several questions have come up. I'll try to sum them up:

1. Will PLNs replace existing professional development? If not, how might it supplement existing initiatives and state/federal mandates?
2. I thought PLNs were the "end-all" solution to differentiating professional development, why can't I find any resources/thoughts/commentary on ___________?

These both seem like logical questions given the recent "hype" surrounding personal learning networks, particularly as I have expressed my enthusiasm with building-level colleagues about its possibilities. I would like to take a few moments and address these two questions using a metaphor that came to mind today.

Personal learning networks should be viewed as "vitamins" rather than "aspirin."

Just as technology alone will not improve teaching and learning, PLNs are not the "aspirin" solution to our system's professional development headaches. The information gathered from blogs, wikis, Twitter and our favorite podcasts have the capacity to shape our philosophy of education as well as provide a medium for learning about new teaching resources. Personal learning networks are inherently de-centralized. School districts will always need to push out information to the masses through some form of centralized medium. Currently, this is often in the form of face-to-face in-service meetings to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

I see PLNs as more of a "vitamin" approach to learning and professional development. The edubloggers I follow and journals I subscribe to strengthen my practice as an educator. Whenever I load up my RSS or Twitter feed, I am looking for new ideas and insights into the areas of math education, technology and assessment. Some tidbits are timely wheras most of it is archived for later retreival. I may read about an interesting use of cell phones in the classroom setting, but not actually find a use for it until weeks or months down the road. The ability to archive and search so much of what I read via my PLN makes it an invaluable resource to counter the "why can't I find information on ________?" question. If I don't find someone who is currently (or even willing) to talk/chat/Tweet/write about a given topic today, I may find something that will come in handy down the road. Just as vitamins strengthen the body for extended healthy use, I believe my personal learning network has greatly enhanced my educational practices.

While the idea of "personal learning networks" continues to evolve, I am interested to see how it will be individually marketed. It starts with those who are currently enjoying the benefits of networking for professional growth's sake.

What purpose does your PLN serve? Do you see it as "medicine" or a "vitamin" for your professional growth?

I just finished reading the May edition of Leading and Learning with Technology published by the ISTE. In the midst of some commentary on p. 47, a somewhat ironic quote (considering the publication's emphasis) stood out:

"The most influential ed tech tool is not a tool at all, but a person..."

It reminded me of a book I read by Doug Johnson several years ago entitled Machines are the easy part; people are the hard part: observations about making technology work in schools. This book is a must read for any one interested in engaging in meaningful educational technology discussions. I have attended conferences, read articles and skimmed through countless blog posts on topics such as "using wikis in your classroom" or "10 ways to engage your students using podcasts." Once the "tool" has been mastered and potentially even tried out several times in the classroom setting, the natural reaction of any educator is to begin the "evangelist" stage and share the new tool and its application with as many colleagues as possible. This is a good thing, right?

In his 30th mini-chapter, Johnson makes a point that resonates with me:

"Technology-literate folks know when to do things the old fashioned way."

We can't get so bogged down with technology that the tool itself takes precedence over quality teaching and learning.

The 51st mini-chapter hammers home this point:

"Rule of Restructuring Education with Technology: the real changes are in teaching practices not technology."

Requiring your students to create Power Point slides for a presentation is not true technology integration. Presentations are nothing new. Neither is having them type up a history time line. History and time lines have been around forever! (Pun intended.)

We can keep attending our ed. tech conferences, Tweet about our favorite technology tools, and blog about how our students are missing out if we don't use 21st century tools in our schools, but until the person becomes the BEST ed tech tool, the battle to have a meaningful impact on student learning will never be won. We, as educators, not Google or Moodle, have the potential to change the status quo in eduation.

Are you up for the challenge?

I feel like I had a great pre-service education at Wartburg College. My recent graduate training in curriculum and instructional technology at Iowa State University was outstanding, too. The education department faculty that mentored me at both institutions were truly dedicated to the profession and often did an excellent job "walking the walk" in addition to "talking the talk."

Today, I came across a video of a professor at Iowa State who really seems to value the importace of metacognition which I also blogged about several weeks ago. While I never had Dr. Mike Clough as an instructor, his work has piqued my interest. It is well worth eight minutes of your time to watch the video linked on this page as he models metacognition and wait time for a small group of future science educators.

Reflecting upon my own practice, I'm most likely too impatient when it comes to soliciting students' thoughts in a large group setting. Seeing it through the lens of metacognition and the quest towards better understaning students misconceptions shed a new light on its importance. A simple tweak to this aspect of instruction seems like it has the potential to pay big dividends.

How would you rate your regular use of wait time?