Teachers, Technology, Skillz, and Bieberfever: Reflections from #edchat

After participating in #edchat tonight I felt I needed to get a few things out. The topic for tonight's episode was "What amount of tech should be a requirement for every teacher to know? Are there any specific core applications for teachers?".

My first concern stems from the topic itself; its wording tacitly implies that technology is necessary to be a good teacher and therefore teachers that do not use technology cannot be good teachers. It also implies as a corollary that we must be utilizing technology in teaching. I don't think I have ever heard a solid argument as to why that must be the case. The most common arguments I hear are that "Students use technology so we must use it as well", "It makes education relevant to the student", and "It is required for a 21st century education".

The first argument is fallacious and is known as the argument from popularity (Argumentum ad populum). The basic idea is that many students use technology therefore technology should be used in education. It is a false premise because mere belief in something does not indicate it is true. Many students like listening to Justin Bieber*, it does not mean his music is worth listening to.

The second argument is also fallacious as it assumes that the combination of technology and education will maintain the relevancy that the technology provides alone:

A. Technology is relevant to students.
B. Students like things that are relevant.
C. Therefore teachers should use technology so students like education.

By accepting this argument you tacitly accept that anything that is relevant to students should improve education. Many students find Justin Bieber relevant, but it doesn't mean I am going to get Bieberfever in my science classroom*. Many students find exploring the outdoors and nature to be relevant until you require they learn about it in class. Obviously the way the lesson is taught has a great bearing on how the students will react, but that is an issue of pedagogy not technology.

The final argument implies that in the 21st century we use technology so therefore to exist in the 21st century you must know how to use technology. Once again it implies a causal relationship where there may not actually be one (and employs the logically fallacy known as affirming the consequent). The additional aspect to this argument I hear is that we must prepare students for jobs in the 21st century; jobs that do not exist yet that arise from problems we haven't stated yet. They then argue that teaching knowledge is ineffective because it will have changed by the time the students obtain these future jobs. However, the same can be said regarding the technology: it will be entirely different when the student leaves school and begins working/seeks higher education. The argument can be made that learning how to use today's technology provides a base for learning tomorrows; which I would agree with. However, that implies that learning today's knowledge provides a base for learning tomorrow's knowledge as well, which puts us back at square one. The argument also implies a teaching of technology for the sake of technology which leads me into my next concern: the lack of a clearly stated goal for teaching with technology.

It appears to me that we are integrating technology because it is there. Many mention the importance of ensuring the technology is used in accordance with proper pedagogy, a statement I couldn't agree more with. But there is so much more talk regarding how to use tech and very little regarding pedagogy that I worry that last statement is lip service to a degree. So to rectify this I will attempt to take the arguments I have listed and synthesize a goal for the integration of technology.

The main argument is preparing students for the future, so we will start there. The question that must be answered is what will the future look like. The only assumption I can start with, is that there will be people (because if there are no people, this argument is moot). So, what can we deduce if we assume that there will be people (in brackets I list the skills I believe are needed to accomplish the task/goal):

1. People will wish to communicate with each other (communication skills)
2. The communication will cause ideas to be generated and problems to be discovered (creativity and problem solving skills)
3. The problems will require solutions (creativity)
4. The solutions will require the application of new/unknown knowledge (research methodologies)
5. The solutions will require analysis (skepticism and rationality)

To me this is what needs to be taught to be ready for the future. I group these fives items (communication skills, creativity, problem solving skills, research methodologies, and skepticism and rationality) and entitle them critical thinking skills (although you could as easily call them learning skills).

Now no where in my listing I have noted technology. This implies to me (and I am biased as I created the excellent listing above) that technology is not a skill per se but a tool to be used to facilitate the execution of the skills. For example, if you needed to nail two pieces of wood together you could use a hammer or a nail gun. However, to use the tool properly I need to know why I am nailing the wood together and what the final product should look like; the technology will not show me that.

To bring the analogy to education, we can't know what tech to use until we understand the problem we are attempting to solve with our teaching. By assuming the solution will require technology we limit the number of possible solutions and stifle our creativity. The solution we arrive at may not be the most optimal or even a valid solution. Instead we need to add technology to our toolbox and utilize when the problem indicates it is required.

---

* Shameless SEO plug
* I promise to stop now, that should be enough to get this post on page one of Google.

Don't - Redux

Don't teach me how to use Twitter,
     Teach me how to express my ideas succiently.

Don't teach me how to make a Prezi,
     Teach me how to speak in public.

Don't teach me blog,
     Teach me to have ideas worth expressing.

Don't teach me how to Google,
     Teach me how to have good questions.

Don't teach me how to create videos,
     Teach me to how to see the beauty in the world.

Don't teach me how to make word art,
     Teach me how to appreciate the power of language.

Don't teach me how to use an eReader,
    Teach me how to love reading.

Don't teach me how to use social media,
     Teach me how to collaborate.

Don't teach me how to consume content,
     Teach me how to think critically.

Don't teach me how to use technology,
     Teach me how to be human.

On Jack Johnson, Trains and Curriculum ...

I was listening to Jack Johnson's excellent album In Between Dreams today when his song Breakdown came on. Here is an except of the lyrics for those who have not heard this song (which ranks as one of my favourite songs of all time):

I hope this old train breaks down
Then I could take a walk around
And, see what there is to see
And time is just a melody
All the people in the street
Walk as fast as their feet can take them
I just roll through town
And though my windows got a view
The frame I'm looking through
Seems to have no concern for now

When I first heard this album I was living in Cape Town, South Africa working as a waiter at a Mexican Restaurant (I know, it makes no sense). I listened to this song a lot as I was backpacking around Southern Africa and it resonated with my wish to get out of the bus I was in to explore everything that was rushing by me. But the bus kept going ...

Today, it hit me an entirely different way. I was thinking about all the times in school when we are exploring a curriculum mandated topic and the students and teacher would love to stop the curriculum train to explore the current topic. But the train keeps going ...

It seems to me that our current model of education views curriculum as the train; it drives education. This model may be preferred by some as it removes much of the control from the individual teachers, who may choose to teach different topics. However, what it fails to do is to allow for exploration, to permit creativity and to generate passion about the topics. We have a set time to explore a topic, and whether or not we want to move on, we must when the time is up (or we need to dredge through 3 more weeks on a topic no one cares about).

What if we instead switched our model and made the curriculum the track and allowed the teachers to control the train. We would all have a set path to follow, but we would be allowed to stop and gawk when it was appropriate. Or to speed on through when the scenery wasn't to the groups liking. We could even stop the train in the station for a day or so and go on a walkabout; exploring that stop in more detail because our students wanted to.

Imagine that, no longer needing to view the curriculum just through our window frame which, according to Jack Johnson, "seems to have no concern for now", but instead getting out of the train and seeing things unobstructed, freely, and without restraint.

Where are the Students?

While wandering through the woods today:

I saw the deer and thought this is Biology.
I saw the different biomes and thought this is Geography.
I saw the roots of the upturned trees and thought this is History.
I saw chickadees flying through the air and thought this is Physics.
I heard the animals chattering around me and thought this is Music.
I saw the marsh grasses purifying the water and thought this is Chemistry.
I felt the perfection of nature and thought this is Math.
I saw the beauty around me and thought this is Art.
I felt connections to everything around me and thought this is Philosophy.
I felt these words flow through me and thought this is English.

Then I saw that I was alone,

And I thought, where are the students?

Science Saturday: Spicy Spicy Science

So, I like hot food. I like science. Why not combine them together? I was listening to Tom Allen on CBC Radio 2 Shift today (apparently, he provides me with much insight) discuss the Scoville Unit and determining the heat of peppers. Then I got to thinking about converting it into a science lab. Here we go:


So, Wilbur Scoville designed this scale in 1912 to determine and compare the pungency of peppers. This is defined by the amount of capsaicin contained within the pepper. His test, known as the Scoville Organoleptic Test, involves soaking dried peppers in alcohol (capsaicin is alcohol-soluble) and determining by how much it must be diluted with sugar water until it is undetectable to taste. So a pepper with a rating of 2000 Scoville Units must be diluted over 2000 times (its original volume) to render it unpercetable by human taste.

How does this apply to the science classroom? Well, this makes a fantastic open ended science lab that can cover important topics such as: experimental error, subjectivity of methodology, issues with perception, observation and experimental design.

My idea is to provide students with the background information presented above. Have them design an appropriate experiment to determine the Scoville Rating of an unknown sample. Provide each student group with a different sample (I would recommend nothing too hot as it can burn eyes and mucous membranes) and let them run their experiment. Students should have the opportunity to present and discuss the different methodologies chosen by their peers.

Of course, the one outstanding question on your mind is: you want me to have students drink alcohol? Well, it is unfortunate that capsaicin is not water soluble, but it is fat and oil soluble so I would recommend using vegetable/olive oil instead of alcohol in class.

Finally, here is how Scoville did it. He had a minimum of five tasters who were allowed to taste only once per session to prevent prior tastings from influencing their decisions. Because of the subjectivity of the testing, today we test through liquid chromatography.


One more extension is to discuss why drinking water after eating food spiced with capsaicin doesn't work (it is not water soluble). Whereas the drink of choice, beer, has a mild amount of alcohol which can alleviate the burning sensation. The alternative drink, milk, has a compound casein (which is lipophilic or fat-loving) that surrounds the fatty capsaicin molecules and washes them away.

This is a easy to run lab which should provide ample opportunities for students to explore the scientific method while having a bit (or heaps) of fun.

More information on Scoville, capsaicin and peppers:
Wikipedia
Chile Pepper Scoville Scale
The chemistry of capiscum

Can Creativity Exist in School?

One of students (thanks Paul) recently sent me the link to the excellent TED video by Sir Ken Robinson as he discusses his view that school kills creativity.



This is a fantastic video and an excellent analysis of creativity and schooling. I have pondered on this video since I was introduced to it in Teacher's College. How do we spark creativity in education? How do we stop the bludgeoning of creativity that happens in school every day.

I just finished my second in-class course at Conestoga. We finished up with informal presentations where each student demonstrated their final project. The project was to create a first-person shooter game (it was a Game Development course). When I laid out the assignment description I stressed the importance of creating a project that suited them. The result was 5 very distinct, very unique final projects. I had one remake of the classic NES Duck Hunt game; one zombie-box shooter; one maze game; one helicopter shooter; and one game for those of us who apparently hate tetrahedrons. All distinct submissions that met the loose criteria I specified. In all of the projects, the students learned what was deemed to be important. But perhaps more importantly, they went beyond the assignment description to include features and functionality that I never dreamed would be added. The other interesting side effect was the ownership that each student showed over their project while they presented it. That and the pride they had in their work. Now, I do work in adult education and adults may be better suited to creating their own ideas on projects. But, I don't feel that they are more apt to this form of learning than our younger learners. Adults may embrace it more, because they have had more experience with self-directed learning because they have had to learn those skills ... outside of school. The interesting thing I noted was that with each new assignment, the submissions became more and more unique; more and more creative.

At the end of the day does it matter than one student forgot to add sound effects because they got caught up building 3D models? Not at all, because they learned something more important than knowledge. They learned how to learn. Because at the end of the day, according to this educational researcher, they probably won't remember what was taught anyway ...