My best practices are better than yours ...

I've been sitting on this post for a while now.  A few weeks ago, I lurked an #edchat twitter chat on defining best practices in education.  I had to stop halfway through as I think I was close to having a coronary.  I will attempt to summarize the general flow of the conversation:

1. Best practices are awesome.
2. Umm, what are best practices exactly?
3. We should find a way of sharing best practices so we all can benefit from each others ideas.
4. Maybe best practices are not global, instead there are best practices for each teacher-learner-classroom combination.
5. The moment you say a practice is best it constrains the learning.
6. We should find a way of sharing best practices so we all can benefit from each others ideas.
7. The very idea of best practices is silly as all of our practices are best, it's all relative.
8. Head asplode ....

So, I have decided to lay out my ideas on best practices in education.  I recently finished reading Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape in which he attempts to define a scientific basis for human morality (which in itself is a fascinating idea).  In it, he defines the goal of morality as maximizing the well-being of the greatest number of people possible.  He defines a spectrum that ranges from the worst possible suffering to everyone (at the bad end in case you weren't following along) and the greatest possible well-being for everyone at the top.  He then posits that we can investigate moral choices that move us either towards the worst suffering or away from it.  This can then be analysed scientifically.  

I propose a similar model for defining best practices in education.  One in which have a spectrum from the worst possible education for everyone to the best possible education.  Of course, this requires that we decide what the goal of education is (one of my largest complaints about #edchat discussions is the lack of focus towards achieving a salient goal).  If we take Dewey's stated aim of education as the 'development of reflective, creative, responsible thought' as our goal we have a starting point.  Of course we would now all need to agree as to what that meant.  However, as Harris notes we are able to work towards a goal of improving health without having a clear definition of what health is (although the seeming popularity of pseudo-medicine may show that the lack of a clear definition is fundamentally unstable).

Once we have defined a goal, we can start to measure the results of various practices and if they move us towards or away from that stated goal.  In this regard we can measure the effectiveness of practices and therefore can isolate practices that cause the greatest progress and encourage those practices while stifling the practices that are detrimental.

Note that nowhere in this exposition did I state or imply that there is only one possible best practice.  As Harris states his moral landscape can have multiple peaks on it where being on top of that peak would be the greatest possible well-being; as would being on an alternate peak.  My ideas for best practices is similar, there could be multiple peaks where we achieve the maximum possible education for all people just as there could be multiple means of scaling those peaks.

To summarize, the idea of a best practice is moot without a clear statement of purpose for education.  We need to know what the end point is to define something as being best.  A best practice would then therefore be an approach that maximizes our movement towards this goal.  Although best practices may only exist in theory, they can still exist.  As I have argued before, it all comes back to the purpose, the goal of education.

Gender: It's all in your head you know ....

I just finished reading Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender and highly recommend it.  In fact I think it should be required reading for all teachers and parents.  Anyway, I wanted to write about a few highlights from an educational standpoint.

One of the greatest challenges facing science (and computer science) is the lack of female students (and non-white students).  In fact, it is such an issue that many believe it is more data that woman are not capable of mathematics and science due to their brain structure.  In fact, one educational consultant even gave a number of talks to this very topic.  He spoke about a region of the brain known as the 'crockus' -- a region that is four times larger in girls than in boys.  Due to this, girls see the details but not the whole picture whereas the reverse is true for boys.  This is great news from an educational standpoint as it could help us tailor our teaching methods to how the brain is geared for learning.  Great news ... if it was even remotely true.  There is no region known as the crockus, let along having it be at least 4 times the size in girls.  However, sadly, the fact that a consultant is spouting this garbage is true (see here and here).

Sadly, this misinformation is impacting our approach to education and most of it is as much of a crock as the idea of the crockus (I did not make that name up, but couldn't resist the last sentence).

Fine demolishes much of the current tripe that amounts for gender based (perhaps biased is a better choice) neuroscience on the market, instead exploring the socio-cultural roots of our ideas of gender.  For example, the very act of marking your sex on a test (a common occurrence on standardized tests) caused European American women to feel more confident about their verbal abilities (a trait commonly thought of as 'female') and less confident with their math abilities (a skill associated with maleness).  For men, the results were reversed.  The simple act of checking a box can change performance.  As educators we need to be aware of these sociological effects so that we can mitigate them in our classrooms.  For example, if gender must be recorded (to appease the powers that be), place the question at the end of the test.  Or have a proctor track gender by seating plan (which could be correlated with the tests afterwards).

I highly recommend the book and would consider it to be mandatory reading for all educators and parents.  Make it your first New Year's resolution.

Preschoolers demonstrate scientific experimentation

I tweeted a review (Wired) of this article: Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers' exploratory play (1). I managed to secure a copy of the article (perk for working at a college) and just finished reviewing it and felt the need to share it with the world.

The study looked at preschoolers (mean age: 54 months) to see if they could isolate variables of a system to infer information about that system (i.e. apply the scientific method) when the probability of information gain is high. Their approach involved a toy that was activated by placing coloured beads upon it. Some of the beads would activate the machine (i.e. it would light up and play music) and some would not. The participants were divided into two groups: the all bead and the some bead conditions. In the all bead condition, the participants were shown that all the beads caused the machine to activate when applied individually. In the some bead condition, the participants were shown that some of the beads caused the machine to activate. They were then provided with two sets of beads (in pairs): one set could be pulled apart to test individually whereas the other had been glued together.

Nearly half of the children in the some beads group tested individual beads in the machine whereas only 5% (1 child) did the same in the all beads group. However in both groups the amount of play with the machine was the same (i.e. the some beads group did not use the machine more and thereby test individually through random chance). In fact, some of the children actually performed a test that the experimenters hadn't thought of; namely holding the stuck pair vertically to test it one bead at a time.

This prompted the investigators to create a second experiment where both sets of beads are stuck together. The results in this experiment were very similar to the first in that nearly half of the some bead group tested the machine by varying contact with the beads.

So what does this mean. Well, what it doesn't necessarily mean is that children are born scientists. What it does mean is that in isolated environments with limited distractions (i.e. limited variables) and limited information (i.e. high probability of information gain), preschoolers tend towards a systematic experimental approach. The authors quickly and rightly note that the current research indicates that this is not true when the systems approach real-world systems with greater complexity.

What does this mean for teachers? Well, it appears that children have an innate sense of experimentation when not overwhelmed by other task demands and there is the potential for information gain. I feel that this should be nurtured with simple experiments that are then discussed and dissected to help develop the habits of mind of successful scientists and critical thinkers. Additionally, there should be teacher led experiments that are more complicated and would overwhelm the students if done alone. This allows for the teacher to model the proper process to the students.

One conclusion that I am tempted to jump to is to bemoan the loss of this 'gift' that students are born with. However, to extrapolate this experiment and apply it to older students or adults would be wrong. I would like to see a similar experiment done with those age groups. My hypothesis is that we would see similar results. So it is not that students lose this basic innate experimental ability; it is more probable that we are not nurturing this skill and helping it grow into a viable ability.

What we need is science based education and critical thinking being taught in primary school and continuing along until high school. Additionally, we need to begin differentiating between teaching science (i.e. the subset of facts and knowledge the scientific method has garnered for us) and teaching with a science based education (i.e. learning to utilize the scientific method, rational thinking, critical thinking, and logic). As the (paraphrased) adage goes: If you teach a student some knowledge, they will know it for a day; if you teach them to think, they will learn for a lifetime.

---

1. Claire Cook, Noah D. Goodman, Laura E. Schulz, Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers' exploratory play, Cognition, Volume 120, Issue 3, Probabilistic models of cognitive development, September 2011, Pages 341-349

---

One note: the authors of the study did receive a grant from the John Templeton Foundation however, having reviewed the study (with my limited knowledge of cognitive theory) I don't see anything fishy going on.

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.

Teaching Programmers ... or Programming Teachers?

So, I've been struggling lately with deducing the best* way to teach computer programming. So far, I'm at a bit of a loss. From my exhaustively intensive Google searching, I have deduced that there is not much out there regarding teaching computer programming/science. It appears that either everyone already knows how to do it, or everyone assumes they know how to do it. Being as I've assumed that I don't know how to teach it, I'm up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

So that leaves me with the task of creating a paddle for this creek (and that is where the analogy ends before you throw me overboard **). I will begin by recounting my current approach to teaching CS and proceed from there:

1. I lead in class 'tutorial' sessions peppered with lectures. I try to keep the lecturing (i.e. directly disseminating information without the students programming) short to focus in on solving a coding problem together.

2. In terms of assessment, my courses have exams (1 if the course is under 3 weeks, 2 if longer) and projects (open ended, PBL style). I have recently started adding in assignments, which are coding problems that are laid out for the students.

3. My class runs for a 5 hour block, Monday to Friday (which is a lot of time to teach).

4. I've started adding in what I call 'Quick Checks' which are questions related to the theory of what we are covering, but unrelated to the problem we are solving (they are meant to help the students pull out the concepts being used to solve the problem).

Now that that is out of the way, here are my observations thus far:

1. It recently dawned on me that my approach of 'live-coding' is really no better than having the students copy copious amounts of notes from the board. I believed that since they were coding (and therefore doing) it was a good approach. However, I have been finding that the students are just copying the code down without applying much thought to the process. So, problem 1 is to find a way to rectify that while still covering problems that are interesting and applicable to what they will face in the job market.

2. The Quick Checks have shown me that the students have difficulty separating the logic of the solution from the scenario of the solution. I think that they see them as the same thing. This is of course highly detrimental to coding, as coding is problem solving which is the act of applying similar thinking to new problems. So problem 2 is finding a way to separate the ingredients from the recipe.

3. The open-ended projects (which are meant as a means to explore the topics covered in course and create items for their portfolio) tend to be highly derivative of the examples I do in class. I feel this reinforces my conclusion drawn in 2 that the students have difficulty separating the logic from the solution.

4. There is still a problem with the terminology we use (i.e. methods, functions, constructors, parameters versus arguments) as well as problems with writing proper syntax. Along the same thread, some students are still having trouble formatting their code neatly (which I am a huge advocate for). This makes it much harder to learn the more challenging problem solving skills as the they are still grappling with the language in which the solution is framed.

5. There is difficulty in remember what we have already completed on the current problem. This is challenging as we often try to reuse code to minimize the amount that needs to be written. However, if you don't recall what has already been done, it is difficult to reuse it or even move forward. I find this also translates into not knowing what the program should be doing when we test it.

In regards to solutions, unfortunately at this point I only have ideas. My biggest worry about implementing changes is my own bias that the changes are effective/ineffective. I need a metric to indicate if the students are actually benefiting. My thinking is something similar to the Physics based Force Concept Inventory, however I cannot find an equivalent one for CS. Since my courses are over so quickly and then we are changing topics/programming language it is difficult to use my exams as a means for assessment (although I have ideas along that thread).

So, at this point dear reader I leave you as puzzled as I am; hopeful that you are intrigued to find this solution (or at least awake). I will leave scribblings on my ideas to future posts.


* best is a fairly loose word to use here, I know ... tsk tsk

** that is the actually end of the analogy, the first was a blatant lie.

Walking the Talk

There has been a lot of chatter on the Twitter about life-long learning and how we embody that as professionals and instill the same into our students. It is very easy to say you are a life-long learner and perhaps just as easy to extol the virtues of it to your students. However, I find when trying to instill new habits, a little bit of modeling can go a long way.

If you want your students to become life-long learners you need to not only talk about it - you need to demonstrate it. Start the class with a comment like "I just found this yesterday ..." or "I just learned about this and wanted to share it ...". Show students that knowledge is not something that can be amassed and then ignored.

So, to ensure that I walk my talk I have decided to add a weekly post summarizing the best design and coding resources I have stumbled upon during that week. I normally post them to my class wiki site however things have a way of becoming buried in there.

So what do you think? Is this an idea you could adapt to your classroom? How else can you show your students the benefits of life-long learning through not just your talk but also through your actions?

Reading Dewey: The Introduction

So, I've decided to read my way through John Dewey's essays. I have quoted him a lot in a variety of my ed work and on Twitter but have never read anything by him. So, I've decided to rectify that.
I will be reading my way through:
John Dewey on Education, Selected Writings
Edited by Reginald D. Archambault
University of Chicago Edition 1974
ISBN: 0-226-14390-2

So, here goes my thoughts, reflections, and critiques (well probably no critiques as these ideas are amazing and I'm not learned enough to critique them) on the Introduction (by Reginald D. Archambault <- which is an amazing name):

It is commonplace that everyone talks about Dewey and no one reads him.
~ Preface

According to Archambault, Dewey's philosophy of education is based on his philosophy of science. He was a strong skeptic and scientist who believed that the scientific method could be applied to pretty much anything and should definitely be applied to education. This to me is a breath of (old) fresh air. I am a skeptic and scientists myself and believe that those two items (coupled with critical thought) form the basis of education.
Dewey felt the aim of education was the 'development of reflective, creative, responsible thought' (p. xviii). This is a well stated, succinct purpose for education. With this goal in mind, students will be able to a) teach themselves b) critique what they are shown and c) further their own growth through self-reflection.

Although perhaps not in the sphere of educational philosophy but still interesting (as a skeptic), Dewey felt that morals should belong within the world of facts, not distinct from it. As the act of valuing is susceptible to the scientific method.
Back on education, he felt that the ends of education are not a fixed point. For to be fixed is to have 'rigid, habitual forms of behaviour [that] can lead only to stagnation' (p. xx). Instead the goals of education must shift in relation to the changing environment and changes in society. It is a common question in the Twitterverse about the goals of education. Dewey I feel would argue that that is not a good question as in his mind, the goals must be stated in terms of processes (i.e. the promotion of reflective thought not reflective thought). This means that education is the end goal in itself. He felt that a major aim of education was to help students become morally responsible so they can, as adults, create new societal rules and become autonomous. To achieve this end, Dewey argues that the desires of the student must be heard, addressed, and acted upon where reasonable. In essence, he is arguing for more student control in their learning.

Back on the subject of ends, Dewey believed that if the end goals are to be meaningful they must be defined 'in terms of the means which would be used in their attainment' (p. xxiii). Dewey argued against vaguely stated goals for education (such as 'freedom' or 'wisdom' or 'the full development of the child') as in his mind they were stated as ends within themselves and precluded the notion of a means of attaining them.

Dewey also fought against traditional (and popular) methods of instruction that he called 'assign-study-recite' (p. xxiii). He felt that the justification for these methods was faulty: the belief in a Tabula Rasa state and the idea of a child as a passive receiver of information. Instead he argued for a method of instruction that focused on the 'live, meaningful, and important problem to be grappled with and solved' (p. xxv). This to me indicates a form of PBL, an active integration of content with the student's interests in a way that supports learning and does not stifle it.
He also argued against the idea of separating learning into distinct subjects. He felt this caused the subject to be viewed as an unchanging collection of facts to be learned either through 'classroom management' or by applying a sugar-coating to the material to make it more palatable. In relating this back to his ideas of ends and means, he deduces that this method of instruction actually prevented the achievement of its own aim (the absorption of the distilled subject knowledge) by promoting a hatred of the subject by preventing an open and free exploration of the subject. Instead the knowledge is not the driving force of education, it must be subservient to the purpose and method of instruction. Knowledge should not be presented based on the ideas of tradition but instead organized and structured based on its relevance to the problem at hand. I have created some illustrations to illustrate this.Whereas Dewey's approach would look more like this:Dewey argues that content must be defined in terms of the relationship between the teacher and the student and must not be the end in itself. The end is the application of content to a real problem thus proving the means for synthesis of the learning.

In Dewey's mind the teacher's role is not to disseminate of content but is instead tasked with 'prompting the development of ideas in the pupil' (p. xxvii). The teacher's role becomes one of helping the student to develop relations and connections and their own ideas. To accomplish this the teacher must be foremost a learner, armed with a broad general knowledge but based on a sound grounding of educational theory; especially the relationship between theory and practice.

The introduction ends with a quote from Dewey:

If we are willing to conceive of education as the process of forming fundamental dispositions, intellectual and emotional, toward nature and fellow men, philosophy may even be defined as the general theory of education.

The editor concludes with a statement that in order to understand Dewey's thoughts on education, you must first understand his total philosophy. Let the education begin ...

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.

Feedback: It's a two-way street you know

I've been thinking a lot about feedback and the one-way nature of it in education. Wikipedia defines feedback this way:

Feedback describes the situation when output from (or information about the result of) an event or phenomenon in the past will influence an occurrence or occurrences of the same (i.e. same defined) event / phenomenon (or the continuation / development of the original phenomenon) in the present or future.

In many classes, feedback is a one way process: the instructor provides feedback to the student. Typically the student is only granted the ability to provide feedback on the instructor or the course once (at or near the end of the course). This feedback is then not provided to the instructor until after the course has finished. This implies (based on our definition above) that the feedback can not be used to alter the present state of the course that the students are in. This implies an altruistic impetus to the student to even provide feedback (i.e. I will provide feedback not to improve my own state, but to improve the state of future students). I know in my own experience as a student (anecdotal of course, but illustrative) that I only ever filled in the multiple choice part of a end-of-course evaluation unless I was extremely pleased or displeased with the instructor. In addition, by the time the end of term was rolling around, I had forgotten much of the feedback that I had wanted to share.

Looking at it from the other end, this lack of feedback for teachers tends to reinforce the stereotype that teachers are an irreproachable source of knowledge. Stereotypes tend to be more damaging to the one that is being stereotyped that the one perpetrating them. This lack of constructive, useful, timely feedback encourages teachers to accept and embody this omniscient stereotype, and thus not to attempt to become better. Yes, teachers can self-critique and self-reflect upon their own practice (and they should) and change that way. But the system of not permitting feedback for the teacher does not encourage (and in fact discourages) this self-reflection from taking place; in fact it negates any form of reflection of the teacher upon thier teaching practice. It discourages the teacher from changing; what change could be needed by someone that is perfect? By tacitly neglecting feedback, we tacitly accept the idea that we are beyond change and beyond growth; we tacitly accept the idea that we are not learners as we have nothing to learn.

How do we rectify this disparity in our feedback model. The solution is rather simple: do not wait for the prescribed feedback form to come around; be proactive. The exit card strategy is an excellent means of gaining feedback on the lesson from students:

At the end of each class, students are provided a cue card. Upon the cue card they are asked to record the following: One positive item from the lesson, one piece of constructive criticism, and one thing that is interesting (in essence a form of a PMI). Students should be encouraged to do this every class, and to discuss anything they wish. It should also be anonymous.

In my experience, this must be encouraged every class because as students we are very used to having no voice in how we are taught. This idea is not easily dispelled.

It is vital that constructive criticism is acted upon swiftly. Students will realize very quickly if this is a 'sham' when their ideas are not implemented or discussed. Actively discuss the suggestions in class and your feelings on their efficacy.

As I teach in a computer lab, I have digitized my exit card strategy. I use Google Docs to host a form on my course website. The results from the form are dumped into a spreadsheet (think Excel) for me to process. The link to the form is kept on the website and I provide 5 minutes most classes (as I can be forgetful) for students to submit feedback. Here is a sample form for that purpose.

The speed at which I can adjust the flow of the course is empowering. I benefit as a teacher by knowing that my students are understanding my (and our) ideas for the course. I can also gain valuable insights into how my assumptions on how to teach this class may not match the needs of this class. Perhaps more importantly, it shows my students that I am not perfect; that I am growning and learning alongside them; that I make mistakes. But, most importantly, it illustrates those same points to me.

Sample Forms:
General Feedback Form
Exam Feedback Form

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?

What did you learn in school today?

I learned that knowledge is static.
I learned that I have no hope of learning on my own, knowledge must come from my teacher.
I learned that learning is best done quietly and in rows.
I learned that fun has no place in life.
I learned that I am not smart enough to learn on my own.
I learned that conformity is valued more than creativity.
I learned that my opinion and ideas are worthless.
I learned that my greatest achievement will be a test score.

What did you teach your students today?

Top 100 Education Books

Well, I've been sitting on this idea for a bit now and I think it is time to unleash it. I was scouring the net for some amazing way of implementing it, but I can't find anything that doesn't require me to host a web site myself. So, without further ado ...

My idea is to have teachers collaborate and generate the Top 100 Education Books that aspiring, new, and current teachers should read to improve and inform their practice (with thanks to Tom Allen at CBC Radio 2 Shift for the inspiration). This of course is a unending project as new ideas are introduced and new literature produced.

This will be hosted at the shift-ED wiki site and should be ready to be unleashed in its entirety shortly. So, get pondering and get ready to produce the greatest list ever produced (that references books about education).

Theme Days

I've always toyed with the idea of having theme days in my class. People love structure and routine as much as they may need change. Having theme days can allow for the structure, give students the chance to get settled and prepare them to venture into the unknown. My current idea is to spend 5-15 minutes each class on the particular theme. My week would look like this:

Monday Madness -> Show a short video showcasing some cool science
Tuesday -> Individual silent reading
Wacky Wednesday -> Some cool demonstration (may not apply to what we are studying)
Thursday -> Individual silent reading
Famous Friday -> A short bio on a famous scientist

For the silent reading, students would be allowed to read whatever they like (as long as it is not rude). I would also have a variety of reading material in the class library in case students forgot to bring something. I think having students pair up afterwards to discuss something they read is a nice extension.

Sure this would take time away from teaching content, but in the long run I think more science would be learned and taken away.

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 ...

On the pedagogy of making pancakes

In my home, we've recently begun experimenting with making our own pancakes from scratch. The first thing we realized is just how easy it is to prepare excellent tasting, nutrious pancakes from scratch. We felt almost deceived by the pancake mix companies (you know who you are) for tricking us into thinking we needed pancake mix. Then we realized that we had allowed that to happen.

The interesting thing about making pancakes is how it mixes both science and art. You can easily get a recipe from the Internet to make pancakes of any description. The quantities of ingredients needed and the order to mix them is easy to follow. However, I have learned that the art of cooking the pancake is not so easily described.

I find myself sometimes watching the pancakes closely as they cook in the pan. On these occasions I tend to flip them before they are ready and they just don't look nice once they are done. On other occasions, I become distracted, either intrinsically or extrinsically, and forget to flip the pancakes and they burn. However, on those rare occasions the right mix of attention and distraction occurs and I flip the pancake at the perfect moment and it looks, well, good enough to eat.

I've tried to scientifically determine when the pancake should be flipped. The recipes say to wait until the bubbles have formed deep in the middle. However for my combination of cheap stove and cast iron pan, that causes them to burn. Some days I need to flip before bubbles form and other days I need to wait to flip. There appears to be no consistent pattern regarding the flipping of the pancake. It seems to be determined by the state of the mix, the pan and the stove on that particular day.

Sure things may work better if I had a stove that actually distributed heat properly. Or maybe if I chose to use a Teflon pan. But regarding the stove, I work with what I have. Regarding the cast iron pan, it may be archaic, it may be more work, but it makes everything taste so much better.

To spice up the pancakes, we experiment with adding fruit to the mix. Pineapples, apples, bananas, and strawberries have all made it into the mix at some point. These small additions help keep things fresh.

Now, when we first started we went on a pancake bonanza and ate them everyday for a week. That resulted in the avoidance of pancakes for the next week. Now we try to balance pancakes with other meals like a nice hearty oatmeal or some greasy French toast.

I know that every time I make pancakes I do it better, faster and easier. I am better able to predict when to flip the pancakes to have them turn out perfectly. I still screw up here and there and burn one or under cook some, but I take those mistakes in stride, learn from them and move forward.

Just some food for thought ... (sorry, its late couldn't resist the horrible pun)

Reply to Katie Stoynoff's Article

I recently read Katie Stoynoff's article in the Huffington Post entitled To Strength Education, Strengthen Teacher Education Programs. It is an excellent article with many sentiments that I agree with. Now, being Canadian, we have a different teacher education program but ours is not without many of the same faults as our peers across the border.

There are problems with our current educational model, that can not be denied. It seems that everyone has an idea as to the source of the problem and how to fix it. Many people push technology as the panacea that will cure all of our ills. Many look to a lack of funding or a lack of standards or a lack of standardized testing. Some blame the students whereas others blame the parents. Teachers of course are never left out of the equation (see Bill Maher' rant for more on that).

When a system is failing, there are no easy answers. However, many of the so called causes are not causes but effects. When you want to change a system, it must be done from the top down. And that is were I completely agree with Stoynoff; let's change Teacher Education to better prepare new teachers.

Where I don't agree is her insistence that we raise the GPA admission standard. Teachers who did well in the current school model will be more likely to propagate that model indefinitely. In Ontario, you must have a university degree to teach; this denies many potentially excellent teachers who chose to go to college instead. It also propagates the hegemony of public schools being feeding grounds for universities, thereby further alienating those students who do not wish to attend university.

Her point of Mr. Shank mixing fun with instruction is one that is not made enough. When did we decide to separate fun and learning? But, that is for another posting ...

What do you think about this article?

Can We Build a Better Teacher?

I recently read an article from the NYTimes.com entitled Building a Better Teacher. It has been making its way around the net and seems to be garnering positive reviews. I wanted to take a second to offer my opinion on the matter.

Before I delve into the article, I feel I need to expound upon my own theories a bit (to only be fair). Continuing with one of my previous posts where I elaborated on my views of technology. According to Franklin, there are prescriptive and there are holistic technologies. Prescriptive technologies attempt to reduce problems down to a set of discrete, independent steps. These steps can be completed with no idea of the final product, no investment in the process and with no connection to the subsequent step. Whereas holistic technologies give control of the entire process to the worker; these are the technologies utilized by artisans for example. I feel that true teaching falls into this category, as a holistic technology.

For me, teaching is both art and science. Art is the appreciation of the beautiful in abstract, holistic terms. Whereas science is the appreciation of the beautiful in logical, ordered terms. To me they are not two sides of the same coin, or at different ends of the spectrum. In my mind, they are each a lens in the glasses we view the world through. When we focus too much through the science lens we lose perspective on the abstractness and chaos that exists around us. If we insted choose to only view through the artistic lens, we lack an understanding of the order that exists in the world. This may sound contradictory or oxymoronic, but order can not exist without chaos.

True teachers are able to balance between these two lenses. They apply the skills and knowledge they need to impart the lessons they have decided need to be taught. The means of dissemination can appear to be random to an outside observer, because the true teacher is teaching to many people; many minds; many views.

The work being performed by Lemov as reported in this article attempts to reduce teaching down to its science side only. He is working on creating a series of discrete, independent steps that anyone (or anything) could take to 'teach' a class. To me, this is no different to watching Kenneth Branagh play Hamlet versus watching me play Hamlet. His performance is a nuanced act of beauty, mine would be a focused repetition of a series of memorized steps. It would appear forced and unnatural.

I always have two initial thoughts when I read of an 'educational researcher' attempting to quantify the act of teaching to help 'build better teachers'. My first thought is that if they are successful, why don't we just program a robot to perform these steps. With the proper logic, it is a fully possible feat. Why would we need people to teach anymore, if all those people are doing is performing a series of quantifiable, discrete, programmable steps.

My second thought stems from the 'build a better teacher' idea. Why not build a better student instead? What would a better student look like? If you assume we need better teachers, and the proof that better teachers have been produced is the attainment of better grades, then in essence you imply that we need better students.

I would like to examine a few quotes from the article:

This was neither pure content knowledge nor what educators call pedagogical knowledge, a set of facts independent of subject matter, like Lemov’s techniques. (p7)

I don't feel that what Lemov is touting is pedagogical knowledge. It is a series of classroom management techniques. My view of pedagogy relates to methods of sharing knowledge in the classroom, not the methods of controlling the learners. Effective pedagogy negates the need for classroom management techniques (in all but the most extreme cases).

“But I feel like it’s insufficient. . . . It doesn’t matter what questions you’re asking if the kids are running the classroom.” (p8)

I'm not sure if this is meant in a positive light (i.e. democratic classroom) or in a negative light (i.e. the kids are running rampant). If it is the former, then I don't understand how it wouldn't matter what questions you ask. So, I lean towards it being the latter. This to me is the most telling aspect of Lemov's own personal pedagogy: children need to be controlled while in school. I don't subscribe to this so I can't subscribe to his 'manifesto'.

For these kinds of challenges, Bellucci leans on Kramer’s seven years of experience teaching math, plus her own applied math degree from nearby Union College. She also improvises. (p9)

She also improvises? But, that can't be reduced to a prescription? It must be implied that this improvisation is negative by Lemov's own hypothesis.

While study after study shows that teachers who once boosted student test scores are very likely to do so in the future, no research he can think of has shown a teacher-training program to boost student achievement. (p9)

Thank you.

And while Lemov has faith in his taxonomy because he chose his champions based on their students’ test scores (p9)

Really? Well, I guess I can prove anything with that application of the scientific method.

“You could change the world with a first-year teacher like that,” he said. (p9 Lemov)

If that is so, why has the world not changed? A statement like that is only made if the premise is untrue (i.e. the world is unchanged, needs changing and can be changed). I don't understand his need for this statement, it is pure rhetoric.

For an interesting counter-point by Malcolm Gladwell (who I just learned was born in the city I now live in ... cool), I would encourage you to read Most Likely to Succeed.