Problem Based Learning

I continue to see so many amazing instructional techniques as I visit classrooms throughout our school district. The variety of pedagogy, as well as the dedication and enthusiasm of our teachers, continues to impress me.

Last week Jackie Mark invited me to visit her 6th grade science class to observe the culminating activity of a "problem based learning" unit she had designed on plate tectonics. She had created a variety of problem based learning activities to allow the students to discover the salient learning on the subject. The students then presented their various activities in a "showcase" for parents and other visitors.

As I listened to the student presentations, there were three things that I consistently discovered from each and every student.

1. High levels of student engagement
2. Mastery of the subject matter
3. Consistent view of the teacher's role in the classroom

I would like to spend some time on each of these topics.

We often hear about the importance of engagement to student learning, but all educators have struggled from time to time to create engaging lessons. Often times, this is due to a lesson design where the students are passive participants in the learning process. However, the lesson that I witnessed was the culmination of a unit in which the students actively worked together to solve engaging problems. To a student, they expressed how much they enjoyed learning this way compared to the "sit and receive" method of instruction. Providing students a chance to discover the learning on their own can be a powerful way to create ownership over the learning and thus enhance engagement.

In previous posts, we have discussed the challenges of meeting both the requirements of 21st century learning and the standardized testing requirements of NCLB. I agree that this can be a difficult conundrum. However, I have argued that it does not have to be an "either, or" proposition. Instead, the two can coexist, and this problem based learning unit provides some evidence for this position. Being a former geography teacher, I am familiar with the tenets of plate tectonics, so I was able to ask the students many questions to test their mastery of the subject. I can vouch for the fact that these students knew this material at a mastery level. I am also convinced that they would be able to transfer their knowledge in a traditional standardized testing format. Engaging lessons that allow students to discover the learning through a variety of intelligences does not necessarily have to be sacrificed for the sake of success on standardized testing.

Finally, at the conclusion of each presentation, I asked the students about the role of the teacher during this problem based learning unit of instruction. Each student explained that Mrs. Mark was available to help them if needed; she guided them to potential resources; gave them ideas on how to improve their projects; and supported their efforts. In short, instead of serving as the provider of information, she became a facilitator for student learning. To give up control of the learning can be a difficult paradigm shift for a teacher, but in the classroom of the 21st century, most are predicting that the role of the teacher will change to that of facilitator. In this class, such a role proved very successful.

Problem based learning is just one of a multitude of tools that can be used to build student engagement, enhance learning, and begin to change the traditional role of the classroom teacher. I would like to hear your thoughts on, or experiences with, problem based learning. What other instructional methods could you use to allow students more autonomy over their own learning?

Social Networking: The Good, The Bad, and the Future?

As all of you know, social networking sites are exploding in popularity, bringing new challenges to public schools as well as private business. I have been reading many articles and blogs recently, which not only identify the potential pitfalls of social networking, but also identify how students can use this connectivity to their advantage.

Obviously, there are a plethora of new issues that social networking brings to public schools. We now not only deal with traditional bullying issues, but must be ready to address cyber-bullying--the ramifications of which often spill over into our schools. With most every student possessing a camera phone at all times, pictures can be taken in any situation and almost immediately dispersed widely via the web. I downloaded software to my own phone, which allows me to utilize it as a webcam. I can now video my daughters playing their piano recital songs and post it on the web in a matter of seconds for grandma and grandpa to see. It is easy to see how this technological capability could be used in a nefarious manner by those with less than noble intentions. It is also easy to see how students could use their own social networking pages in a way that could hurt them in the future.

I recently read an article in the Joliet Herald News, which really brought this issue back to the forefront of my thoughts. The author was discussing how job interviews have changed over the years. No longer do potential employers want to know your subject-matter knowledge and skills, because that can be taught. Instead, the interview process now focuses on the "soft skills" that employers cannot teach (i.e. character, timeliness, dedication, work ethic, etc.). One of the ways employers are finding out about potential employees is to conduct a Google search prior to the interview. If less than flattering things come up during this search, future employment chances are null. Also, one of the most common questions being posed during interviews is to ask if you have a Facebook or Myspace account. If the answer is yes, you are then asked to pull up the page so the employer can review your social networking page. Guess what happens if you have content that calls your character into question? So what are the implications of this for public schools?

All is not lost!!! Will Richardson uses the term "Googleable". He believes that students need to be taught two things. First, students must be taught how to utilize the Web as wise consumers. Many students seem to think their social networking sites are private, but it's called the "World Wide Web" for a reason!!! There is no such thing as privacy on the web. The easy thing to do is for teachers and parents to simply deny our young people access to these sites. However, is taking such action really doing these students a service? Richardson would say no. Rather, he would argue that through authentic classroom experiences, we must begin to teach students appropriate ways to use the power of the Web.

This brings me to the the second opportunity we must begin to offer our students. Because employers are routinely conducting Google searches on potential job candidates, it is important that our students' Google searches come up with positive hits. Everyone would agree that if a Google search comes up with hits that call character into question, that would hurt the chances of employment. However, in today's world of connectivity, what does it say about a student if the Google search comes up with nothing? It could be a signal to the employer that the candidate is not in tune with Web 2.0 tools and therefore does not understand global connectivity and the demands of competing in the 21st Century. Therefore, Richardson would argue that we must begin to offer opportunities in our schools for students to become "Googleable" in a positive way.

What does all this mean for our schools? The explosion of social networking sites is causing us to revisit and update many of our District policies. However, we also must begin to consider our responsibilities to our students as a result of Web 2.0 tools. We must not only teach our students the potential pitfalls of social networking, but we also must provide them with authentic learning opportunities so they can begin to build their "Googleability" (I just made that word up!!!). Richardson would argue that in today's global economy, denying access to these opportunities is paramount to putting our students at an economic disadvantage.

As always, I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the positive and negative impacts of social networking on our school system.

Differentiation and Multiple Intelligence Theory

Over the past two weeks, I have had the privilege of being invited to numerous classrooms to watch many of the innovative pedagogies being used by our fantastic teachers. One lesson that I would like to highlight in this post was a review activity that I witnessed in Mrs. Cowherd's fourth grade class.

At the conclusion of a language arts unit on commas, linking verbs, etc., she developed a review activity which provided the opportunity for kids to review with an activity that was designed for their particular intelligence. She had previously untilized a tool to determine each student's dominant intelligence based upon the Multiple Intelligence Theory of Howard Gardner. She then provided various options for the review activity, which allowed each student to review in a manner aligned to his/her dominant intelligence.

It was amazing to watch how each and every student (and I mean every student!) was engaged in the activity. The students were so engaged because the activity was differentiated so that each student could realize success. Multiple Intelligence Theory provides a fantastic framework for differentiating instruction.

NCLB and the recent changes to IDEA, which mandates the RtI process, have resulted in an increased focus on differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction allows the teacher to meet the various learning styles and levels of students within the same classroom. Such a concept is much different than the traditional "batch" instructional model that has traditionally been used in public schools. As we all struggle to adopt a more "student-centric" approach to educating today's youth, the revisiting of Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory could be a very useful tool.

I would be anxious to know what your thoughts are on Multiple Intelligence Theory and differentiated instruction. I would also be interested in what other methods you use to differentiate instruction in your classroom.

Online Learning and the Future of Education

I have used the previous two posts to summarize and discuss the implications of Clayton Christensen's book, "Disrupting Class." In the previous posts, I discussed his argument against the standardization of public education and the current "batch" system of instruction. I also summarized his position as to why public schools are so resistant to substantive change. He concluded that organizational change has to come from outside pressures, and because public schools have never faced competition, they have successfully resisted most change iniatives. This is why we still have virtually the same school structure that was designed during the Industrial Revolution to prepare students for success in the factory system of that time. However, Christensen argues that times have obviously changed, which means the necessary skills for students have changed, but educational structure has maintained the status quo. This has resulted in a disconnect between the skills kids need for the 21st century and the skills they are being provided in our public schools. He believes that schools need a catalyst in the form of competition to break out of their current structure, and that catalyst is presenting itself in the form of online education. This final post on this book will be dedicated to this subject.

Christensen posits that technology has transformed many areas of our lives, but in education, it has not transformed instruction. He claims that educators have "crammed" technology into the current structure to reinforce current practices.


"Whereas her mother did the research through reference books, Maria now does it online; whereas her mother typed out her project on a typewriter, Maria types it using a word processor. Why haven't computers brought about a transformation in schools the way they have in other areas of life?" (p. 72)



"Classrooms look largely the same as they did before the personal computer revolution, and the teaching and learning processes are similar to what they were in the days before computers...the billions schools have spent on computers have had little effect on how teachers teach and students learn--save possibly to increase costs and draw resources away from other school priorities." (pp.72-73)



"...schools use computers as a tool and a topic, not as a primary instructional mechanism that helps students learn in ways that are customized to their type of intelligence." (p. 81)

However, Christensen argues that all of that will change with the proliferation of online learning opportunities. Online learning opportunities will continue to increase as students and their parents demand learning opportunities that are available anytime and anywhere. He also believes that online learning will provide students with opportunities to learn in their dominant mode of intelligence as opposed to getting lost in the "batch" instructional model public schools currently offer.

Christensen believes there are four factors which will accelerate the expansion and popularity of online learning as an alternative to traditional school.

1. Computer based learning will keep improving and become even more engaging to reach different types of learners.


2. Parents will gravitate towards online learning opportunities because learning pathways will be offered that fit each type of learner (student-centric model).


3. Looming teacher shortage as a result of baby boomers retiring.


4. Costs of online learning will drop dramatically as the market scales up.
   

Christensen believes this proliferation of online learning will serve as the "disruptive innovation" that will serve as the competition causing public schools to adopt substantive change. He believes that if public schools do not begin to offer these types of online, student-centric opportunities for kids, then the consumer will start looking elsewhere for these services.

As usual, Christensen's argument results in many questions. Is the proliferation of online learning really going to take place? Will parents really begin looking to this option for their kids? What will happen to public schools if we don't prepare for this "disruptive technology"? Can online learning thrive in the current environment of standardization driven by NCLB? How will the teacher's role change in an environment dominated by online learning opportunities?

I would enjoy reading your thoughts on this posting.

Innovative Use of Technology in District #1

I wanted to take the opportunity to post about some of the innovative uses of technology that are taking place in District #1 classrooms. As I visit classrooms and watch what is getting posted on our District website, I get very excited about the learning opportunities being provided to our students.

I visited Mitch Hamman's high school Sports Marketing class today where I watched the students making audio and video podcasts using Garageband software. The students were all engaged in this 21st century learning opportunity. Once the podcasts are completed, Mr. Hamman will be posting them on our website. I can't wait to see the final product. Mr. Hamman is also using a classroom blog as a communication tool with his students.

Speaking of blogs, we also have some other teachers using classroom blogs as a communication tool with students and parents. Check out the following teachers' blog sites

Carrie Tinucci

Jamie Dooley

We also have classes using podcasts, such as this one from Ann Zafran's 3rd grade Readers' Theater presentation.

Many teachers in our District are using the website to post information for student and parental access. Here are just a few sites to view.

Josh Quigley
Jessica Prozialek
Tracie Waldron
Patricia Sikkema

These are just a few examples of the many teachers using our District website to communicate with parents and students.

We are currently getting between 13,000 and 17,000 hits on our website each month, and many are realizing the value this medium has as a communications tool with those we serve.

Online Education and the Student-Centric School

In my last post, I discussed how Clayton Christensen advocated for a move from standardized instruction to more "student-centric" instructional models. For public schools to move towards this type of organizational and instructional approach, he argues that it will take significant changes to the status quo. In this post, I will discuss why Christensen believes substantive change is so difficult to achieve in the public school system.

Christensen argues that the standardized model we have in education today, which categorizes students into grade levels and teaches them in large groups, was based upon the efficient factory system of the Industrial Revolution. Students were educated in this system because it was designed to ingrain the basic skills and attitudes necessary for students to thrive in the assembly lines prevalent during this time. Over 100 years later, we still employ the same "batch" instructional delivery system even though the desired outcomes for students have changed dramatically in the 21st century. So why haven't schools changed?

Christensen uses his theory of "Disruptive Innovation" to explain why schools have maintained their traditional structures and have been relatively impervious to change. He argues that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for any type of organization to change from the established norms on its own. When established organizations are confronted with change, they tend to take the change initiative and morph it into the existing system, thereby minimizing any impact on those within the organization. Therefore, most all changes in established organizations result from outside competition. He cites many examples of this disruption happening to various U.S. industries (i.e. Toyota disrupting U.S. auto industry, Canon disrupting Xerox, Sony disrupting RCA, etc.). The established company either responds to the challenge and thrives, or fights the change and eventually dies. However, public schools live in a very different environment than private business.

Historically, the public school system does not face competition for its services, and therefore, it has never been forced into substantive change due to the threat of outside competition. As a result, public schools respond to change in the same way any organization would when absent viable competition; morph the change into the existing structure, or reject the change all together.

However, Christensen argues that the playing field is about to change because competition is coming in the form of online education opportunities. He predicts this will be the "disruptive technology" that will be the catalyst for change in the public school system of the U.S. In the next post, I will discuss his analysis of online education and the predicted impact it will have on public schools.

In the mean time, once again, this discussion raises some interesting questions for discussion. What are the skills our students need for success in the 21st century, and how are these skills different from those deemed vital during the Industrial Revolution? Are there skills from the Industrial Revolution that are still important for our students today? Are there inherent advantages to the current standardized system of instruction in public schools? Is competition healthy or a hindrance to the public school system? I would enjoy hearing your thoughts and ideas.