Christensen made several other observations worth noting:
Future (and current!) teachers will need to know how to work with different types of learners; this should be a key component of their professional training. Continuing to train teachers to perform in a world of teacher-led content delivery - being taught to the dominant style of learner … trains teachers for the past.
Current educational research rarely produces results that are actionable; that is, “under this set of circumstances, these actions will produce the best results”. He encourages graduate students to focus their research on discovering the styles of teaching that work best with different types of learners.
And finally: Recent research indicates that nearly all the variation in the cognitive ability of students entering kindergarten can be explained by the amount of “extra talking” that parents did with their children in the first three years of life. (“Extra talking” is conversation beyond “Don’t touch that!”.) Think of the potential impact on society if every high school student learned that one additional piece of information.
He concludes that the billions of dollars that we’re investing in early childhood education may be misplaced. Instead, the author suggests that high school might be the best place to “teach the methods of early cognitive development to tomorrow’s parents.” (Let’s be honest: the next generation isn’t learning “parenting skills” anywhere else.)
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Disrupting Class, chapter 3
According to Christensen, if we are to realize the potential of digital technology to transform education, it needs to fill a need that’s not currently being met through traditional means. A recent NY Times article offers an intriguing possibility.
Chinese educational leaders have begun to recognize that in order to be globally competitive, tens of millions of their students will need to become proficient in English. They’ve also discovered what any American with two years of Spanish instruction already knows: passing a high school (or college) foreign language exam doesn’t mean that you have the skills to order a hamburger at McDonald’s. “Throughout the world people experience the same problem… (they) study languages, but cannot communicate.”
China doesn’t have the resources that would be needed to do this with traditional methods - so they developed a virtual game, initially targeted for 7-12 year-olds. After choosing an ‘avatar’, students pick a scene (such as a supermarket) in which their avatar is confronted with say, the challenge of buying a piece of fruit - in English. They advance through levels of difficulty just as you would in any virtual quest. If they get stuck, students can consult “the wizard’s library” for additional instruction.
For years we have known that our students would like to begin foreign language instruction in the elementary grades; we’re also aware of the cognitive advantages of having them start early. But within the current system, the cost is prohibitive: How many teachers would we have to hire? Where would we find them? How would we decide which languages to teach? Where would it fit in the schedule?
This is a classic opportunity for a “disruptive innovation.” Here are a couple of others.
Faced with incomprehensible lectures, college students are turning to U-tube to find subject matter explained in a way that is more consistent with their preferred style of learning
And students in Baltimore County are learning how the environment surrounding Mount St. Helens has evolved since the volcano’s 1980 eruption, using virtual technology developed at Johns Hopkins. See: Virtual 3-D lab aims to stimulate learning.
Chinese educational leaders have begun to recognize that in order to be globally competitive, tens of millions of their students will need to become proficient in English. They’ve also discovered what any American with two years of Spanish instruction already knows: passing a high school (or college) foreign language exam doesn’t mean that you have the skills to order a hamburger at McDonald’s. “Throughout the world people experience the same problem… (they) study languages, but cannot communicate.”
China doesn’t have the resources that would be needed to do this with traditional methods - so they developed a virtual game, initially targeted for 7-12 year-olds. After choosing an ‘avatar’, students pick a scene (such as a supermarket) in which their avatar is confronted with say, the challenge of buying a piece of fruit - in English. They advance through levels of difficulty just as you would in any virtual quest. If they get stuck, students can consult “the wizard’s library” for additional instruction.
For years we have known that our students would like to begin foreign language instruction in the elementary grades; we’re also aware of the cognitive advantages of having them start early. But within the current system, the cost is prohibitive: How many teachers would we have to hire? Where would we find them? How would we decide which languages to teach? Where would it fit in the schedule?
This is a classic opportunity for a “disruptive innovation.” Here are a couple of others.
Faced with incomprehensible lectures, college students are turning to U-tube to find subject matter explained in a way that is more consistent with their preferred style of learning
And students in Baltimore County are learning how the environment surrounding Mount St. Helens has evolved since the volcano’s 1980 eruption, using virtual technology developed at Johns Hopkins. See: Virtual 3-D lab aims to stimulate learning.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Disrupting Class, chapter 2
People have been trying to reform the Educational System for over a generation. Christensen cheerfully suggests that these efforts are largely doomed due to the interdependence of the system's parts.
For example, suppose someone developed an innovative way to teach 6th-grade language arts. Even if everyone thought this was a swell idea, what would it take to implement it? You would need to coordinate the curriculum with what precedes it (fifth grade) and with what follows (seventh grade and beyond) - and note that the fifth grade teachers are probably in different buildings, reporting to different administrators. If the innovation is cross-curricular (such as project-based learning) the curriculum and training for entire departments would have to be modified. Eventually, teaching colleges would have to change their curriculum, and how all this fits in with state and federal mandates and content-area "standards" is almost too complex to imagine. Did I mention teacher contracts?
By contrast, the "system" of the electric lamp is completely independent. If you want to introduce a new technology (such as the CFL light bulb) your only requirement is that you design something that can be screwed into a lamp socket. Similarly, you can pretty much do anything you want with the lamp, as long as it interfaces with (plugs in to) a 110V electrical socket. (By the way, "Windows" is another example of an interdependent system; change one line of code and you pretty much have to redesign the entire operating system.)
In order to "change the system", therefore, you need what Christensen calls a "disruptive innovation". He used the transistor to explain the concept.
Within a relatively few years, the transistor replaced vacuum tubes as the dominant technology in the production of radios, TVs, etc. But it would not have succeeded if it had challenged vacuum technology head-on. Transistors were too expensive and insufficiently powerful to be used in the large table-top radios that were then commonplace - but they were perfectly suited for small portable radios, which did not then exist. Even though the sound quality wasn't particularly good, for teenagers looking for a way to listen to the World Series in chemistry class - or to music out of earshot of their parents - this new technology was better than nothing. Having a market in which to develop without “competition”, transistor technology matured, became less expensive and eventually replaced vacuum tubes altogether.
So what’s the disruptive innovation that will transform education?
For 25 years we have been proclaiming the computer to be the Next Big Breakthrough in education, but it hasn’t materialized. In too many classrooms, computers sit in a row, underused, because – literally - nobody knows what to do with them! The reason: too often the computer has been viewed, not as an innovation, but as an ad-on, another way to do what we’re already doing.
(State College has avoided the worst of this by gradually and systematically “rolling out” computer technology, (one grade level at a time at the elementary level). This has allowed the innovators and early-adopters to discover what could be done. As they share with their colleagues what they’ve learned, the adoption of the technology is less intimidating for those who follow.)
For example, suppose someone developed an innovative way to teach 6th-grade language arts. Even if everyone thought this was a swell idea, what would it take to implement it? You would need to coordinate the curriculum with what precedes it (fifth grade) and with what follows (seventh grade and beyond) - and note that the fifth grade teachers are probably in different buildings, reporting to different administrators. If the innovation is cross-curricular (such as project-based learning) the curriculum and training for entire departments would have to be modified. Eventually, teaching colleges would have to change their curriculum, and how all this fits in with state and federal mandates and content-area "standards" is almost too complex to imagine. Did I mention teacher contracts?
By contrast, the "system" of the electric lamp is completely independent. If you want to introduce a new technology (such as the CFL light bulb) your only requirement is that you design something that can be screwed into a lamp socket. Similarly, you can pretty much do anything you want with the lamp, as long as it interfaces with (plugs in to) a 110V electrical socket. (By the way, "Windows" is another example of an interdependent system; change one line of code and you pretty much have to redesign the entire operating system.)
In order to "change the system", therefore, you need what Christensen calls a "disruptive innovation". He used the transistor to explain the concept.
Within a relatively few years, the transistor replaced vacuum tubes as the dominant technology in the production of radios, TVs, etc. But it would not have succeeded if it had challenged vacuum technology head-on. Transistors were too expensive and insufficiently powerful to be used in the large table-top radios that were then commonplace - but they were perfectly suited for small portable radios, which did not then exist. Even though the sound quality wasn't particularly good, for teenagers looking for a way to listen to the World Series in chemistry class - or to music out of earshot of their parents - this new technology was better than nothing. Having a market in which to develop without “competition”, transistor technology matured, became less expensive and eventually replaced vacuum tubes altogether.
So what’s the disruptive innovation that will transform education?
For 25 years we have been proclaiming the computer to be the Next Big Breakthrough in education, but it hasn’t materialized. In too many classrooms, computers sit in a row, underused, because – literally - nobody knows what to do with them! The reason: too often the computer has been viewed, not as an innovation, but as an ad-on, another way to do what we’re already doing.
(State College has avoided the worst of this by gradually and systematically “rolling out” computer technology, (one grade level at a time at the elementary level). This has allowed the innovators and early-adopters to discover what could be done. As they share with their colleagues what they’ve learned, the adoption of the technology is less intimidating for those who follow.)
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Book Report: “Disrupting Class”
I spent part of a week at the beach reading “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns” by Clayton Christensen. Here’s a summary in three parts.
The great advantage of the one-room schoolhouse that was the dominant educational model of 19th-century America was that every student received what we would now call "individualized instruction." This was a necessary consequence of teaching a room of students of vastly differing ages and abilities. What followed, however - the standardized, factory-model that became prevalent in the last century - was not only a response to increased urbanization, it was seen as a desirable improvement: factories were proving to be an effective and efficient engine of economic prosperity. Why wouldn't this work for education?
But over the last forty years, two things happened. First, it became clear that having a relatively small percentage of our students educated to their full potential is no longer sufficient. (Until then, it was by design that only the elite received an education beyond high school; for example, we educated engineers who could design and manage factories in which the less educated could be successfully employed.)
The second was a growing recognition - among both educators and later, neuroscientists - that there is no single measure of intelligence; rather, people have (as first described by Howard Gardner) "multiple intelligences", or aptitudes. (The list varies, but it goes roughly like this: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Most people rate highly in only two or three areas.) We also discovered that students learn in different ways, often in alignment with their personal areas of strength. (For example, students who are high in spatial intelligence tend to learn best when they can "visualize" the concept being taught.)
This has interesting implications for math instruction, to give one example. Not only are students who do well in math typically high in "logical-mathematical" intelligence, they tend to be taught – particularly in high school and beyond - by teachers of similar aptitude. Overwhelmingly, those who go on to become math professors come from the same pool of students. In turn, they teach the next generation of math teachers using the same methods – and the cycle continues. As Christensen put it, "members of intellectual cliques are often unaware of the extent to which their shared patterns of thinking exclude those with strengths in other kinds of intelligences."
One of the ironies of No Child Left Behind is that its emphasis on standardization almost guarantees that some children will be left behind. The standardized testing that is at the heart of NCLB favors students with linguistic and mathematical intelligence, at the exclusion of others.
(The cycle breaks down, notably, when the next generation of math teachers are taught by education professors who understand the importance of different learning styles. That’s why university education and math faculties tend to see this issue differently.)
This presents educators with an big challenge: how do you educate every student if every student can’t be taught the same way? (To do this within our current system is very expensive: on average, a special education student with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) costs about twice as much to educate as a “regular” ed student.) However, it should be noted that some success has been achieved at the elementary level, when several adults are available to assist students at multiple learning stations.
While our students would clearly benefit from a customized, “student-centric” education, how do we get from here (standardization) to there (mass customization)?
The great advantage of the one-room schoolhouse that was the dominant educational model of 19th-century America was that every student received what we would now call "individualized instruction." This was a necessary consequence of teaching a room of students of vastly differing ages and abilities. What followed, however - the standardized, factory-model that became prevalent in the last century - was not only a response to increased urbanization, it was seen as a desirable improvement: factories were proving to be an effective and efficient engine of economic prosperity. Why wouldn't this work for education?
But over the last forty years, two things happened. First, it became clear that having a relatively small percentage of our students educated to their full potential is no longer sufficient. (Until then, it was by design that only the elite received an education beyond high school; for example, we educated engineers who could design and manage factories in which the less educated could be successfully employed.)
The second was a growing recognition - among both educators and later, neuroscientists - that there is no single measure of intelligence; rather, people have (as first described by Howard Gardner) "multiple intelligences", or aptitudes. (The list varies, but it goes roughly like this: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Most people rate highly in only two or three areas.) We also discovered that students learn in different ways, often in alignment with their personal areas of strength. (For example, students who are high in spatial intelligence tend to learn best when they can "visualize" the concept being taught.)
This has interesting implications for math instruction, to give one example. Not only are students who do well in math typically high in "logical-mathematical" intelligence, they tend to be taught – particularly in high school and beyond - by teachers of similar aptitude. Overwhelmingly, those who go on to become math professors come from the same pool of students. In turn, they teach the next generation of math teachers using the same methods – and the cycle continues. As Christensen put it, "members of intellectual cliques are often unaware of the extent to which their shared patterns of thinking exclude those with strengths in other kinds of intelligences."
One of the ironies of No Child Left Behind is that its emphasis on standardization almost guarantees that some children will be left behind. The standardized testing that is at the heart of NCLB favors students with linguistic and mathematical intelligence, at the exclusion of others.
(The cycle breaks down, notably, when the next generation of math teachers are taught by education professors who understand the importance of different learning styles. That’s why university education and math faculties tend to see this issue differently.)
This presents educators with an big challenge: how do you educate every student if every student can’t be taught the same way? (To do this within our current system is very expensive: on average, a special education student with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) costs about twice as much to educate as a “regular” ed student.) However, it should be noted that some success has been achieved at the elementary level, when several adults are available to assist students at multiple learning stations.
While our students would clearly benefit from a customized, “student-centric” education, how do we get from here (standardization) to there (mass customization)?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saving for a Rainy Day
Back on May 6th, I speculated as to what Secretary of Education Arne Duncan would think of the Pennsylvania Senate proposal to use the federal stimulus money to balance the state budget, instead of funding the state education shortfall, as proposed by Governor Rendell.
Well, as it turns out, not much. Since this was not widely reported, I offer the following as a public service: "I was disappointed to see that instead of tapping into the state's rainy-day fund, the Pennsylvania Senate recently chose to reduce the percentage of the overall budget being spent on education". He continued: "to cut the state appropriation for primary education by $728 million while leaving $750 million in the rainy-day surplus is a disservice to our children."
It should be noted that this has just about eliminated the possibility that Pennsylvania will receive any money from the second round of stimulus funding (which is, in large part, contingent on how the first round was spent.)
If you're not going to use the rainy-day fund when it's raining, when do you use it?
Well, as it turns out, not much. Since this was not widely reported, I offer the following as a public service: "I was disappointed to see that instead of tapping into the state's rainy-day fund, the Pennsylvania Senate recently chose to reduce the percentage of the overall budget being spent on education". He continued: "to cut the state appropriation for primary education by $728 million while leaving $750 million in the rainy-day surplus is a disservice to our children."
It should be noted that this has just about eliminated the possibility that Pennsylvania will receive any money from the second round of stimulus funding (which is, in large part, contingent on how the first round was spent.)
If you're not going to use the rainy-day fund when it's raining, when do you use it?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Ferguson charrette
Readers: what follows are some highlights, courtesy of Jim Pawelczyk, from the public "charrette" on the Ferguson Township elementary school, one of two building projects currently in the initial design phase. (This occurred shortly before I left on vacation, which accounts for the delay.) I share his enthusiasm for the work that's been done so far.
- We really do have a great group of professionals. John Boecker and David Schrader were very engaging. Our construction management team from Alexander was superb... They listened very carefully and were quick to capitalize on ideas that emerged. Some of the best contributors were the children who attended and created dozens of sketches.
- Lots of good ideas on how to use the site to support learning. An interesting example: why convey rainwater in underground pipes when it's a learning opportunity? Use troughs and swales to allow children to see, hear, and think about what happens. (This was the kids' idea.)
- There was extensive discussion about putting the new school on the soccer field vs. closer to where it is now. At the end of the day, the general consensus was to stay close to the original location of the building.
- Much consensus that the building requires extensive renovation and reconstruction. (This is a very old building.) However, retaining the front of the building or reconstructing the cupola feature was viewed as a way to fit into the character of Pine Grove Mills. It should be clear in the next month what sections might be reused. One interesting idea being considered is to reuse the current "all purpose" room as a library.
- Construction phasing will be challenging - but teachers, students and parents were more than willing to put up with the headache if it meant we could start construction in summer, 2010. One solution that received a lot of support was that administrative elements could be placed in temporary buildings while the children move into the new part of the school. "We'll make it work to get it done on time" was the spirit that pervaded the day.
- With the participants encouraging a concerted move toward sustainability, there was plenty of conversation about gardens and constructed wetlands to process gray water. The former is very much a tradition upon which the "Ferguson Family" would like to expand.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
No More Cookie Cutter High Schools?
I thought I would mention one last session from the NSBA conference because it captured many of the key ideas pertaining to high school organization and design.
Here are some of the "17 Principles for Teaching the Digital Generation" that were presented by Frank Kelly as part of his presentation, “No More Cookie Cutter High Schools”. The ones that you've heard before are worth repeating.
Learning must prepare students for a world of constant change. This might seem obvious and somewhat clichéd, but there are important implications for education, such as:
Learning must focus on 21st century thinking skills.
Learning must include 21st century fluency skills. This encompasses a number of areas, such as:
Assessments must encompass both knowledge skills and higher order thinking skills. This goes to the heart of the accountability issue: that is, are we measuring the things that are important, or just those things that are easy to measure? Fortunately, some pretty good assessment tools are being developed to measure these higher-order skills.
Learning must be connected to the outside world. (An idea that relates directly to the Service-Learning model.)
Several of these principles have implications for school design:
For example, students should have their own personal place to work. One characteristic of "Industrial Age" high schools is that only spaces within the typical high school that students own are their lockers and their backpacks - the transient nature of students is designed right into the building.
The configuration of spaces within the school building must be flexible.
Learning must be interdisciplinary. The compartmentalization of the high school faculty and curriculum is another holdover from the industrial age model.
Learning must engage students. Long before Bill Gates, educators have been stressing the importance of "relevance" - but this concept is also supported by recent brain research. To state what is obvious (but often ignored) when students perceive subject matter as important to them, their learning will be deeper, and have a longer impact.
Learning opportunities should be available 24/7. This has obvious implications for technology, but another of their recommendations was for a 12 month school year, which I think is inevitable.
Time should be flexible. One of the recommendations is for an eight-hour school day, comprised of 20-minute modules that could be combined and organized as needed. Substantial portions of each day should be unscheduled for both teachers and students.
I suspect that most people would be surprised to learn that in countries that have successfully redesigned their educational model - when compared with the U.S. - significantly higher percentages of a teacher’s day is spent in preparation and in collaboration with other teachers. These countries have come to see this as a key element of professional development, and a more effective use of a teacher’s time than spending the entire day standing in front of a classroom.
It should also be noted that our current educational model has very little time built in for “reflection” – which is, as was noted earlier, an essential component of all learning.
Learning must be shaped for the individual. Technology has made “mass customization” possible in the retail world. An Individual Education Plan for every student – hopefully, without the bureaucratic paperwork – is the likely future of education.
Every student should have a close working relationship with at least one adult in the school. Their recommendation was that every school day begin with an advisory period.
Students should assume responsibility for their own learning. Another recommendation for high school is to allow substantial time in the afternoon for project work and independent study.
Here are some of the "17 Principles for Teaching the Digital Generation" that were presented by Frank Kelly as part of his presentation, “No More Cookie Cutter High Schools”. The ones that you've heard before are worth repeating.
Learning must prepare students for a world of constant change. This might seem obvious and somewhat clichéd, but there are important implications for education, such as:
Learning must focus on 21st century thinking skills.
Learning must include 21st century fluency skills. This encompasses a number of areas, such as:
- Speaking & Listening Skills, which include the ability to speak a foreign language; non-verbal communication skills; public speaking; as well as active listening and the ability to change one’s mind.
- Reading & Writing Skills include the ability to read fiction and non-fiction for meaning; to understand & apply the principles of graphical design; the ability to read technical material manuals - as well as write technically. (There will always be jobs for people who can write comprehensible instructions.)
- Information Skills refer to the ability to analyze the context of information in order to discern its veracity, accuracy and usefulness; the ability to ask good questions; the ability to recognize and organize information needs (that is, what is and isn’t known); and the ability to shape & distribute information in ways that make it understandable and useful to others.
Assessments must encompass both knowledge skills and higher order thinking skills. This goes to the heart of the accountability issue: that is, are we measuring the things that are important, or just those things that are easy to measure? Fortunately, some pretty good assessment tools are being developed to measure these higher-order skills.
Learning must be connected to the outside world. (An idea that relates directly to the Service-Learning model.)
Several of these principles have implications for school design:
For example, students should have their own personal place to work. One characteristic of "Industrial Age" high schools is that only spaces within the typical high school that students own are their lockers and their backpacks - the transient nature of students is designed right into the building.
The configuration of spaces within the school building must be flexible.
Learning must be interdisciplinary. The compartmentalization of the high school faculty and curriculum is another holdover from the industrial age model.
Learning must engage students. Long before Bill Gates, educators have been stressing the importance of "relevance" - but this concept is also supported by recent brain research. To state what is obvious (but often ignored) when students perceive subject matter as important to them, their learning will be deeper, and have a longer impact.
Learning opportunities should be available 24/7. This has obvious implications for technology, but another of their recommendations was for a 12 month school year, which I think is inevitable.
Time should be flexible. One of the recommendations is for an eight-hour school day, comprised of 20-minute modules that could be combined and organized as needed. Substantial portions of each day should be unscheduled for both teachers and students.
I suspect that most people would be surprised to learn that in countries that have successfully redesigned their educational model - when compared with the U.S. - significantly higher percentages of a teacher’s day is spent in preparation and in collaboration with other teachers. These countries have come to see this as a key element of professional development, and a more effective use of a teacher’s time than spending the entire day standing in front of a classroom.
It should also be noted that our current educational model has very little time built in for “reflection” – which is, as was noted earlier, an essential component of all learning.
Learning must be shaped for the individual. Technology has made “mass customization” possible in the retail world. An Individual Education Plan for every student – hopefully, without the bureaucratic paperwork – is the likely future of education.
Every student should have a close working relationship with at least one adult in the school. Their recommendation was that every school day begin with an advisory period.
Students should assume responsibility for their own learning. Another recommendation for high school is to allow substantial time in the afternoon for project work and independent study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)