Having recently slammed Bill Gates for his comments on where good teachers come from ("Brain Rules and Empathy"), it's only fair to point out when he gets something right.
His recently-released Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) survey got a lot of things right.
For example, it turns out that "student perception" is an excellent predictor of teacher effectiveness. Students know good teaching when they see it.
The National Council of Teacher Quality put it nicely: "It seems we might all save ourselves a whole lot of time, money, and aggravation now being invested in fixing teacher evaluations by just turning the job over to kids. Heck, that sure would save states and districts an awful lot of money."
This really shouldn't be surprising. Almost everyone can identify the teachers who had the greatest impact on them, and in whose classes they learned the most.
The following student responses were highly correlated with teacher 'value-added' scores
• My teacher really tries to understand how students feel about things.
• Students in this class treat the teacher with respect.
• My teacher has several good ways to explain each topic.
• My teacher makes lessons interesting.
• Students speak up and share their ideas about class work.
• The comments I get on my work help me understand how to improve.
The Gates’ study also looked at the robustness of value-added measures themselves, looking at questions such as whether state tests--from which most value-added scores are determined--correlate with other types of tests, including tests with open-ended responses; and whether a teacher's high performance one year will predict the next. (They do.)
On the other hand, "State tests measuring students' language arts achievement seem to be least able to identify the full range of teacher ability, raising some concerns among the research team about what these tests are measuring.” The researchers concluded that these may just be lousy tests, which is what teachers have said for years.
And then there’s this really good news: "teachers whose students report that they spend a lot of time in the class practicing for the state test are by no means the better teachers." Apparently, ‘teaching to the test’ is not an effective teaching strategy.
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Monday, January 10, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Another “school board blogger”?
A fellow “school board blogger” from the eastern part of the state wrote to me recently; in his note he mentioned the keynote speech from PSBA’s October convention, given by Tony Wagner. I had intended to write about this, so my thanks to him for the reminder.
(There aren’t many of us, so you should check out Jim’s blog, here)
What is the ‘crisis’ in American education? What's the problem we’re trying to solve?
Wagner maintains that the education system is not so much “failing” (although there are places where it clearly is) as it is obsolete. This is due, in part, because we have failed to consistently ask this question on behalf of students: “how will this be useful to me?”
It has been true since the dawn of education that students are more likely to learn when they have an intrinsic motivation to do so.
It is also true that in order to make the best possible use of a limited resource - instructional time – we need to periodically evaluate what is important. (A couple of obvious examples: 40 years ago it was important to learn cursive writing and long division. Not so much, now.)
Wagner’s thinking is consistent with that of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which I’ve written about previously. But to P21’s “4 Cs” of critical-thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity, he adds initiative and adaptability. In this century, these will be survival skills.
Particularly useful was his refinement of the concept of Critical Thinking, which he calls “habits of mind”. In his view, critical thinking skills include:
• the ability to ask good questions
• an awareness of various viewpoints
• the ability to weigh evidence in support of different arguments
• the ability to assess social value
• an understanding of cause and effect
• an ability to use conjecture; to ask, "what if?” questions
If we want to get serious about accountability, we will have to find ways to measure the things we think are important. Wagner believes there are already some pretty good assessment tools out there; he mentioned the on-line College and Work Readiness test as one example.
Beyond that, the way to make the evaluation process more rigorous is to have teachers develop performance standards for Critical-thinking, Communication skills, etc. What does “mastery of communication skills” look like?
Clearly, this runs counter to the current movement of easily administered, mass-produced testing. But if this approach seems impractical to you, consider this: when making critical business decisions - such as whom to hire - businesses don’t rely on standardized, fill-in-the-bubble tests; they use "informed human judgment."
In addition, if we believe that collaboration is an important skill for students to have, then every teacher should be on a team for collaborative learning, as well. (This is already happening locally, as I learned on a recent board visit to Easterly Parkway Elementary.)
A couple of Wagner’s other recommendations:
• Every student should have an adult coach.
• Student and teacher video portfolios
(There aren’t many of us, so you should check out Jim’s blog, here)
What is the ‘crisis’ in American education? What's the problem we’re trying to solve?
Wagner maintains that the education system is not so much “failing” (although there are places where it clearly is) as it is obsolete. This is due, in part, because we have failed to consistently ask this question on behalf of students: “how will this be useful to me?”
It has been true since the dawn of education that students are more likely to learn when they have an intrinsic motivation to do so.
It is also true that in order to make the best possible use of a limited resource - instructional time – we need to periodically evaluate what is important. (A couple of obvious examples: 40 years ago it was important to learn cursive writing and long division. Not so much, now.)
Wagner’s thinking is consistent with that of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which I’ve written about previously. But to P21’s “4 Cs” of critical-thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity, he adds initiative and adaptability. In this century, these will be survival skills.
Particularly useful was his refinement of the concept of Critical Thinking, which he calls “habits of mind”. In his view, critical thinking skills include:
• the ability to ask good questions
• an awareness of various viewpoints
• the ability to weigh evidence in support of different arguments
• the ability to assess social value
• an understanding of cause and effect
• an ability to use conjecture; to ask, "what if?” questions
If we want to get serious about accountability, we will have to find ways to measure the things we think are important. Wagner believes there are already some pretty good assessment tools out there; he mentioned the on-line College and Work Readiness test as one example.
Beyond that, the way to make the evaluation process more rigorous is to have teachers develop performance standards for Critical-thinking, Communication skills, etc. What does “mastery of communication skills” look like?
Clearly, this runs counter to the current movement of easily administered, mass-produced testing. But if this approach seems impractical to you, consider this: when making critical business decisions - such as whom to hire - businesses don’t rely on standardized, fill-in-the-bubble tests; they use "informed human judgment."
In addition, if we believe that collaboration is an important skill for students to have, then every teacher should be on a team for collaborative learning, as well. (This is already happening locally, as I learned on a recent board visit to Easterly Parkway Elementary.)
A couple of Wagner’s other recommendations:
• Every student should have an adult coach.
• Student and teacher video portfolios
Friday, November 12, 2010
There is no such thing as multi-tasking
You pre-GenXer's can stop feeling intimidated. The apparent ability of today's student to do six things at once is only an illusion. This is a key insight from the fourth chapter of “Brain Rules”: it is only possible for the brain to pay attention to one thing at a time.
"We are biologically incapable of processing (multiple) attention-rich inputs simultaneously."
Those who appear able to jump from English assignment to Facebook to iChat and back are actually disengaging and reengaging their brains at each shift, after the brain determines what is needed for the new task. This is highly inefficient.
The exception is that it is possible to do two things at once if one activity can run on 'auto-pilot' - that is, if you’re not really paying attention to it.
For example, a lot of people drive with their brain on auto-pilot, which is just fine until the person in the next lane does something unexpected. If you're going to talk on a cell phone while behind the wheel, you may as well have a couple of beers first.
But I digress.
Listening to music while studying might actually be a good idea. Apparently, this creates an association that the brain can later use to recall stored information. An interesting implication of this principle is that a stimulating classroom environment – one perhaps, with a view of the outdoors – instead of encouraging daydreaming, is actually more conducive to learning than a room with four bare walls.
There is also a danger of force-feeding more information than the brain can fully process, such as might happen in some AP courses. (Did I say that out loud?) It might be possible to retain information long enough to pass an exam, but how much will the brain retain a week later? A year later? (If the answer is "not much", how important was it in the first place? Something to think about.) Further, the brain needs periodic breaks in order to digest any new information, which is why it is necessary to build time for reflection into the learning process.
A third insight is that the brain appears programmed to ‘tune out’ after about ten minutes – humans have a low threshold for ‘boring’. So a good lecturer has to do something every ten minutes or so to reengage the audience.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the most effective way to get the brain to pay attention is to incite emotion – fear, laughter, surprise, etc.. The emotional trigger sends a message to the brain: “This is important! Remember this!”, which is why events that are associated with intense emotion can be remembered in detail many years later.
"We are biologically incapable of processing (multiple) attention-rich inputs simultaneously."
Those who appear able to jump from English assignment to Facebook to iChat and back are actually disengaging and reengaging their brains at each shift, after the brain determines what is needed for the new task. This is highly inefficient.
The exception is that it is possible to do two things at once if one activity can run on 'auto-pilot' - that is, if you’re not really paying attention to it.
For example, a lot of people drive with their brain on auto-pilot, which is just fine until the person in the next lane does something unexpected. If you're going to talk on a cell phone while behind the wheel, you may as well have a couple of beers first.
But I digress.
Listening to music while studying might actually be a good idea. Apparently, this creates an association that the brain can later use to recall stored information. An interesting implication of this principle is that a stimulating classroom environment – one perhaps, with a view of the outdoors – instead of encouraging daydreaming, is actually more conducive to learning than a room with four bare walls.
There is also a danger of force-feeding more information than the brain can fully process, such as might happen in some AP courses. (Did I say that out loud?) It might be possible to retain information long enough to pass an exam, but how much will the brain retain a week later? A year later? (If the answer is "not much", how important was it in the first place? Something to think about.) Further, the brain needs periodic breaks in order to digest any new information, which is why it is necessary to build time for reflection into the learning process.
A third insight is that the brain appears programmed to ‘tune out’ after about ten minutes – humans have a low threshold for ‘boring’. So a good lecturer has to do something every ten minutes or so to reengage the audience.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the most effective way to get the brain to pay attention is to incite emotion – fear, laughter, surprise, etc.. The emotional trigger sends a message to the brain: “This is important! Remember this!”, which is why events that are associated with intense emotion can be remembered in detail many years later.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Brain Rules and Empathy
Medina's third chapter talks about the enormous variations in how individual human brains are wired. Some of this is genetic, but much of it is experiential; the result of the constant rewiring of our brains as we process new information and experiences. Similar information is often stored in completely different parts of the brain from one person to another.
We have also known for years - since Howard Gardner, at least - that people can be 'intelligent' in very different ways (little of which, I feel obliged to add, is measured by standardized tests.)
The result of different brain wiring is that every person approaches and learns new information somewhat differently; hence, the need for 'differentiated instruction'. A good teacher understands this about his students, and that the way he learned best is not necessarily the best way to teach.
Teachers, therefore, need to have strong skills of empathy – the ability to see and understand things from another point of view.
We ordinarily don't see empathy as a skill - you either have it or you don't, to varying degrees. (This perception is probably connected to the widely held belief that teachers are born and not made - most recently articulated by Bill Gates, who should be more careful about what he says.)
But the idea of 'learning' to be empathetic becomes more plausible once you get past the idea that this is not just another way of saying "being a nice person". (Although being nice helps.) Strictly speaking, empathy is the ability to understand what another person is thinking and feeling. 'Being nice' is what you might do with that information. For example, good poker players are, in a sense, highly empathetic - but not necessarily "nice".
Another important human variation is the rate at which the brain develops. If you've ever seen a third grade class picture, you were not surprised to see some students standing fully head and shoulders above others. Why would we think there isn't similar variation in brain development?
And yet we have an educational system that has been designed on the premise that every eight-year-old "should" be at the same place in intellectual development. Perhaps we need to rethink this.
We have also known for years - since Howard Gardner, at least - that people can be 'intelligent' in very different ways (little of which, I feel obliged to add, is measured by standardized tests.)
The result of different brain wiring is that every person approaches and learns new information somewhat differently; hence, the need for 'differentiated instruction'. A good teacher understands this about his students, and that the way he learned best is not necessarily the best way to teach.
Teachers, therefore, need to have strong skills of empathy – the ability to see and understand things from another point of view.
We ordinarily don't see empathy as a skill - you either have it or you don't, to varying degrees. (This perception is probably connected to the widely held belief that teachers are born and not made - most recently articulated by Bill Gates, who should be more careful about what he says.)
But the idea of 'learning' to be empathetic becomes more plausible once you get past the idea that this is not just another way of saying "being a nice person". (Although being nice helps.) Strictly speaking, empathy is the ability to understand what another person is thinking and feeling. 'Being nice' is what you might do with that information. For example, good poker players are, in a sense, highly empathetic - but not necessarily "nice".
Another important human variation is the rate at which the brain develops. If you've ever seen a third grade class picture, you were not surprised to see some students standing fully head and shoulders above others. Why would we think there isn't similar variation in brain development?
And yet we have an educational system that has been designed on the premise that every eight-year-old "should" be at the same place in intellectual development. Perhaps we need to rethink this.
Friday, October 29, 2010
More brain rules
The second chapter of Medina's book, "Brain Rules," speaks directly to the current debate in education over whether it is more important to emphasize basic skills and knowledge, or the development of higher-order thinking skills.
The answer, of course, is not either/or, it's both. Students have to develop basic skills along with a data-base of essential information - and they have to develop the capacity to use that information in useful and creative ways.
Millions of years of evolution have developed in humans a huge capacity for improvisation – for "thinking on our feet". Our very survival as a species depended on it; in fact, our increased brain capacity, compared with other mammals, has more than compensated for a relative lack of speed and strength (and for the fact that humans have a very extended, vulnerable, childhood during which our brains continue to grow and develop.)
It is also worth noting that for the first time in history, there is more information available than the human brain has the ability to store, so it is becoming increasingly important that we learn how to access the information that is out there.
Any learning environment that develops only the database of basic knowledge, or only our improvisatory instincts, ignores half of human ability and will fail to develop children to their full potential. As the Partnership for 21st Century Skills takes pains to say: we have to figure out how to merge the traditional "three Rs" with the "four Cs" of creativity, communication, collaboration, and critical-thinking.
Another advantage of increased brain size is that it appears to have given humans a unique capacity for symbolic reasoning – which, in turn, has enhanced our ability to communicate with others, and thus to collaborate on common goals.
In evolutionary terms, there are two ways to defeat a potential predator: 1) become bigger, faster or stronger, or 2) develop cooperative arrangements with others to essentially the same effect.
93% of communication is non-verbal – and, it should be noted, not easily tested – but the ability to interpret non-verbal cues is essential to understanding the motivations of others and to the forming of useful partnerships.
Collaboration has been a big part of how we’ve survived so far, and will be a big part of how we survive in the future. We had better make sure that our children learn how to do that.
The answer, of course, is not either/or, it's both. Students have to develop basic skills along with a data-base of essential information - and they have to develop the capacity to use that information in useful and creative ways.
Millions of years of evolution have developed in humans a huge capacity for improvisation – for "thinking on our feet". Our very survival as a species depended on it; in fact, our increased brain capacity, compared with other mammals, has more than compensated for a relative lack of speed and strength (and for the fact that humans have a very extended, vulnerable, childhood during which our brains continue to grow and develop.)
It is also worth noting that for the first time in history, there is more information available than the human brain has the ability to store, so it is becoming increasingly important that we learn how to access the information that is out there.
Any learning environment that develops only the database of basic knowledge, or only our improvisatory instincts, ignores half of human ability and will fail to develop children to their full potential. As the Partnership for 21st Century Skills takes pains to say: we have to figure out how to merge the traditional "three Rs" with the "four Cs" of creativity, communication, collaboration, and critical-thinking.
Another advantage of increased brain size is that it appears to have given humans a unique capacity for symbolic reasoning – which, in turn, has enhanced our ability to communicate with others, and thus to collaborate on common goals.
In evolutionary terms, there are two ways to defeat a potential predator: 1) become bigger, faster or stronger, or 2) develop cooperative arrangements with others to essentially the same effect.
93% of communication is non-verbal – and, it should be noted, not easily tested – but the ability to interpret non-verbal cues is essential to understanding the motivations of others and to the forming of useful partnerships.
Collaboration has been a big part of how we’ve survived so far, and will be a big part of how we survive in the future. We had better make sure that our children learn how to do that.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Brain Rules
Some time at the beach and airport terminals allowed me to catch up on my reading. In "Brain Rules", John Medina has consolidated the most recent research on how the human brain works, and offered some suggestions/implications for how this might affect education.
Not to state the obvious, but if education is essentially about “learning” then it makes sense to have a good understanding of how the brain processes information – how it learns – and what factors might influence that process, both positively and negatively. Wouldn’t it be something if instructional methodology was designed explicitly according to how our brains work? If future teachers understood the relevant brain science?
Fortunately, most of us have known teachers who instinctively taught according to these brain “rules”. And much of this is not new - many of these ideas will bring to mind your mother’s common sense. What’s new is the research documentation. My suggestion is to read the book for yourself, or visit the website: www.brainrules.net where you can find the research that backs up their conclusions. But allow me to share the ideas that jumped out to me.
The first chapter specifically addresses the value of physical activity. This is particularly relevant because of the recent federal proposal that would mandate thirty minutes of physical activity in each school day.
This has generated some controversy: in the current climate of NCLB and the overriding pressure of test scores, where does one find the time to meet another mandate? But to me, it is – pardon the expression – a no-brainer. And it turns out that there’s good research in support of regular physical activity for students (and other learners, as well).
“In a recent study, children jogged for thirty minutes two or three times a week. After twelve weeks, their cognitive performance had improved significantly… When the exercise program was withdrawn, the scores plummeted back to their pre-experiment levels.” (p. 15)
In other words, if you want to increase your test scores, provide students with opportunities to exercise.
“Kids pay better attention to their subjects when they’ve been active. … they are less likely to be disruptive in terms of classroom behavior... (They) have higher self-esteem, less depression, less anxiety. All of those things can impair academic performance.” (p.18)
As I mentioned during a recent board discussion – and while I’m certainly supportive of structured physical education - the proposed regulation doesn’t mandate how the students get their exercise. Several vigorous walks around the school each day might be one way to do it.
It turns out your mother was right: “exercise gets blood to your brain” (bringing it glucose for energy and oxygen to soak up left-over toxic electrons.) Also: aerobic exercise just twice a week cuts your risk of Alzheimer’s by sixty percent.
Not to state the obvious, but if education is essentially about “learning” then it makes sense to have a good understanding of how the brain processes information – how it learns – and what factors might influence that process, both positively and negatively. Wouldn’t it be something if instructional methodology was designed explicitly according to how our brains work? If future teachers understood the relevant brain science?
Fortunately, most of us have known teachers who instinctively taught according to these brain “rules”. And much of this is not new - many of these ideas will bring to mind your mother’s common sense. What’s new is the research documentation. My suggestion is to read the book for yourself, or visit the website: www.brainrules.net where you can find the research that backs up their conclusions. But allow me to share the ideas that jumped out to me.
The first chapter specifically addresses the value of physical activity. This is particularly relevant because of the recent federal proposal that would mandate thirty minutes of physical activity in each school day.
This has generated some controversy: in the current climate of NCLB and the overriding pressure of test scores, where does one find the time to meet another mandate? But to me, it is – pardon the expression – a no-brainer. And it turns out that there’s good research in support of regular physical activity for students (and other learners, as well).
“In a recent study, children jogged for thirty minutes two or three times a week. After twelve weeks, their cognitive performance had improved significantly… When the exercise program was withdrawn, the scores plummeted back to their pre-experiment levels.” (p. 15)
In other words, if you want to increase your test scores, provide students with opportunities to exercise.
“Kids pay better attention to their subjects when they’ve been active. … they are less likely to be disruptive in terms of classroom behavior... (They) have higher self-esteem, less depression, less anxiety. All of those things can impair academic performance.” (p.18)
As I mentioned during a recent board discussion – and while I’m certainly supportive of structured physical education - the proposed regulation doesn’t mandate how the students get their exercise. Several vigorous walks around the school each day might be one way to do it.
It turns out your mother was right: “exercise gets blood to your brain” (bringing it glucose for energy and oxygen to soak up left-over toxic electrons.) Also: aerobic exercise just twice a week cuts your risk of Alzheimer’s by sixty percent.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
More on Testing
This may be familiar ground, but an article by Richard Rothstein in American School Board Journal made me think it's worth repeating, particularly in light of Pennsylvania’s ongoing march towards state-wide “Keystone exams”.
An argument you occasionally hear is that schools should be "run more like a business". But as Rothstein pointed out, performance pay in the private sector is seldom based on strictly quantifiable measures of how much is produced.
In fact, he gave a number of examples of how perverse incentives are sometimes built into systems.
For example, if colleges are ranked according to how "selective" they are, they'll work at getting more students to apply, just so they can turn them down.
A classic example: factories in the Soviet Union were rewarded/punished according to how many shoes they produced. But because material was in short supply, they produced a lot of very small shoes - in sizes nobody wanted.
The consequence for education: if schools are measured strictly, and with important consequences, by the percentage of their students who reach a certain threshold (such as "proficient"), they will be tempted to devote a disproportionate share of their resources to the students just below the threshold, at the risk of ignoring everyone else.
Here’s another: in many high schools, "college-prep" English courses are designed to help students do well on the standardized tests (with their emphasis on grammar, which is easily testable) that will help them get into college - but doesn't provide the skills that will make them successful in a freshman-year English course.
What's the moral of the story? In part: not everything that is important can be measured, and not everything that can be measured is important.
When it comes to assessment, the United States is an international outlier. As Stanford University’s Linda Darling-Hammond has shown, many nations with better and more equitable educational outcomes test far less than we do. They typically test just one to three times before high school graduation, and use multiple-choice questions sparingly, if at all. Excessive testing wastes resources and fosters the use of cheap, low-level tests, while adding high stakes and potentially narrowing the curriculum. The results provide little instructional value to students, teachers, schools, or districts.
Arne Duncan is beginning to suggest that he understands this: “Only by moving beyond basic skills and bubble tests can children develop the critical thinking skills that will one day give them the ability to compete successfully in our increasingly global, increasingly competitive international economy." It still remains to be seen whether the policy will match the rhetoric.
So here's the question: Is it possible to assess critical thinking, innovation, and communication skills on standardized tests? If not, why are we going down this road?
An argument you occasionally hear is that schools should be "run more like a business". But as Rothstein pointed out, performance pay in the private sector is seldom based on strictly quantifiable measures of how much is produced.
In fact, he gave a number of examples of how perverse incentives are sometimes built into systems.
For example, if colleges are ranked according to how "selective" they are, they'll work at getting more students to apply, just so they can turn them down.
A classic example: factories in the Soviet Union were rewarded/punished according to how many shoes they produced. But because material was in short supply, they produced a lot of very small shoes - in sizes nobody wanted.
The consequence for education: if schools are measured strictly, and with important consequences, by the percentage of their students who reach a certain threshold (such as "proficient"), they will be tempted to devote a disproportionate share of their resources to the students just below the threshold, at the risk of ignoring everyone else.
Here’s another: in many high schools, "college-prep" English courses are designed to help students do well on the standardized tests (with their emphasis on grammar, which is easily testable) that will help them get into college - but doesn't provide the skills that will make them successful in a freshman-year English course.
What's the moral of the story? In part: not everything that is important can be measured, and not everything that can be measured is important.
When it comes to assessment, the United States is an international outlier. As Stanford University’s Linda Darling-Hammond has shown, many nations with better and more equitable educational outcomes test far less than we do. They typically test just one to three times before high school graduation, and use multiple-choice questions sparingly, if at all. Excessive testing wastes resources and fosters the use of cheap, low-level tests, while adding high stakes and potentially narrowing the curriculum. The results provide little instructional value to students, teachers, schools, or districts.
Arne Duncan is beginning to suggest that he understands this: “Only by moving beyond basic skills and bubble tests can children develop the critical thinking skills that will one day give them the ability to compete successfully in our increasingly global, increasingly competitive international economy." It still remains to be seen whether the policy will match the rhetoric.
So here's the question: Is it possible to assess critical thinking, innovation, and communication skills on standardized tests? If not, why are we going down this road?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)