Note: This article is cross-posted in the CSSA Newsletter.  Be a part of the discussion, join my personal learning network, and leave a comment on its contents here.

from: icim-ireland.net

Many districts employ a professional growth model for their tenured faculty members for evaluation.  Instead of a traditional clinical observation with post-observation follow-up, teachers can develop a project to improve their own teaching and learning.  This performance-based approach to teacher development and school improvement allows teachers to take ownership of their growth and learning.  Outcomes expected from a professional growth project might include:

• Empowering teachers to analyze and improve their own strengths and areas needing improvement
• Empowering teachers to adjust their teaching as compelled by internal desire, student needs, or societal demands
• Empowering teachers to engage in a search for relevant compasses to guide the thoughtful implementation of education of children.

Undoubtedly empowering teachers to improve should be linked to improved student achievement, which should be measured in many, various, authentic ways.  In essence, growth models can allow teachers to conduct their own inquiry into a relevant, important topic that can improve their instruction.

As science educators, we subscribe to an inquiry philosophy for teaching and learning.  Simply put, inquiry is learning by questioning and investigation. Underlying an effective inquiry program are philosophies associated with problem solving, reasoning, critical thinking, oral and written communication, and the active and reflective use of knowledge.  Inquiry learning has the instructional goals of teaching scientific knowledge and processes of research, while nurturing a commitment to scientific inquiry, promoting open-mindedness with an ability to balance alternative perspectives, and a cooperative spirit and skill.  If we ask our students to do it well, why not be leaders to them by example?

As science education leaders, we have the opportunity to empower our teacher to seek out inquiry professional growth opportunities to better develop their instructional potential.  However, embedded in our responsibility is to develop the leadership potential in each one of our constituents.  Teachers often have amazing skills, knowledge, and dispositions that they should be encouraged to share with others. 

How do we empower our teachers to share?  We can encourage them to include in their professional growth plans opportunities to share their knowledge with others as part of their end products with the Science Education Community:

• Presenting a workshop at a district or school professional development session
• Presenting a workshop at the Connecticut Science Teachers Association Annual Conference
• Writing an article for the Connecticut Journal of Science Education or the CSTA newsletter.
• Writing an article for a national journal: The Science Teacher, The Journal of Chemistry Education, The American Biology Teacher, The Physics Teacher

These are activities that many teachers would not consider doing on their own, but with gentle, supportive encouragement from a compassionate leader, they might.  The courage to step beyond oneself, to take a risk and be willing to share is not always easy, but we do our profession a disservice when great ideas exist and they are not shared on a larger stage. 

We ask our students to share their work in authentic settings.  Perhaps it’s time we evaluate ourselves and our colleagues as life-long learners and ask if we collectively are willing to take the risks that we expect from our students: to develop our own inquiry skills, leadership, and innovation and have a willingness to share with an authentic audience who would find value – our own peers.

This past Wednesday, I hosted my annual science symposium at my school.  The students who conduct year-long applied research projects participate by presenting a 10 to 15-minute oral with PowerPoint related to their topic. I try to make the experience as authentic as possible.  Students send a written invitation to their parents, and I always ask them to select a teacher in the building and send them an invitation as well.  One teacher attended, and provided me with the following email.  My response to her follows.  I think this written discussion we had indicates the nature of the power of authentic learning and its ability to affect student achievement:

Hi there,

I really was so impressed with you and your students last night.  What a successful event!  It’s astounding to see what our kids are working on, Frank.  And my goodness, you have taught them well in terms of presenting themselves, creating sound powerpoints, and articulating their projects.  I kept thinking about the millions of questions you must be asked on a daily basis.  I was incredibly impressed! 

What I especially enjoyed was the practicality of the applications.  That is something that isn’t lacking necessarily, but isn’t so evident in English.  So that was incredible for me.  Certainly, I had difficulty understanding much of what they were doing, but truly remarkable nonetheless. 

You are an asset to this building (any building) and I just wanted to congratulate you.

Corey

 Corey,

Thanks for your kind words.

 About 12 years ago I realized that to really, really improve student achievement there had to be a sense of authenticity to the work that students do. It couldn’t be “LIKE REAL LIFE,” it had to be “REAL LIFE.” It couldn’t be learning for the sake of learning only, but rather inquiry learning in context, with applicable value. There had to be a real audience (in my case, practicing scientists and engineers) that would evaluate their work – not just me as the teacher. This made my role very different – the teacher as the facilitator instead of the didactic knowledge disseminator. Ultimately the students are going to be evaluated (judged) outside of the building, so it is in our collective best interest to work collaboratively, with me assuming the role of the mentor.

 I started doing research with students, primarily because I found that a problem/project-based learning strategy was a method that worked very well for me as a learner. I also realized that in education we often scenarioize-to-death our perceived authentic assessments and projects, which I think takes away value. We also primarily use visual/auditory teaching and learning strategies with students, which often doesn’t meet the learning styles of all students. Some students are more global and tactile with their successful learning strategies.

 I also believe in concept-based learning – “big ideas” as the focus of learning objectives – and teaching students to making connections between their knowledge. Project-based learning is inherently concept-based. If we improve the 21st-century skills of students (problem finding and solving, creativity, oral and written communication) using the content or project as the vehicle for skill development, then I think we really develop the learning potential and achievement in students.

As I constantly straddle the realms of educational research and the role of a practitioner, I find myself trying to define my interests.  Today I describe my research interests in somewhat of a mission statement. I am doing it in plural form as, although I operate as an autonomous researcher, I have collaborators and someday hope to be directing my own social science lab.  I currently direct a high school natural science and engineering lab, and there is much more diversity in my interests and their interests:

Mission:

We try to relate analytic thinking with creative thinking, which calls for multi-focused domain and divergent thinking. We are trying to promote synergic relationships between analytically and creative-oriented minds. Our research tries to bridge analytical with creative-oriented efforts, convergent with divergent thinking, to develop domain-specific expertise from non-focused or multi-focused generalism.

Research Interests:

By using appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods, we seek to better understand what promotes scientific thinking in young adults.

 Threads for study:  

• The examination of problem finding and problem solving in authentic settings
• Habits of mind for open inquiry
• The impact of authentic inquiry opportunities on teaching and learning
• The intersection of creative and logical/analytical behaviors in a situated cognitive learning setting
• The development of 21^st-century skills in conjunction with scientific content acquisition
• The development of higher order thinking skills in science classrooms
• The role of Web 2.0 interactive technology to improve critical, creative, and reflective thinking

shaneevans.com

The tyranny of the bell:  the industrial model we use in secondary education to promote student learning and achievement.  The bell schedule consists of 45-minute periods where students engage in learning a discipline, then compartmentalize and move on to the next discipline.  It is an honored tradition in the educational institution, yet some are looking to move to alternative methods for promoting student learning.

The most noticable format is the block schedule.  Instead of a traditional 7 or 8-period day, the teaching and learning occurs in approximately 4 1.5-hour blocks.  The block model is often credited for promoting greater depth (although not necessarily bredth) of understanding.  In a well-planned block, students can often deeply engage in their learning and become more authentic producers of information.  I have often heard a description that I would consider a failed use of the purpose of the block:  “I gave a test for the first half and then lectured the second half.”  This is really no different than 2 45-minute blocks.  If X=45 minutes of learning and Y=45 minutes of learning, then using X+Y as a block, surely wasn’t what was intended.  Nonetheless, I am getting off track of what I wanted to write about .  .  .

I teach an applied science research class, where students develop and carry out their own projects over the course of a year.  What I am finding, is that both a 45-minute or a 1.5-hour timeframe are not enough.  I want, (I need) 3+hour blocks.  Yesterday, during February vacation, I had my lab open for students to work.  Some arrived at 9:30, some thereafter, some stayed for 4 hours, some for 8, some for 10.  One worked at Yale in the morning on an SEM, and then came to the school midafternoon and stayed until 7:30.  It was all about FLEXIBILITY.

Flexibility to learn as appropriate for the individual student.  Some were conducting experiments, some were using the computer lab to work on a poster, some were mounting posters, some were conferencing with me, some were organizing binders of research reports, some were conducting statistical analyses like ANOVAs, some were on their cell phones making arrangements for data collection at a different lab.  Each was doing what they needed to do to be successful.  Each was motivated – much of it was internal, but the external pressures of completing an assignment and presenting it for an audience of practicing scientists and engineers that weekend.

I was the principal investigator running my lab.  My students, the project managers, were engaged in behaviors of the scientific and engineering researchers.  We were THE community of practice.  We weren’t trying to be like scientists (“like real life”).  We were DOING it. 

Interestingly, we couldn’t do what we were doing – such deep learning, such authentic learning, if we were under the tyranny of the bell.  Vacation from school afforded us the opportunity to learn (in the case of this class) better than we could under normal “educational” circumstances.  I don’t know how we can operationalize this kind of learning strategy in a systemic way, and honestly don’t know if I want to all of the time . . .

www.kyb.mpg.de

What I do walk away knowing, is that education MUST take place in a variety of places and formats.  What I do know is that when the teacher assumes the role of the facilitator rather than the disseminator of knowledge, students certainly construct their knowledge better.  Better learning . . . isn’t that what we’re all seek?

I recently gave an assignment to my academic and honors biology classes.  I asked them to create stop-motion movies of the cell cycle, including the mitotic process.  Some students elected to add music and some even posted to YouTube.  Mitosis is often taught as a series of drawings and students need to “imagine” what happens from step to step.  In the case of the stop-motion video, the students must take “mini steps” to make the motion occur.  What I have found is that there really must be continuity to the images – they can’t just jump and thus I know if students really understand the process and the RELATIONSHIPS.  The critical thinking involved to make sure that the process makes sense allows students to truly construct their understanding. 

When we watched the videos in class, I was most impressed with the following example.  The students were a bit reluctant at first to share, because they thought it was “too short.”  I dismissed this because of the evidence of understanding.  They clearly got it and made my favorite product.  And the Oscar goes to . . .

The Kennedy Center Teaching Artists define arts integration as:

an APPROACH to TEACHING in which students construct and demonstrate UNDERSTANDING through an ART FORM. Students engage in a CREATIVE PROCESS which CONNECTS an art form and another subject area and meets EVOLVING OBJECTIVES in both.

 We should review this statement carefully, because I really think it integrates concepts of 21st-century learning very well.  It also seems so relevant to science education as well.  Too often, I think students think they learn science, but infer that “they’ll never use this in real life,” unless they become an engineer or scientist.  What I try to stress with students is that the skills we teach in science are what is critical. The content is the medium to advance those skills.  I want students to be self-directed, motivated, critical thinkers who are capable of problem finding and solving.  The Kennedy Center definition also implies constructivist learning theory in their definition. 

from: http://www.ade.state.az.us/

To that end, and as a springboard point for me, I am going to modify this definition for science education integration.  What amazes me, is that it really doesn’t change very much from the art definition:

An APPROACH to TEACHING in which students construct and demonstrate UNDERSTANDING through INQUIRY-BASED QUESTIONS AND INVESTIGATION. Students engage in CREATIVE AND LOGICAL/ANALYTICAL PROCESSES which CONNECTS SCIENCE and another subject or skill domain and meets EVOLVING OBJECTIVES in both.

My colleagues at McGill and I recently published an article in LEARNing Landscapes entitled, Inquiry Literacy: A Proposal for a Neologism. You can read the article here.

from: MS Clip Art

I have had the good fortune to both participate in and read my good friend Dr. Krista Ritchie’s Ph.D. dissertation.  In the document she argues that problem finding is a special case of problem solving (information processing) theory.  It was an intriguing argument to me, so I decided to go right to the source, which was Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. The book is much denser than anticipated, especially at 920 pages.  But, my attention was caught on page 6:

As it will become clear, a theory of the psychology of problem solving requires not only good task analyses but also an inventory of possible problem solving mechanisms from which one can surmise what actual mechanisms are being used by humans. 

This struck me as interesting, because I have long argued that good problem finding requires expertise – knowing which bags of tricks you can utilize to better understand what makes a creative and exciting problem to study.  This is also extremely situated (e.g., Brown,  Collins, Duguid) in nature because there is an authentic framework that justifies making problem finding and solving appropriate and relevant.

 Note:  This article is a cross posting from the Connecticut Science Supervisor’s Association Newsletter.

from: thotwave.com

As practicing professionals who strive for continuous lifelong learning, we often recognize that adult scholarship takes different forms.  We appreciate that our learning is not just what we read in books, view on the Internet, or hear from an expert presenter.  More importantly, we recognize that we construct our knowledge through the social-cognitive interactions that occur with our colleagues.  Many of us choose to belong to organizations like CSSA to nurture these relationships with our peers, which, in turn, promote our own individual professional growth.  We talk with each other in person, by phone, by email, or by whatever means necessary to collaborate.  This is a Personal Learning Network (PLN).  As individuals, we count on others with similar goals, visions, and ideas to validate or even challenge our conceptions so we can grow individually while also building capacity with our constituents.

So how do we develop these Networks, nurture them, and keep them thriving?  Certainly our face-to-face interactions are critical, but today’s technology offers us more options and power to communicate with others.   Many web-based tools are specifically designed with interactive features. Sometimes dubbed Web 2.0 or the read/write web, these sites allow simple production and the ability for others to provide reactions or comments. Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and discussion forums allow individuals to produce original work, publish it online, and solicit feedback from others. Knowledge flow can occur in two directions. Individuals become not only consumers but producers of information.

Those wishing to integrate Web 2.0 interactive technology into their Network do not have to be savvy at programming. Rather, the web tools are menu driven, object-oriented, and often have interfaces that look like common word processing software packages. This is important because it allows educators to focus on content, concepts, and ideas, not the distracting minutia of web coding.  It’s not about the technology, but rather the people that the technology connects.

For example, I maintain a blog (problemfinding.labanca.net).  I started the blog as part of my dissertation work, but continue to use it both for my own reflection of educational issues and as an instructional tool with graduate students with whom I work. A blog, or weblog, is a personal chronological online journal record of thoughts, beliefs, and activities that has interactive commenting features for both the writer and readers.  I personally enjoy writing, but I find that the asynchronous responses I get from other thoughtful professionals help me professionally develop more. 

Why share this?  Apart from some shameless self-promotion of my own work, I find that the interaction that takes place between my readers and me, help to challenge my own thinking.  What’s new is that these challenges and discoveries, by their own nature, caused a feedback loop of new ideas and thought that each lead to some new thought.  However, when I started reading the blog postings of other educators, and began posting responses to their writing, I began to understand the importance of the Network.  The Network consists of people I personally know, and others that are just cyberspace compatriots. My face-to-face and digital PLN partners help me do my job better, because they expand my mind, challenge my thoughts, and provide me with perspectives that I may have never considered. 

Will you become a part of and help me to continue to develop my PLN?  I will cross-post this article on my blog: http://problemfinding.labanca.net.  Please come for a visit, and more importantly, leave a comment.  That’s how the Network builds its capacity!  Collectively we can continue to develop and improve the educational enterprise by applying novel, collaborative, and innovative strategies to our own learning.

I will post my newsletter article tomorrow morning. Please feel free to comment here