My family and I have been enjoying a respite in Daytona Beach and I have had a chance to enjoy some downtime. This downtime is so important to the creative mind, because it offers opportunities to develop thoughts without the pressures and confines of the traditional work schedule.  I’ve often walked up and down the beach, with family, spouse, children, and alone just to admire nature’s presence.  Of course, if you look west, there is a plethora of high-rise buildings and extensive development.  But, walking on the sand and facing east, leaves an unadulterated view of the beauty and grandeur of Mother Nature in one of my favorite forms:  the ocean. 

Daytona Beach has a fairly active surf and the sand on the beach is peculiarly clean, without the too often found litter, flotsam, and jetsam that unfortunately crowd the pathway of a nature walker.  I am surprised how flat the beach is and how few shells are mingled within the sand.  Nonetheless, the intense, crashing, powerful sounds of the waves are soothing and relaxing. 

As you look south, down the beach, there is only one obstruction in the water, and that is the Main Street pier.  The peer stretches perpendicular to the beach, about the length of a football field.  There is a building in the middle of it, and is uncrowded with only a few fishermen seeking a catch.  I had walked past the pier, both over and under, several times, but on a recent trip, I noticed something on the sand.  The pier has created an unnatural obstruction in the sand, and has caused it to pool around the piers.  This situation often occurs when human interference, particularly in the form of jetties or groins are installed to stop beach erosion.  However, beaches move, whether we like it or not, and attempts to stabilize them nearly always make things worse. 

I had originally learned about beach movement in a graduate coastal ecology class I took with George McManus , a fabulous marine biology professor at UConn-Avery Point.   A video “The Beaches are Moving,” with Dr. Orrin Pikey discusses the phenomenon.  After seeing the video, and follow up reading that I’ve done, I am constantly amazed that human-imposed techniques are used to interfere with nature’s might.  If you’ve ever seen “Deadliest Catch,” you know that the ocean is a powerful force and a human-built structure really has no chance against the awesome power of the sea. 

So, as a scientist, I thought it was cool that I had the chance to subtly observe a human-nature interaction, but as an educator, it has me thinking about other things . . .

Many professional development opportunities ask teachers to think about their students from a “Multiple Intelligences” perspective.  The list of intelligences, currently at eight is:

• Bodily-Kinesthetic
• Interpersonal
• Verbal-linguistic
• Logical-Mathematical
• Naturalistic
• Intrapersonal
• Visual-Spatial
• Musical

Some characterize the multiple intelligences concept as a theory, but there has been little-to-no empirical evidence to support that claim.  Ironically (or maybe not so ironically) the conceiver, Howard Gardner, does not want is multiple intelligences concept used as learning theory. 

Some might consider my observation about the pier to be a naturalistic intelligence.  Now for a brief sidebar .  . . In the past, in the Estuary Watch Program, I’ve collaborated with two professors, Dr. Lisa Kaplan from Quinnipiac University, and Dr. Joe Crivello from UConn.  Joe had an amazing ability to observe nature, and know just where to dip his net in a marsh to come up with an amazing catch of grass shrimp.  Lisa, a more contemplative scientist, would often comment how Joe just seemed to have amazing hands – whatever he touched always seemed to work for him whether in the field or in his laboratory.

The more I think about this “naturalistic” intelligence, the more I think, that the naturalist, really just has an excellent visual-spatial acuity.  After all, naturalism, really is just a specific interest, and may not be an intelligence unto itself.   Every time I interact with someone who has clear naturalistic interest and aptitude, always seems to have excellent spatial perspective. 

As educators and researchers, we should be critical of that which does not have clear empirical evidence.  The way we educate children should be based on clear, evidence-based practice.    

My final statistics graduate course took place last week.  I’ve graded the exams and submitted the grades and stand happy with what I’ve done.  It has certainly been a challenge, but it has shown me that I am capable of teaching at the university level and that I’m interested in doing it!  This is an interesting situation, since becoming a college professor would require me to take approximately a $30,000 pay cut from my current job as a high school department chair. 

Teaching at the university level would afford me the opportunity to do some of the things that I am very interested in pursuing:

• Conducting my own research
• Continuing to supervise other research
• Intellectual thinking, writing, and publishing
• Continued development of my own personal 21st-century skills

Nonetheless, I think I will still watch for interesting opportunities that may offer me options for my own professional growth and the ability to share my experiences.

One immediate challenge for me is this blog.  I have written here with the intention that my students particiapte in the discussion, but I really want to strive to get a larger audience that does not have an obligation to participate, but rather desire to share and develop my own ideas.  This ultimately would be one of the best ways to develop my 21st-century skills.

One of my good friends and colleagues, Nick Kowgios, is perhaps the most innovative, thoughtful educator I have ever met.   He developed a method for assessment coined “Test Debate/Test Analysis” where students i.) take a multiple choice test, then, as a class, ii.) debate and vote on the answers to the test, and finally iii.) metacognitively write about choices they made and their impressions they had.  This process is very Socratic and allows the teacher to truly be a facilitator. 

On the surface it sounds very odd. Students vote for the best answers and decide?  Probably would sound even odder if I told you that students have debated one multiple choice question for well over an hour.  However, Nick’s work has demonstrated that this method produce statistically significant increases on standardized tests (AP exams, state exams). 

I’ve used the method, and what strikes me is that assessment becomes more formative.  In other words, we often teach students concepts, learning stops, we assess, and move on. In this format, we teach student concepts, we assess, and learning continues.   The key to the whole process is that assessment MUST be conceptual.  Nick and I were chatting about the application from his discipline (English/LA) to mine (Science), and some of the resistance he has encountered from science teachers.  Here’s part of what I wrote to him:

I would categorize science learning and assessment into three broad categories:

1. factual

2. conceptual

3. analytical

 

Factual clearly being a way where teachers are concerned with isolated facts out of context.  Conceptual as you and I think about it.  In science assessment- more so using big ideas to analyze scenarios and apply knowledge.  Analytical would be more of a computational problem solving approach.  I think of conceptual questions more as ill-defined problems and analytical as well defined problems.  Both are inquiry-based but a conceptual question can have multiple possibilities (i.e., the BEST answer), where a well-defined has one right answer (i.e., the CORRECT answer).

 

Most chemistry teachers use an analytical approach to their teaching, so they might not realize that they have to change the way they assess – they need questions that have best answers instead of questions that have right answers.  (Is my distinction OK and clear?)  Conceptual learning generally works better (easier? less work for the teacher?  less change in philosophy?) in a non-quantitative course like Biology.

 

Today we were doing debate and this question really challenged the kids (about 30 minutes on this one):

 

8. A scientist suspects that the food in an ecosystem may have been contaminated with radioactive nitrogen over a period of months.  Which of the following substances could be examined for radioactivity to test that hypothesis?

a. the cell walls of plants growing in the ecosystem

b. the hair produced by skunks living in the ecosystem

c. the sugars produced during photosynthesis by plants growing in the ecosystem

d. the cholesterol in the cell membranes of organisms living in the ecosystem

e. any of these choices would work well.

 

The context of the question comes from a unit on macromolecules.  We had learned the structure of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins.  We had not discussed radioactivity in any sense.  They should have had previous exposure to radioactivity, but ultimately, it doesn’t matter too much in the context of the question.  I’ll give my impression on the thought process that should/might happen:

 

First, students have to recognize that nitrogen is an atom and nitrogen makes up only certain macromolecules. (This, by the way, didn’t happen for all students – they got stuck on radiation as some amorphous property that could “drift” from one place to another, instead of being a physical property of the nitrogen atom (i.e., additional neutrons)).

1. carbohydrates are made from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen

2. lipids are made from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen

3. proteins are made from nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur

(4. nucleic acids (DNA/RNA) are made from nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and phosphorus) – I put this one in parenthesis because we did not talk about nucleic acids, and there are no nucleic acids in the choices above).

 

Now students have to decide which of the above might contain proteins (no longer nitrogen)

a. cell walls are primarily made of cellulose – cellulose is a carbohydrate – but there are some proteins that are present.  However, the radioactivity is probably mostly in the plants – however it’s the proteins of the plants, and there’s not very much of that in a cell wall.

b. hair of the skunk is primarily made of protein.  Toxins tend to bioaccumulate, so as you go up the food chain there should be a higher concentration.  I think this is the best choice.

c. sugars are carbs – no nitrogen.  Interestingly, a student quoted a book saying something about radioactivity in the photosynthetic process.  He was quickly slapped by another student who commented that he was talking about radioactive carbon, not radioactive nitrogen.

d. cholesterol is a lipid (steroid) – again, no nitrogen.

e.  they just all don’t work

The class was primarily debating the merits of a and b.  I actually stopped for five minutes to make them do some data hunting for better support – they hit the books and came back, still arguing.  Ultimately the class went for b, because the “a” supporters were having trouble putting holes in the “b” argument. 

 

Notice how much I can write about a multiple choice question.  The students are just as passionate.  And the learning that is taking place is powerful.  Consider the following question.  The students in my class are split over the best answer.  Read the comments and see how they interpret, support, provide evidence, analyze, and synthesize information:

15.  A reasonable conclusion from the Sponge – Bacterial Growth Lab based on class data would be

a. the zone of inhibition prevents bacterial growth

b. Lysol is an effective antibacterial agent

c. pathogenic bacteria grow on Petri dishes

d. a moist, 37^oC incubator is the optimal growing environment for cultured bacteria

e. microwaving a sponge for 1 minute effectively kills bacteria

I’ve often challenged students to think about conceptual learning and big ideas.  I’ve never been one for learning isolated facts, because those “facts” are usually lost after a summative assessment.  If students focus on concepts, they are more likely to retain their knowledge and be able to connect these ideas to new knowledge better.  Conceptual learning certainly would resonate with anyone who would subscribe to a constructivist philosophy of education.

Recently I read a blog post by Wesley Fryer touting a new Web 2.0 tool, Wordle:

Wordle is a toy for generating “word clouds” from text that you provide. The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text. You can tweak your clouds with different fonts, layouts, and color schemes. The images you create with Wordle are yours to use however you like. You can print them out, or save them to the Wordle gallery to share with your friends.

Here’s a Wordle for this blog:

I was pleased to see how often the words “students” and “learning” appear in my writing. Close behind were “technology,” “instruction,” and “data.” This represents what I would think my major thoughts and musings are.

I thought about how powerful this tool might be for allowing students to examine their own writing. Willing to evaluate myself, I processed my Review of Literature from my dissertation. No surprises here either:

Now finding this VERY interesting, I thought I’d do a comparison of my Results Section:

I really have a sense of what my study was about when I examine the Conclusions:

Wordle is not content audited, so teachers who might choose to use this tool should be sensitive to appropriate Internet safety for their students. However, the power to allow students to creatively interpret their written work, and then examine content trends seems very powerful to me.

I am currently sitting in a computer lab in one of our district schools having a demonstration of a school data management system, PowerSchool.  (We are considering a migration from our current system.) The presenter is doing a real time demonstration of the system online, and all of the teachers, secretaries, IT dept members, and administrators are sitting at the computer stations.  

People are frantically taking copious notes on paper – they’ve pushed their keyboards out of the way and are scribing their information.  Only two of us are taking notes on the computer.  I recognize that some situations work better on paper – drawing figures, computing math, and the likes, but this (now) is different.  This is text-based knowledge acquisition.

How can we encourage 21st-century learning skills in our students, integrated with information technology, when so many of us are still entrenched in practices that do not reflect best practice use of technology?  It’s hard to teach effective use, when we don’t necessarily know how to do it well ourselves.

I recently taught a day-long statistics class.  That should be enough to make anyone shudder, but please feel free to keep reading . . .

As part of the semester teaching assignment I have at Western Connecticut State University, the course has an extended Saturday class – 7.5 hours!  Clearly planning for that length of instruction with adult learners was a challenge.  When I began thinking about such an experience, I was really careful to ensure that the day got broken up into parts and that the learners would have a chance for some experiential, tangible learning.  I also had the opportunity to bridge from their other course:  Learning and Cognition. 

When I was originally hired to teach the course, I spoke with the program director, who was also teaching the second course the students were taking.  We discussed the extended day, and I said that it would be really great (cool) if we could connect the two courses together in some meaningful way.  The Learning class has the students observe a teacher (or video tape themselves) and analyze the instruction using an instrument called the CPR (Classroom Practices Record).  The CPR examines incidents of higher order thinkingquestioning in both students and teachers.  Since students had to observe both pre and post, I thought this would be an excellent opportunity to analyze data.

Therefore, the topic of the day was chi square, a nonparametric statistical procedure that has many benefits in educational research, and direct application to the CPR data that was collected.  I did a standard, direct instruction introduction to discuss the overarching concepts:

Following the instruction, I had the students participate in a hands-on activity using M&Ms to determine if the package (observed) contained what the company said would be present (expected).  The students appeared to aggressively engage in the activity. 

For me, one of the most facinating parts of the lesson was the inputing of a live data sheet.  I had established a spreadsheet on my Google Docs account and embedded the link in the PowerPoint.  When we got to that section, students entered their data, and on the projector we could actually watch in real time as data appeared.  It almost looked like watching live election returns.  Talk about a classic example of reconfiguring!  New information was being provided to the class (and actually the world at large) in real time.  There was no waiting, students could acquire and use their classmates information as it actually came into existence.  Can you imagine learning based on class data without any lag time?

After data entry, analysis on the M&Ms took place and students were relatively able to work at their own paces.  I think I was able to provide some one-on-one attention, although I’m not sure if everyone got entirely what they needed.  Nonetheless, I think most (if not all) students walked away with a clear understanding of the chi square statistic, and certainly had a major portion of their CPR project completed.

I would be remiss to also add that I also brought in three guest speakers to discuss their research interests and how statistics helped them bring meaning and understanding to their passions.

I was recently checking things out on Craig’s List, when I saw a Catalina 27 sailboat available at a phenomenal price.  I have enjoyed Long Island Soundsailing for the past 11 years on my Catalina 22, but with the family more regularly joining me, I’ve been thinking about opportunities to upgrade.  Adding 5 feet of boat length translates into an incredible amount of space. 

I asked my friend, Paul, to join me on the excursion and we arrived in Milford to check out the boat, now dry-docked in a boat yard.  Apparently the boat has been abandoned, and they want to get rid of it.

Initial inspections look good.  The boat is very structurally sound.  I think the cushions all need to be replaced – all wet and mildewy.  Mast looks good.  Needs a lot of TLC.  We discuss the boat with the boathouse manager – apparently the motor may have seized.  What does this mean?  I’ve always had an outboard motor on my boat – it comes off; it’s easily serviced.  I’ve never dealt with an inboard before.  I don’t know anything about it.  In fact, I was blissfully ignorant about inboard motors. 

Changing hats . . . sailor-enthusiast to educator

A while back I wrote about expertise and student experiencemaking references to a Disney song from Pocahontas “Colors of the Wind.”  You see, students and teachers can be incompetent (I use the word incompetent, not as a derogatory word, but rather as an objective descriptor) and not even know it.  They can be conscious of their incompetence and want to learn more.  This Consciousness/Competence learning model (similar to Ingham and Luft’s Johari Window) provides an important framework for competency and expertise.

As students begin learning new concepts that they’ve never been exposed to before, first they have to identify that knowledge and skills exist beyond their experiences.  This is not a bad thing – it indicates to us, that there is always more to learn – we need to strive for continuous improvement.  In fact, who would be so boldly ignorant to say that he or she knows everything? 

As I work with my students who are developing independent science research projects, they begin to learn about limitations and need to make deciscions to navigate through those uncharted waters.

They might ask:

• What do I know? 
• Am I capable of doing this?
• Do I have the necessary skills, expertise, access to expertise, money, time, or self-commitment to follow through?

Adult learners also have to make the same considerations.  In addition, they most likely think about how their learning will impact their job. In the case of teachers – how does the new learning impact teaching and learning.  Is it meaningful and helpful for me and students?

Let’s set sail and find out!

I was recently asked to present a professional development workshop to teachers on blogging. The blogs I work with in my classroom are very different from this one. This blog really is more of a reflexivity journal for me, while my classroom blogs really are based on students socially constructing knowledge together. I think my graduate students, who often view this blog, might differ on this description, as their comments reflect social learning here as well.

Here’s the presentation:

In any event, my workshop, which lasted around an hour and forty-five minutes began with an activity about asking conceptual questions. This part of the workshop took an hour. For me, this was far more important than the actual technology use. After all, if we talk about good instruction, blogging only becomes an instructional tool. Asking students meaningful, open-ended, ill-defined, multiple perspective/response questions are critical for developing thoughtful intuitive minds. A blog can asynchronously facilitate this.

So we’re back to the same ideas, which ultimately are critical: technology should enhance instruction, not replace or impede it. It should make learning meaningful, not burdensome.

This is a challenge in the statistics class I am taking, because the technology, in this case, SPSS statistical analysis software, should allow students to understand and interpret concepts. When the technology gets in the way of learning concepts, then real learning stops occurring. The software needs to only be a tool to allow students/researchers to make meaning of their questions – to help them validly and reliably answer them.

I am in the process of writing a manuscript about 21st-century learning and the integration of technology. I have developed a three-tiered system to identify types of learning activities that integrate technology. Their descriptions are provided below. Can you help me by providing practical examples from the classroom of the different technology integrations? Your comments would be greatly appreciated.

Retrofitting
The simplest integration of technology into teaching and learning is retrofitting. There is little change in instruction, but rather a different tool is used to facilitate similar learning strategies. This level of implementation has the instructor performing the same tasks, with the same teaching and learning strategies, only using the technology as a new tool. The teacher still delivers information directly to students and may have interaction via questioning. The use of the technology does not intellectually challenge students in any new or novel format. Instruction, although perhaps enhanced in some fashion, really is not altered in any meaningful way.

Retooling
The next level of information technology integration offers educators more tools for learning. Retooling expands options for learning. For example, instead of being limited by the books available in a classroom or library, a virtual world of extensive, seemingly endless information becomes available using online tools. The information is generally available upon demand and is easily cross-referenced and verified by a cautious, critical eye. Although there is an increase in options for knowledge acquisition, there is still only a one way flow of learning: from source to student. Educators have the ability to do more to enhance student learning.

Reconfiguring
When truly considering the implementation of twenty-first-century skills in conjunction with core instruction, educators must reconfigure. Most recognize that constructivist-based knowledge acquisition occurs through a situated learning schema where students not only learn from the “Sage” (whether the Sage be a teacher or a website), but from social interaction with one another. Knowledge flow can occur in two directions. Therefore, students need to become producers of information, not just consumers. Implementing novel knowledge production in this bidirectional fashion certainly will cause changes to teacher pedagogy. It is probable that many educators will need direct and specific training and mentoring to implement this type of change.
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, discussion forums, photo albums, instant messaging, and voicethreads allow students to produce original work, publish it online, and solicit feedback from other classmates, the teacher, or the online world in general. Student-producers 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 students and teachers to focus on content, concepts, and ideas, not the distracting minutia of web coding.

Adults have different expectations in learning than children do.  Androgogy, the teaching of adults, contains the following important components and tenets:

·         Adult learning is voluntary and learner-oriented. 

·         Education brings freedom to the learners as they assimilate learning with life experiences.

·         Androgogy encourages divergent thinking and active learning. 

·         Often the roles of the learner and the teacher are blurred in the process. 

·         Often there is an uncertainty about the outcome of learning, regardless of the curriculum content. 

I currently have the pleasure of working with many expert teachers in the quantitative statistics course I am teaching for WestConn.  Interestingly, though, the course I am teaching puts many of these expert students in an uncomfortable novice position. 

Research demonstrates that there is a difference in learning between novice professionals and expert professionals.  Three main aspects of performance change in novice to expert learners: 

·         The novice professional’s work paradigm focuses on abstract principles while the expert uses concrete past experiences

·         The novice often views situations discretely where the expert sees situations as part of a whole.

·         The novice is often a detached observer where the expert is an involved performer (Daley, 1999). 

A striking difference when considering novices and experts is that novices are often hindered by specifics of the job, where experts are often hindered by the system.  Novices prefer, and best learn formally, where experts learn best informally, often in conjunction with their peers.  Novice professionals prefer learning strategies like memory and therefore accumulate information, while the expert professional uses dialogue to create a knowledge base (Daley, 1999).    When I consider my students, clearly from an andragonolical standpoint, they behave as experts. 

            Throughout the course, I have assigned work for the students to learn and master statistical techniques that may be useful for them as they begin to research their educational passions.  The assessments have been designed to be formative in nature.  As such, many submit assignments, wait for meaningful feedback, make necessary changes and resubmit.  I am very glad that many feel very comfortable presenting work, knowing that it may require revision. After all, much learning takes place when there is dialogue (in this case, electronic dialogue).  Mistakes are just as valuable as successes. In an adult learning environment, where students are motivated to learn, we can take advantage of the formative process.

            In just a short while, they will begin to work on dissertations, and that is a totally formative process.  Glad we can enjoy it now!