As part of the curriculum I developed for  Beacon Preservation’s Green Light Academy, students participated in a hands-on, minds-on activity to develop and build a small-scale solar still.  In true “guided inquiry” format, we gave the students some minor expository information about concepts of distillation for purifying salt water, and then asked them to design and build their own still using wood splints, plastic wrap, and different adhesives. 

I was absolutely amazed how engaged the students were.  They were building, asking questions, sketching, thinking, and really working hard.  They actually wound up working over an hour longer than we initially had planned.  No problems on my end.  When you are working with flexible time, and not confined to the “tyranny of the bell,” you can make great learning experiences occur.  Best of all, students were being creative, and NOT working under the traditional frameworks often associated with a science lab: 

• a clear, defined procedure,
• identifying variables, constants, and controls
• meticulous data collection

from: rael.berkeley.edu

I think science instruction often focuses on logical/analytical processes.  However, this was an engineering project – build, develop, deliver.   And although there were logical and analytical thoughts, there was more of an emphasis on creativity.  There was no one design that would work (the well-conceived (structured) question), but rather an unlimited number of possibilities (the ill-conceived (open-ended) question).  Many students were in awe that we, as teachers, did not have a “right” answer in mind.

What has bothered me, however, was the evidence.  I think I somewhat dropped the ball, because I didn’t plan well to document student learning.  Sure, I anecdotatly perceived student learning of concepts and creativity development, but how did I know it actually occurred?   I think it’s so important that we are able to show that students have, in fact, learned.  I have been thinking about ways to better document the concept learning and am curious about a good assessment method/mechanism for such a task.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

I recently gave an objective test to my students on an Evolution Unit.  The test consisted of multiple choice questions and short answers.  I know many moan when they hear about multiple choice questions, and their groans are justified. 

 Part I:  You see, multiple choice questions often test isolated facts – a knowledge/comprehension type of assessment, fairly low on Bloom’s Taxonomy.  However, well written multiple choice questions can be more conceptual or analytical.  Students are challenged to apply their knowledge using higher order thinking skills.  This is what I strive for in my assessment strategies.

Part II:  Objective tests are often used as end-points to learning.  Teacher and students engage in learning activities which result in content and concept acquisition, which are then summatively assessed.  Learning stops prior to the assessment.  I’ve often wondered why learning had to stop there and why it couldn’t continue after an assessment was given.  In my case, I allow students to debate and vote for the best answer for multiple choice questions – which allows for even more higher order thinking.  Please note that I say “BEST” answer.  Since the questions are conceptual in nature, sometimes other answer choices are factually accurate, but don’t answer the question in the best possible way.  We get AWAY from right and wrong.  After the debate, some students are not necessarily in agreement with their peers, in which case, they have the option to write a response to justify their disagreement.  At the same time, those who decide that their answers were also not the best have the option to demonstrate their learning in writing, and earn credit back. 

I was recently impressed by this evolution test, and the high-quality thinking that was associated with their understanding of the evolution concepts.  Please note, these questions are short, yet they stimulate deep, sophisticated understanding of concepts.  Don’t believe me?  Read some student responses.  This is about empowering students to be independent, self-directed, critical thinkers.  My role is clearly the facilitator, NOT the knowledge disseminator.

My question:

2. Insects with wing mutations that prevent flight (e.g., in fruit flies, some flies have crumpled wings throughout their lives) usually can’t survive long in nature. Flightlessness is selected against. But in three of the following environments the trait could actually be selected for. In which environment would useless wings NOT be selected for?

     a. an island where stiff winds blow some flying insects out to sea, never to return.

   b. a swamp full of frogs that can see and catch flying insects better than crawling insects.

     c. a forest full of bats that catch and eat insects while in flight.

     d. a cage with predators, who crawl along the base

A student response, indicating that her answer was incorrect 

2.a The original answer selected was A, that insects with useless wings would not be selected for an island where stiff winds blow some flying insects out to sea, to never return. This answer was chosen because it seemed to be the worst environment for an insect with useless wings and the best environment for an insect with functional wings. This means that insects with functional wings would be selected for an environment where stiff winds blow while insects with useless wings would not be selected for this environment. Although insects with flying wings have the chance of flying out to sea in the winds, it was assumed that insects that could not fly would have a harder time escaping this stiff wind. This would make the environment more suitable to insects with functional wings. However this assumption was incorrect.

b. The class discussion involved many possible answers. There were various reasons behind each class member’s choice of answer. However, in the end, the possible answers were narrowed down to D, a cage with no predators, and E, a cage with slippery walls that insects cannot climb and an electrical screen on top that electrocutes insects that touch it. Reasoning behind D was that it was the most neutral answer. This environment would select insects with both functional and useless wings because food is readily available at low places which can be reached by both types of the insects. Reasoning behind E was that insects would have no source of food to survive on and therefore would not be selected. Finally, the class decided that D was the best answer because it suited both insects.

c. The correct answer is D. D is an environment in which both insects, with or without functional wings, would be selected. The question specifically asked in which environment -+–i useless wings would not be selected for. All other choices than D include situations where insects with useless wings would be selected for. In A, an island where stiff winds blow some flying insects out to sea, never to return, useless wings would keep an insect on the ground where it would be safe from the stiff winds. Therefore, the insects would be selected in this environment and A is not a correct choice. In B, a swamp full of frogs that can see and catch flying insects better than crawling insects, the insects with useless wings would have a better chance for survival over the insects with functional wings. Therefore, the insects with useless wings would be selected over insects with functional wings, so B is not a correct answer. In C, a forest full of bats that catch and eat insects while in flight, the insects with useless wings would not risk being caught because they do not fly while insects with wings do. Therefore, the insects with useless wings would be favored in this environment, so C is not the best answer. In E, a cage with slippery walls that insects cannot climb and an electrified screen on the top that electrocutes insects that touch it, insects with functional wings would try to fly to the top and then get electrocuted while insects with useless wings would remain safe on the bottom of the cage. Therefore, this environment would be favorable to insects with useless wings, so E is not the best answer. However, D is the best answer. In this environment, a cage with no predators in which food is provided in low dishes, neither of the insects, with or without functional wings, would be favored. Therefore, in this environment, insects with useless wings would not be selected over insects with functional wings.

My question:

7. A biologist studied a population of squirrels for 15 years. Over that time, the population was never fewer than 30 squirrels and never more than 45. Her data showed that over half of the squirrels born did not survive to reproduce, because of competition for food and predation. Suddenly, the population increased to 80. In a single     generation, 90% of the squirrels that were born lived to reproduce.  What inferences might you make about that population?

          1. The amount of available food probably increased.

          2. The number of predators probably decreased.

          3. The young squirrels in the next generation will show greater levels of variation than in the previous generations because squirrels that would not have survived in the past are now surviving.

     a. 1, 2, and 3 are correct.

     b. 1

     c. 2

     d. 3

     e. Both 1 and 2 are reasonable inferences.

 A student response indicating that she disagreed with the class’ conclusion.

7) a. The original answer chosen was a. 1, 2, and 3 are correct. This answer was chosen based upon the belief that , if a population increases suddenly, reasonable inferences to be drawn from the information given would be that there would be more variation in genes in that population, predation probably decreased, and the amount of food available probably increased.

b. The class discussion focused upon the fact that large populations tend to have a stable gene pool and therefore, according to the class, the correct answer to the question would be e. both 1 and 2 are reasonable inferences. The class agreed with the original answer in that the lack of predation and the increase in food would be reasonable inferences to draw from the information given.

c. The class discussion was not convincing, and the best answer is still a. 1, 2, and 3 are correct for various reasons. The class discussion was based upon the fact that the gene pool of large populations is stable, but this fact does not address the amount of variation within a population.

A large population might have a stable gene pool, but that gene pool will still have a great amount of variation. If a population of squirrels increases sharply due to a lack of predation and an abundance of food, squirrels that might not have favorable characteristics will have a better chance of procreating. This reproduction will increase the amount of genetic variation within the population. Endangered species have reduced genetic variation because the population is so small; this is because many of the traits that were not favorable were lost due to the loss of many of the species. The opposite would be true with a species that was allowed to greatly increase in population. Many unfavorable traits would be allowed to flourish and this would increase genetic variation. Therefore, a. 1, 2, and 3 are correct is the best answer to the question.

I was recently speaking with a group of educators about using data to inform instruction.  Specifically, my team at Oxford High School identified that students were having trouble with graphing interpretations.  Students could successfully construct a graph, title, label, and plot, both on paper and electronically using data that they collected from experiments.  Unfortunately they were struggling with using a preconstructed graph to interpolate and extrapolate other information.

For example, we recently completed a DNA electrophoresis experiment separating DNA to make a DNA fingerprints.  The fingerprints make banding patterns that need to be measured and then graphed. A specific control is used to determine a standard curve, which is then used to predict the sizes  of other bands in the gel.  Graphs were made with little problem.  However, when the students went to predict sizes based on the standard curve, things when awry.

This has been a consistent problem.  I see the challenge:  there is definite higher-order processing going on when students are trying to extract information from a data set, in this case a graph.  We’ve focused on graph interpretation throughout the year as we recongize this as a weak point for our students.

But this has got me thinking about Bloom’s Taxonomy.  A brief summary follows:

1.Knowledge (finding out)
a. Use – records, films, videos, models, events, media, diagrams, books…
b. observed behavior – ask match, discover, locate, observe, listen.

2. Comprehension (understanding)
a. Use – trends, consequences, tables, cartoons….
b. observed behavior – chart, associate, contrast, interpret, compare.

3. Application (making use of the knowledge)
a. use – collection, diary, photographs, sculpture, illustration.
b. observed behavior – list, construct, teach, paint, manipulate, report.

4. Analysis questions (taking apart the known)
a. use – graph, survey, diagram, chart, questionnaire, report….
b. observed behavior – classify, categorize, dissect, advertise, survey.

5. Synthesis (putting things together in another way)
a. use – article, radio show, video, puppet show, inventions, poetry, short story…
b. observed behavior – combine, invent, compose, hypothesis, create, produce, write.

6. Evaluation (judging outcomes)
a. use – letters, group with discussion panel, court trial, survey, self-evaluation, value, allusions…
b. observed behavior – judge, debate, evaluating, editorialize, recommend

If I consider the taxonomy, Graphing hits Level 4: Analysis.  However, considering the interpretation from a previously constructed graph hits Level #2:  Comprehension.  This is interesting, because students are finding more success higher up the taxonomy and struggling with lower on the continuum.  There is supposed to be a higher level of thinking and processing associated with higher educational objectives, however, practical experience tells me that this might not always be the case.

What ultimately is important is figuring out how to help students think and learn well.

from: www.rwd.com

I’ve been working on several projects lately considering autonomy of learning whether it be for students or adults.  Specifically, I am (a) working with the High Ability Inquiry Research group at McGill University trying to define the term inquiry literacy, (b) working with some of my Ed.D. colleagues from Western Connecticut State Univ on several independent publications from our dissertations, (c) preparing professional development programming for Oxford, (d) developing a Moodle site for a blended learning course I teach and (d) working with my applied research students on their continued work.  These activities have me continually thinking about being a self-directed, self-effective, life-long learner. 

I was recenlty invited to view a fantastic wiki, written by my colleage, Donna Baratta, Library Media Specialist from Mildred E. Strang Middle School in Yorktown, NY.   Although I believe her wiki is currently private, it includes a wonderful explanation of models for professional development:

Five Models of Staff Development by Sparks and Loucks-Horsley may be used to differentiate instruction in order to meet the needs of teachers based on years of experience, level of technology use and/or mastery, and professional goals in conjunction with district initiatives, NYSED Standards and more. (This information also appears under the heading of Models and Activities on the Models page.)  Differentiation in regard to technology PD is particularly significant, as learners may vary from reluctant users to confident users of technology.  PD must be designed to meet the needs of all learners participating in the PD experience.

Five Models of Staff Development by Sparks and Loucks-Horsley

 1.  Individually Guided Staff Development

     A process though which teachers plan and implement their own activities to promote their own learning

 2. Observation/Assessment

     This model provides objective data and feedback regarding classroom performance to produce growth or identify areas for growth

 3.  Involvement in a Development/Improvement Process

     Teachers engage in curriculum development, program design or a school improvement process

 4.  Training

     Individual or group instruction that involves teachers in the acquisition of knowledge

 5.  Inquiry

     Teachers identify an area of instructional interest, collect data, and make changes in their instruction based on an interpretation of those data

(Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989, p. 41)

 Further Reading:

Differentiation: Lessons from Master Teachers  

Recommended Reading: (Not available from ERIC in time for this posting)

Differentiation within Team-based Teacher Learning. Sparks, Dennis. Journal of Staff Development, Fall2005, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p4-4, 2/3p; (AN 20217427) 

Differentiated Instructional Strategies in Practice: Training, Implementation, and Supervision. Gregory, Gayle H.. 2003 132 pp. (ED476461)

I really like the progression presented, allowing for a continuum of growth as expertise level increases.  We certainly should be aiming for teachers to be engaged in independent action research as part of professional growth, evaluation, and supervision.  I am convinced that this change process of teacher as researcher andpractitioneris the one of the necessary steps to allow for systemic increases in student achievement.  Best practices will continue to develop out of an evidence-based profession, not one based on anecdotal, feel-good, been-doin’-it-fer-years strategy.

I think this might have applications beyond the professional growth model, as we think about how to develop 21st-century skills in all learners, both educators and our students.

As teachers strive to increase the quality of instruction, more evidence-based practices have been implemented in classrooms. A recent trend challenges teachers to evaluate data to make decisions that will inform their instruction. My current district strives to collect student data information, but I think they still struggle with what to do with this information. We can collect it, but do we do anything with it?

In my leadership role, I have done my due diligence with my department to really think about data in meaningful ways. After all, as scientists and science teachers, we strive to use natural empirical evidence with our students to draw meaningful conclusions. Should we do the same for ourselves as we measure achievement data? As a “pocket” in the faculty community of our district, I think we are taking great steps to use assessment as a meaningful tool to help students learn.
I am writing about this, because over the past week I’ve watched an irony in all of this. Fortunately this irony does not apply to the teachers in my department. You see, the past week has been midterm exams. Many evaluate students using multiple choice questions. I feel strongly that multiple choice questions, if well written, conceptually-based, can be very effective assessment instruments. (I’ve written about this before.) Many teachers use machine grade sheets to efficiently correct the papers.  I have no issue with this.  In fact, I provided a machine (a very affordable product from Apperson), connected to a laptop which had data analysis software installed.

A teacher could log on to the laptop, start the data analysis software, scan his or her students’ exams, correct them, and have a full analysis of the questions in a matter of minutes.  This is effective use of teachers’ time.  They gather necessary information and learn about trends of student understanding.  Who could ask for more?

The irony?  No one, except my department members and two other teachers have logged onto the laptop. Teachers are correcting their exams without a care for the analysis of the data.  The machine grades, puts a score on their students’ papers, and they  walk away.   They are not collecting what could be the most valuable information of all:  the item analysis.  I’m sure there are lots of reasons why.  I’m also sure that none of them are any good.  Anyone who has ever collected item analysis data knows how valuable it is.

In a time when we say that data is so important, I wonder how many actually, truly, and really believe it?

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 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.