I often see and hear about lessons from the trenches. This metaphor is used in education as much as any other field. And the concern I start with was raised a few years ago in this blog post. The insinuation is that classrooms, the frontlines of education are very different from the theoretical discussions we have in conferences, academic papers, and administration halls. I agree that the lived experience in education is different, more visceral than an academic debate. What I am calling to change is the language of war (and football) when referring to education.
The war metaphor reminds me of the standup routine by George Carlin- about the way we use language to describe football and baseball. What I would like to suggest is that using war or combat metaphors sets a false sense of our daily lives. Yes, as educators we sometimes struggle, yes we have some difficult days. But, for most educators, life is not threatened, and the sum is more positive than negative. I think that the combat laden language sets up conflict lines. Conflict with whom? Who are we shooting at as we emerge from our trenches? Students? Administrators? Families? The Community? Politicians?
I think that the language of war emphasizes zero sum game thinking and increases teacher loneliness. It sets up a feeling of us vs. them. The war metaphor leads to negativity. This sense of war may very well contribute to teachers dropping out. If you define education as combat eventually the soldiers get tired they want to go home. We might lead a brilliant charge and Teach Like their Hair's on Fire, but that cannot last for a full career.
We need better metaphors. Ones that admit the challenges and obstacles but also admits the positive, the possibility of collaboration. Metaphors are powerful in orienting our dispositions and choosing the right ones can change the way we see the world.
A story by Natasha Singer in the New York Times on Sept. 5th focused on the Teachers pay Teachers website. It is not surprising that a business reporter for the NYT would concentrate on a company making money off of sharing. A careful read shows that only a tiny fraction of the teachers on the site make a meaningful amount of money.
In this blog post by David Cutler discusses a concern that I share. What does the site say about teachers who share their work for cash instead of mentoring the next generation of teachers? What does it say about teachers who complain about one size fits all curricula and then turn around and buy lesson plans from someone that does not know anything about their students?
I would like to make a different point, though, the discussion of the sharing economy ignores the much wider phenomena of teachers sharing the products of their work WITHOUT charging anyone. Online platforms allow teachers to share in ways that were not possible before high bandwidth internet connection. For example the web-based quiz platform Kahoot! has over 3.3 million quizzes shared for no cost. Going even further, most of the quizzes on the site have a Creative Commons license that allow other teachers to change them to fit their needs and keep sharing the new results.
The US alone has over 3.5 million k12 teachers. If each one of them posted a few of their best lessons, we could have an incredible repository of lessons for every topic and grade level. Sharing could work even if we chose on the top 10% of teachers. We can monetize the creativity of teachers in a different way by sharing without charging. Sharing can lead to the creation of Open Educational Resources that would allow schools and whole states save on curriculum and use the savings to expand professional development and the reach of technology.
Another radical idea: instead of praising teachers for selling shiny apples from carts to supplement their income, maybe just maybe, we need to pay them well.
In a recent TechEDGE meeting with teacher educators, we asked everyone to rate their excitement and apprehension about technology integration.
Wherever we go to talk about technology integration, new literacies, and 21st-century learning (overlapping ideas to be sure) we find two emotions: excitement about possibilities and apprehension about being able to keep up with it.
The first finding from all of our encounters is that all educators agree that digital technologies are becoming part of education. It is a process that will not stop nor reverse.
As for the teacher educators that joined us this August? Only 10% were indifferent. The rest 90% were split evenly between the Gung Ho group that was rearing to fearlessly charge ahead, and the more cautious Careful Enthusiasm group that were excited but also concerned.
I like the Careful Enthusiasts, with some encouragement and support they can use technology in ways that can enhance instruction immediately. These are discerning consumers of educational technology that ask hard questions of us the Gung Ho crowd making us think about what we are doing and justifying some of our decisions.
I also wonder if teachers at the edge of the Gung Ho group, the most fearless and excited are those we lose out to industry and new ventures. If so, how can we keep them in the profession innovating inside schools?
This post is an ode to summer teaching. As I do most summers I have a full summer load. Many of the people passing me in the corridors are only too happy to remind me that it is summer and a time to take a break especially given that most of us work on a 9-month contract.
I usually reply that I have two sons going to college next year and other acceptable financial comments. The truth, however, is more complicated. I like teaching in the summer. The intensive time spent with practicing teachers and budding researchers is probably the best professional development I get all year.
Most of the students in the summer are practicing teachers who have, for a change, time to reflect and think long-term. Most of what I teach this summer is linked to research methods and inquiry, as a result graduate students are bringing their own content and questions challenging my thinking and adding connections and ideas.
I read, teach, and prep most days- the result is that my brain feels on fire, in a good way.
MOOC Wheel from the Chronicle of Higher Education Graphic by XARISSA HOLDAWAY; illustration by NIGEL HAWTIN
I have mixed feelings about the fate of the Udacityexperiment and the glee of many in the I told you so. Let's start with where I am, I am no fan of MOOC's as a "hack" and a solution to all of our Higher Education woes (cost, quality, ROI). I have written in this blog and have spoken publicly on my beliefs that MOOCs (more specifically xMOOCS) crowned as the solution will fail but may hurt public higher education before it fails to deliver.
As the data about Udacity's experiment at San Jose State emerged, Udacity admitted they have failed to achieve the projected results. Consequently they decided to change course and try to work as a workplace initiative. There are great points of discussion here that are worth attending to some actually positive.
The first is that a major corporate player was honest about dismal results, yes it took a while but we seldom see this kind of honesty from corporate or educational leaders. Moreover, they admitted reality with data in hand. We preach data based decision making and here it is.
I think this data will temper MOOC mania for a while and serve higher education as a reasonable argument for caution if not resistance. But something bugs me about it. The main finding was that students need to persist to succeed. In effect students the best predictor of success was the number of assignments handed in. Its actually a lecture my wife who teaches in a community college gives her students often: Not handing assignments is the surest way to fail. The problem is therefore first and foremost a problem of motivation.
Here lies the problem of all MOOCs be it x or c (more on x and c MOOCs here). Persistence is key, but persistence is driven by self efficacy the feeling that you are capable of performing a task which is usually derived based on past success. When the students you use a MOOC with have had little success they have little self efficacy, therefore they do not persist, drop out or just stop handing assignments. This theoretical view is well supported by the SJSU MOOC effort. In effect to break this cycle of low success and self efficacy we need to rewire students by making sure they succeed and interpret their success (attribute) based on their effort and persistence. This can be accomplished most easily with instructors who are sensitive to their students needs provide the right encouragement and the right feedback. To quote Taylor Mali in What Teachers Make:
You want to know what I make?
I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could.
I can make a C+ feel like a Congressional Medal of Honor
and an A-‐ feel like a slap in the face.
How dare you waste my time
with anything less than your very best.
So why am I ambivalent? Because if persistence is the most important component in success; where is Udacity's persistence in producing a quality learning experience?
Last year my students had iPads in elementary classrooms. The school had a set of iPads that was sitting idle most of the time, yet the teachers were reluctant to integrate them into their instructional units. It was not because they thought they were useless, instead the most common response was: " I do not know how to use them or what to do with them". Now this a response from a few teachers, and our data actually shows that even when there is low level of deployment iPads and iPods are the technologies most easily integrated into the classroom. That said I would like to address the issue of teacher efficacy.
One of the biggest challenges in trying to integrate curriculum using new skill subsets like art and technology seem to hit the same stumbling block. Teachers (and administrators) often do not believe that they know enough to make the change, they do not believe THEY have the capacity. This set of expectations is what Albert Bandura referred to as self-efficacy. The idea that having an expectation of success increases the odds that a person will persist with a task and stay engaged is not new, yet it is powerful.
Changing expectations is not easy especially in teachers (adults) who have accumulated experience that may point to failure. Teachers come to believe (like many adults) that they cannot draw, play music or sculpt. On the surface they are right- at present state they probably would have limited results. But that is often not what they mean. What they mean is that they lack some innate ability to draw, or sculpt, or use technology. This sense of efficacy about a task limits their ability to explore new ideas and integrate art, technology or just new ideas like project-based learning. When they do this they deprive their students from exposure to skill sets and new problem solving spaces.
Students at all levels tend to see their teachers as having a finite and magically acquired knowledge, they seldom see them work through a new skill or solve a new problem. As a result they deprive their students from seeing a model of an individual who is gaining expertise through interaction with a task. Ironically, in this time of accelerated change, our students need thinking and problem solving skills more than at other time in history. We expect that in their life time they would have to repeatedly develop areas of expertise- in a way what Ken Robinson talks about when he discusses creativity.
So what can we do? I see the answer along two lines. the first is giving teachers the knowledge and skill so they would engage with more confidence while they learn to work in conditions of ambiguity. We did this in our ArtsLINC grant with what we called the studio experiment. Teachers were invited to participate in studio experiences with a teaching artist so they can feel confident (efficacious) integrating visual art production in their classroom. It was a great success.
The second is changing efficacy orientation. That is shifting in thinking and deed from the individual to the collective. Collective-efficacy is the notion that as a group we can tackle a task. This is very different because now I can estimate whether a group effort is successful. Data from research I have conducted a few years back showed that when teachers feel that they can tackle teaching reading for all students as a school they have better student outcomes. Not just that but their collective feeling predicted student result better than their personal efficacy.
So, to move ahead with the kind of school change that our students deserve teachers must have opportunities to learn, experiment, and enjoy a sense of collective efficacy that says- together, with our different skill sets, we can do it.
This week I promised my students that I will do as I asked them. Come-up with something I have not done before. True to my promise and to my own thinking about use flipped classrooms I came up with a within class activity focused on making a short instructional video. I presented some options using the iPad including using the front facing camera, the ShowMe app and a few other great options. The assignment was simple. Think of the most important strategy you taught your student this summer, design a short video reminder of it and shoot it in one take (two at the most). No editing, low expectations.
The response was stunned silence followed by "do we really have to?'s". I was a bit surprised, almost every teacher in the group said "I do not like my voice". I get a similar reaction when I ask everyone to draw. Every student hesitates, apologizes and does her best to find a way to avoid the task. Making movies was along the same lines.
Part of it is the fear of the complete product that will be there to be judged without our ability to mediate. The other part is the fact that we fail to meet our expectations to be Bogart or Knightly. It took me a while to adjust to viewing myself on the techedge01 videos for iPad in the classroom. It was jarring at first but after a short time I got over myself and moved on. I have come to realize that I am not and will not be Bogart. I can tell you that I am too stiff, wordy and academic but I am getting better.
Video in my eyes is too good a tool to avoid using for instruction, especially when we need to individualize instruction for students at very different levels. My students reaction opened my eyes to this barrier of discomfort about performance. Maybe we all need to dabble in performance arts to let go? or just get used to making videos for instruction.
My conclusions force everyone in teacher education programs to make short videos enough to desensitize them. This way when they teach the option to supplement, support or even flip using videos will be just a few simple steps.
I am spending a good portion of my waking hours at the KDS Reading Center this summer. Class starts with introducing iPads. My students last year have never used an iPad. This year I have about 20% that have personal iPads. Now we provide everyone with an iPad for use during tutoring while some educational systems are buying devices in bulk, teachers are buying individual devices and changing their own classroom circumstance from the bottom up.
At first the potential expenditure considering teacher salaries took me a back a bit. But then I reflected that teachers have always supplemented what districts and schools provide with things they bought on their own. This is just a single larger purchase, on the other hand unlike a glue stick it is not just for the classroom.
A single teacher owned device in the classroom is not a solution for technology integration, but it is a start. If supported with some casual professional development it can become the foundation to wider, successful mobile adoption when student devices become reality. As with other technologies, small scale use will produce local expertise that can be leveraged when wider implementation of mobile happens at the school.
Of course schools can help along by purchasing a few devices for teachers...
While not directly related to arts integration nor literacy it is a topic that I've been thinking about quite extensively lately. We are embarking on a path that will increase the number of diverse pre-service teachers. The goals are two-fold. Enriching all students in our program by having diverse viewpoints and personal histories that will help all children understand their increasingly diverse students. At the same time increasing the diversity in the teaching profession so students have role models that look familiar. I am in no way suggesting that African American students should have only African American teachers or vice versa. I am just suggesting that the data we collected shows such disparity that we have to act and act now. Link to the full file is here.
A prospective graduate student came by a few weeks ago. His goal as he stated it is to minimize damage to rural students by providing quality arts instruction online or through distance education in other means. I worry.
I told him that I worried, arts education is a field that requires demonstratin, proximity and more than anything else mentoring. This kind of mentoring is extremely hard to reproduce at a distance. I think that the ability to look at the dancers moves from multiple perspectives, the painters brush strokes or the guitarist hands are crucial elements that cannot be done at a distance. I teach distance courses and Ithink some of
them are great- but not in arts education or arts integration.
My second concern was that by creating online replacements we urge districts that have stuck by their specialists and invested in them to stop. If the quality is there, they might say, why not save a bundle. So what can be done instead?
Here are some ideas:
1. Train classroom teachers in arts integration and enhance their understanding through studio experiences with local artists and museum resources.
2. If online lessons are created integrate them with rich artist in residence programs- mandated not just as an option. The experieneces must be bundled and truly integrated.
3. Educate school boards and administrators about the importance of the arts.
It is a rainy morning punctuating a beautiful but extremely busy week. In a short conversation with Monique who is doing some thinking and writing about what is left from arts integration projects after the project is over.
Our conversation turned to thinking about different responses by different teachers and the conditions under which these responses emerge.
One factor that we did not explicitly discuss was teacher engagement. For me we, as teachers, are not fully accepting a practice until we let that practice "fill" us. That is we enact it with students fully embracing and participating in the practice. This is even more important when integrating the arts, since the arts are meant to be displayed, shared, and audienced (not sure this is a word...).
If we stay reserved while playing a song, drawing, dancing, making a movie- our students will feel our reservation and will limit their own participation, viewing full engagement as "childish". Maybe the term I am looking for is JOY (parallels the notion of ">FLOW). If you find joy in integrating the arts and your students can feel your joy, they will buy into it, fully particpate, and learn what it means to really enjoy what you do.
Now I do not mean that finding JOY in a practice shold stop you in any way from being critical after the fact, evaluating what worked and what didn't and improving a practice. This JOY/FLOW is ot always there because to reach it we must have expertise, practice and confidence. But when we reach it the results and the JOY can fill us with a strong sense of efficacy and empowerment.
