Five Edu Lessons from China 6 months later

It's been six months since we came back from China. I have blogged about it right after we came back, but I thought it would be good to go back and see what lessons stuck.

1. Competition can be prominent in the public sector. All the schools we visited and many we are still in contact with have a strong competitive spirit. Despite the fact that they are public they compete for a name, local and national awareness and for results. While there are private school in China, the high-value Chinese families put on education makes schools compete for being known as the best to serve their students.

2. The drive for excellence is pushing schools to try out new approaches, technologies, and ideas. Our work started with school leaders admitting that they know things need to change, but they are less sure of how to balance the old and the new. With every change, they worry that it may impact immediate indicators even when it is clear that the change is useful for long-term success. In essence, this is the same problem school administrators face in the US.

3. Teachers are empowered by leading innovative learning ideas (with and without technology). The teachers we met with were young and motivated. The work with us gave them a direction and a sense of efficacy that allowed them to act and evolve as teachers.

4. Class size increases parental pressures. Large classrooms make it close to impossible for teachers to attend to the needs of their struggling learners. As a result whenever a student is struggling parents are left to meet the extra needs.

5. Teacher Evaluation. In contrast with the US, Chinese school systems evaluate teachers based on classroom observations and not student outcomes. The fascinating thing is individual school achievement is extremely important, yet teachers are not evaluated based on it. I believe that the phenomenon has two sources (a) the understanding that individual achievement is rooted in motivation and home practices and (b) the understanding that current measurement systems are not valid enough for comparison across classrooms and schools.

Measuring Long-Term Impact of 21st Century Learning

I was traveling with my kids this weekend across two states and the majestic views of the plains and the west. If measured correctly at the end of the drive, or even the end of the year, I am sure that there is no measurable impact on their standardized test achievement. Does that means they should stay home? Or conversly that we shouldn't teach 21st century skills.

The same question can be asked about any field trip, shadowing, or performance students are exposed to. Does that mean we should not do them? If the answer is no, we should continue doing these things as a part of a whole child education What then is our verdict about the quality of most of our educational research?


If we focus on short-term simple effects right after an intervention of any kind, we may well be missing two things: the long-term impact (or lack thereof- what Calfee called the poop-out effect), and exploring the impact of hard to measure meaningful activities.

How would we measure the impact of Day of Code, Read Across America, or Project based Learning?

I would argue that we need new paradigms, new instruments, and a vivid imagination exploring what outcomes of note can be. The relationship between researchers, teachers, students, and community members should change. The goal of research should change and become a cooperative endeavor that requires different structures than we have now. For example, a school can have a resident researcher who teaches and conducts a design experiment that serves school goals, as well as increasing our research knowledge. This is especially true of digital and other 21st century skills one's we know very little about. Still thinking about it...

Reflections on China Tour II- When the Stakes are High

Here in the US we often talk about High Stakes tests and their impact for example the work by Berliner and colleagues. In China the conversation about High Stakes was very different.

We had lunch on our last day in Shandong province hosted by one of the lead directors of the school district. After the exchange of gifts and pleasentries we had an inetersting discussion which started with his concern for student well being. He relayed that families are putting too much pressure on students to excel within the system, pressure that may harm some students maybe all. At the same both of us acknowledge the immense impact educational success measured by tests can have on individual lives.

We saw the importance of high stakes testing in almost every conversation with teachers and parents. Our research in China (With Stephanie Wessles and Guo Ji) is looking at the interaction between school and family. We had a chance to see the interaction in our first meeting with parents. Teachers took charge and directed parents who, in turn, complied without question. The parents were professionals from a middle class background but they followed teacher's demands. In the US middle class parents would have responded very differently probably actively resisting what they did not like and asking for a voice in the discussion. Here in China it was different and we were intrigued by it. In conversation some have speculated that this was part of the culture and Confusian ideals. Culture may have had something to do with it, though in private conversations and interviews parents were often critical of teacher's actions and did not think that teachers "knew better". The question that emerged was why parents did not resist what they thought was bad practice?

The answer seems to be linked to High Stakes. In China high stakes are meaningful most often to the individual. Starting very early students take tests that are critical for their advancement into the next level. There is a middle school test, high school etc. Each one of these has potentially dire implications for the student and his/her future path. The High Stakes for students and their family (pressure is intensified by the one child policy) create a need to comply. Parents relayed to us: "I do not always agree with the teacher  but I will not say anything because I fear there will be negative outcomes for my child." In the large classrooms (we saw elementary schools with 40-50 students) teachers cannot attend to all student needs. Each parent is keenly aware of the high stakes and the positive role the teacher can play, thus they do not want to rock the boat fearing that their students will be ignored or underserved.

In this case the impact of high stakes testing is a lost voice for students and parents who should be part of the conversation about education. This is not all one sided. This very same situation helped our efforts to integrate iPads into classroom instruction. Not all parents were in favor and a few worried about it but none resisted it This gave them an opportunity to see the impact on their students. After parents saw the impact they were decidedly positive. This is similar to the model Guskey suggested for teachers.

iPads in China- Excerpts from the Chinese media (loosely translated)

Working in China exposes the cultural differences AND the similarities of concerns. Despite all the concerns and challenges our project just won first prize in a National competition for Technology Integrated classroom. This is a great boost to our work and I am excited to continue.
I think that in the following excerpt from Chinese media in Chengdu you can see what concerns the Chinese public and how my comments are interpreted.

WCC: With the introduction of technology into traditional teaching, whiteboard, book bag, IPAD all applied to the classroom, how do you see the development proceeding? 
　　Dr. Guy Trainin: Today's kids are exposed to smart phones, computers every day. Their parents and teachers are still from the 20th century. Without technology the teacher, the school can not meet the needs of 21st century child's development. So the idea of how we can use technology to help teachers to teach  21st century kids. 
　　WCC: Chinese schools require the exam, how will students do on traditional exams? Do you have parental support? 
　　Dr. Guy Trainin: In our classroom (with Du Yu as teacher) students have mastered more words, electronic production than other classrooms, their overall quality has improved significantly. Support from parents is not difficult to imagine, as long as parents to see the students really active and growing, parents will be supportive. 
　　Today, young parents are more willing to accept new ways of education. If schools do nothing to change the direction, either to promote any new technology or method, students will not be ready to learn and work in the 21st century. Technology integration with our project TechEDGE has been practiced for several years in the United States, transfer to other countries with different national and cultural backgrounds, ideas differences, makes us need to find a new path to our ultimate goal and effect. 
Link to original story.

Grading, Creativity, and Teacher Education- Making Room fo Complexity

I caught the middle piece of a radio lab broadcast on choice. In it Gladwell (of Outliers and Blink) discusses the impact of explaining choice on the decision making process. In the battle between system 1 (quick snap judgements as in Blink) and system 2 (deliberate thinking), the latter seems to try and counter bias system 1- with the results being less than satisfactory (I borrowed the system 1 and 2 from Kahneman). In this he quotes Tim Wilson's work from VGA.

I started thinking about this effect as I was grading my students work on a rubric. I just finished grading and it dawned on me that my very specific rubrics, valued by my students, seem to encourage students to back away from ambiguity and complexity. In simple terms it means that when the rubric is specific it is economically beneficial for students to respond with simple lessons than complex ones, to choose one or two objectives than a complex integrated lesson. Going back to Gladwell (not fully Wilson's et al. point) forcing students to explain in detail may push them to make simplistic choices and shy away from complexity.

As  nation our testing system seems to be having exactly the same effect. Measuring creativity a popular subject recently may have the same exact effect. By clarifying what we mean by creativity we may be losing sight of the big picture...

Adding to my challenge is the fact that I do not control the milieu for the assignments. It is a negotiation between our students and their cooperating teachers. It is not always clear who sets the tone for the lesson- so I cannot penalize students for having simple lessons because it is not always up to them. The question is how do we make room for complexity- reward it in this context.

I suggest simply rewarding complexity (I know it when I see it) and demanding that simple lessons (like simple dishes on cooking challenge shows) are perfect. This note just like myself is a work in progress: We need more poetry! (A quote from a recent presentation by Sarah Thomas)

Testing Teachers: Arts and Technology Integration

This week I was invited to participate in a state panel examining which test Nebraska should use as one of the criteria for certification. Teacher testing has become very popular across the states with encouragement from the office of education. There is very little evidence that such tests are connected in any way to teacher quality. For example in a recent report Angrist and Guryan (2013) say: "The results suggest that state-mandated teacher testing increases teacher wages with no corresponding increase in quality." The tests, however, are apparently here to stay and even Nebraska usually one of the last holdouts on testing has decided to cave in.

Nebraska has chosen to work with ETS and our task at the panels was to review from a selection of tests and make a recommendation about which tests are most appropriate and what should a cutoff score be. One of the more relevant options we considered was the Parxis II with emphasis on pedagogical decision making. As we read through the items (which I cannot disclose) I found that quit a few addressed arts integration through theatre, movement and visual art. It was clear that integration ideas were well integrated (at least into the version of the test I saw). 

Technology was mentioned in two items only. The technologies mentioned were: looms and books on tape... There was nothing that incorporated Internet searches, evaluation of Internet resources, reading on screen, or any of the other skills mentioned in our state standards, the common core standards and professional organizations. Now, I know there is no consensus over what exactly do new teachers need to know, but no technology integration, no reference to digital modes of literacy?

We made sure our concern registered. I worry because tests (even marginally reliable ones) cause some educators to "reverse engineer" their curriculum. We need more about technology integration in our pre-service programs not less. As for the tests, they need to adapt quickly to these changes to stay relevant.