Restricting the Vision

It started with a discussion about the value of Wikipedia in the classroom. I was talking with a group of K-12 teachers about using technology with their students. Some stated that the main reason they were apprehensive about using Wikipedia was that teachers weren’t sure that the information was accurate.

I pointed out that the use of Wikipedia is a great opportunity to tackle one of the essential questions of education: How can we tell if information is accurate? What is the truth? How do we know it is true?

Sara Armstrong and David Warlick in Redefining Literacy for the 21st Century ask similar questions:
--- What do you need to know, when most of recorded knowledge is a mouse-click away?
--- How do you distinguish between good knowledge and bad knowledge?
--- What does it do to the value of information, when everyone is a producer?
--- How do we address ethics, when we are empowering our students with such prevailing skills?

The conversation on determining the truth led to the question “How are students evaluated on whether or not they can determine the accuracy of information?” A teacher interjected that, for the most part, this undertaking isn’t done due to the prevalent philosophy of “If it isn’t tested, don’t teach it!” The prevailing consensus was that this philosophy is what they feel their mission has become. The discussion immediately turned to the value of high stake standardized testing, specifically the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

When, in another lifetime as a Peace Corps Volunteer, I taught in a Ghanaian secondary school. In their last year at school, my Ghanaian students took the West African “O Level” and “A Level” exams, based on the European model of school examinations. Passing the tests with high enough scores allowed students to enter into the University. Therefore, everything was focused on the syllabus containing material to be tested on the exams. Teachers and students carried copies the syllabus with them. If it wasn’t in the syllabus, it was not to be taught and, more importantly, most students did not even consider learning such things. It was a portent of what high stakes testing is, I fear, now doing to our educational system.

Admittedly, NCLB has some good points. Before NCLB, too many kids were falling between the cracks. The publication of test scores spotlighted where school districts needed to target resources.

Teachers of course realize that timely, valid and rigorous assessment is necessary for improving instruction. One of the major problems with high stake testing is that the feedback is not timely (scores return many months after the testing; in Illinois, test data from exams taken in March 2006 won’t be released until 2007, months late) and has many other issues associated with it.

Another issue with NCLB is that, in my opinion, it is setting up the vast majority of schools for failure. Consider the following U.S. Dept. of Education NCLB definition of success: “Above all, they must lead to all students achieving at grade level or better in reading and mathematics by 2014.” The definition of “achieving at grade level” is usually determined by a mean proficiency score (perhaps plus and minus a standard deviation) of the students at that grade level. Therefore, NCLB is basically insisting all (repeat: all = 100%) of our students to be average or better.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t insist on and doing the best we can to help each child learn and develop to the best of his or her potential. But we teachers know that not every child is the same, and that the large groups of children we teach possess a huge range of abilities, with all the consequent emotional, familial, and societal baggage that kids bring with them. NCLB insisting that by 2014 A.D. one hundred percent of students will achieve at grade level or better is reminiscent of the imaginary town named “Lake Wobegon from the radio series A Prairie Home Companion, where, according to Garrison Keillor, all the children are above average". [ Cited from Wikipedia ;-) ]

A note of good news is that the NCLB Act must be reauthorized in 2007. Grace Rubenstein in Edutopia Magazine reports that the federal government is already rethinking some provisions; for example, they are allowing some states to pilot growh-based accountability models based on individual student growth which compare the scores of the same students as they progress from grade to grade. She also suggests that pressure from over 80 organizations to change assessments, professional development, sanctions and funding may help Congress reform NCLB.

Along with these other NCLB issues, the consensus of the group of teachers involved in the original discussion was that one of the biggest problems of NCLB testing is the dumbing down of the curriculum (remember: “If it isn’t tested, don’t teach it!”) This laser-like pedagogical focus on state tests and scores detracts from some of the fulfilling rewards of teaching and learning (do you recall that old phrase “intrinsic motivation?”.

The teachers’ concerns of the effects on students and the curriculum they teach is mirrored in a review of the research on standardized testing. Large Mandates And Limited Resources (p. 12) states that it causes :

--- “… focusing on content that is specific to the particular test used for accountability, rather than trying to improve achievement in the broader sense…”
---“…(engagement) in intensive test preparation activities, and to devote less time to untested subjects…”
--- “(restriction) from a rigorous academic curriculum…”
Is this the kind of education we want for our children?

David Warlick said in his article This is the Testing We Should Be Paying Attention To "The message is clear. If we want to go back to the basics, then basic is what we’ll get, and that is clearly not enough for the 21stcentury experience. If we do want citizens who are prepared tocontribute and prosper in an information-driven, technology-rich world,then it is time for education to re-invent itself."

“If it isn’t tested, don’t teach it?” In my opinion, I’m sorry to say that this is the path taken by most school districts in addressing NCLB tests. And yet research has shown that “students’ scores on standardized tests of basic skills improve dramatically when urban teachers in disadvantaged schools assign work that demands complex thinking and elaborated communication about issues important in students’ lives.” In other words, teach to students’ passions, teach them the skills they need to be successful in the 21st century and not to the tests and students will do just fine. Other research points out that engaged learning approaches help children learn more than traditional approaches. I don’t think we can emphasize this enough to teachers, principals, subject matter coordinators, curriculum coaches, and superintendents.

There is more to learning than math and reading (the two scores that mean almost everything to NCLB). Please read Sara Armstrong’s and David Warlick’s article The New Literacy in which they advocate the four E’s which evolved out of the three R’s. In an outline form the four E’s are
---Exposing Knowledge
---Employing Information
---Expressing Ideas Compellingly
---Ethics

A bright spot on the horizon, according to Grace Rubenstein in Edutopia Magazine , is that "The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, for one, posits that the law would work well if only states used better metrics -- new measures of essential skills, such as critical thinking and media literacy, instead of decades-old arithmetic tests. Test what's most important for kids to learn (and that's skills, not content), reasons Ken Kay, president of the organization, and that's what schools will teach. The coalition of business and education leaders is working with West Virginia and North Carolina to create methods of measuring and promoting crucial skills, and Kay expects more states to join the effort this school year." Arthur Levine in Nov/Dec Teacher Magazine insists (when using our national economy as an example) "Jobs that are available require the highest level of skill and knowledge ever in U.S. History. So teachers now have the job of educating all student to new and higher levels."

Besides these crucial skills, what about great lessons mankind has learned over the centuries? Because they won’t be tested on some standardized test, will we not let our students see bigotry through Scout’s eyes in To Kill a Mockingbird or through a study of the Civil Rights Movement? Will we not let our students learn of the extremes of mankind’s nature through Anne Frank's writings? Or will we not let our students experience both sides of a conflict through the book My Brother Sam is Dead? Will we let them not contemplate their fate, as Robert Frost did in The Road Not Taken? Will we not let them investigate the nature of science through a debate on whether or not Pluto is still a planet? These, and many other things like these, may never touch our students' souls because of “If it isn’t tested, don’t teach it!”

As things stand now, I fear our collective vision of what education is truly all about is being restricted.

In a related vein, please read How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century, Time Magazine, Dec 18 2006

Technology at the Educational Front

The infantrymen in the U.S. Army refer to themselves with pride as “grunts”. They are the people who, when the generals and commanders decide something, make it happen. They are the people who face the day to day hardships and realities of decisions and commitments by the higher ups. Sometimes when implementing these decisions, foot soldiers have to take things one step, one building, or one road at a time. They get that part done and then move on.

Teachers are the grunts of the educational world. (This is not said in a disparaging way since I still consider myself one of them.) We teachers are the people in the trenches who have to take all the mandates, policies and directives and attempt to implement them.

Along with these implementations comes a mix of daily classroom management procedures and other issues (those who have taught understand the myriad of things schools expect teachers to do), kids coming to school with a host of societal and familial problems, and special education and other special needs students with a multitude of disabilities mainstreamed with “regular education” students. Then there are the “lack of time” and the “coverage vs. in-depth” issues. Include technology concerns such as filters, network issues, glitches with computers and printers, instructions, monitoring etc., all of which can take up a significant amount of time. Using technology effectively becomes “nearly impossible” as one of my graduate students stated.

Another teacher said “I can see that when we are pushed to teach so much 'to the test' … the time constraint really is tough. I can't lose a day because technology is down so sometimes I am afraid to do all the great things that I know are out there.” I think that this statement says a lot. It’s not so much that teachers are opposed to web 2.0 and the wonderful communications and therefore learning opportunities it brings. It’s that teachers (who are already concerned that their technology skills are not adequate enough) are going to have to implement these ideas using the tools and support available to them and are apprehensive about wasting time.

Dan McDowell in his blog The History Teacher said "This hits at the core of the problem that most teachers face when trying to do new things. Time. There is simply not enough time. For all the cool ideas that Will Richardson, David Warlick, and others have, those of us actually in the trenches have to find the time and resources to actually put these great ideas into practice. There are some schools and districts that are making these ideas happen ... , but for most it is difficult. How can we tell the new story or have new conversations when we barely have time to do the same old thing."

In the end, teachers who are applying something new, like the infantry grunts, need to take one step at a time. As one teacher said “I think that sometimes when we learn about a new way to do something, we feel that we have to do a lot of it. We don't. If I create one WebQuest, that's ok. If it's good...excellent...and useable...and reusable...and shareable...then I've used my time well!”

Wiki Educational Technology Discussions

Jim Moulton in his article Technology as a Connector of People and Ideas make some interesting points about the value of digital collaboration in “using the technology to connect people in purposeful ways around ideas.”

Hannah Kaye in her article Higher Learning suggests that "I was surprised to see how even those working on behalf of children ... overlook the valuable knowledge of teachers."

During our Aurora University graduate courses blogs, my students (all of them educators) have raised questions and concerns dealing with learning and technology. In the spirit of collabration, I’ve dedicated a portion of my wikispace to these discussions. You may be interested in their reflections on these issues.

The More Things Change……

A photograph on the front page of a local newspaper grabbed my attention. It was an image of the mother of a past student of mine as she sat in the campus library of a community college. The caption read “she speaks through a microphone attached to a headset while participating in a virtual classroom. … The class meets three times a week and requires students to communicate via e-mail or computer chat devices.”

Basically the program works with students and teachers assuming an avatar (an icon representing a user in a shared virtual reality) in a virtual classroom. The students see a classroom, a teacher and students on their computer monitor, but no one is physically in the same room. The teacher was really in his office; the students were scattered in various classrooms, their homes or other places. The application saves the time it would take to commute to the campus.

The teacher’s notes keyed onto his office computer appear on a virtual whiteboard in the virtual classroom. According to the article, “The avatars sit in seats, while the teacher … stands before them lecturing.”

“..stands before them lecturing”? Sometimes, the more things change the more they remain the same.

Valuable Use of the Building Technology

Test scores had risen!! The local newspapers reported that the school district’s Superintendent stated “For the first time, all district elementary schools have made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test.” For a huge semi-urban district, this was quite an achievement.

One reason given for the increase in scores is how technology is used. The following were points from the district’s press releases. (The italics are mine)
--- This year all the elementary and middle schools in the district will be using the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment to provide teachers with the student data they need. The MAP is a computerized assessment that can be given to students several times a year to help teachers track the progress of each student and make student-focused decisions. The validity of the MAP tests is also enhanced by the fact that they are aligned with the Illinois State Learning Standards.
--- Over the past several weeks, all students in grades three through eight have taken their first round on the MAP test. It is our intention to have all second grade students take this test later in the year.
--- MAP tests are unique in that they are adaptive tests that children generally take in their school computer labs.
--- Never before have educators had so much student data available to them.
--- The advantage of using a computer-based test is that it makes valuable use of the building technology that taxpayers have funded.

“Valuable use of building technology” is high praise for a program. It led me to wonder what other uses of technology are there in the district’s schools.By doing some research, I found the application “Skills Tutor” is in every school in the district and is touted on many schools’ web sites. According to the Skills Tutor web site, “Skills Tutor is delivered online and can be used as a teacher-aided instructional tool or as a one-on-one tutoring resource with minimal guidance.”

Another use of technology is that some schools have an application called READ 180. According to its web site, READ 180 is an intensive reading intervention program… using technology, print, and professional development. … The program directly addresses individual needs through adaptive and instructional software, etc.

Middle schools also teach Computer Applications and Computer Exploration in both 7 & 8.All in all, it looks like the technology resources of the district (the vast majority of instructional-designated computers in the district are located in computer lab sites) are being well used with success.

A dilemma with all this is that teachers have confided in me a difficulty scheduling time to use technology with their students. The computer labs are tied up for weeks at a time with the above mentioned applications. Some labs are tied up during different time periods of the day, so that a teacher can schedule some classes in the labs, but have to make different lesson plans for those classes that are locked out. Some schools have put a time limit on teachers signing up the labs, which makes access fairer but which severely curtails many of the teaching approaches that I recommend as a consultant and as a graduate course instructor. David Jakes answered the question "What factors contribute to the sustainability of an innovation in the classroom?" on the Techlearning blog. The very first point he mentions is that there is a high degree of organizational readiness for the innovation: hardware and software had to be in place and be functional, implying it's available. If availability is restricted, it would put a roadblock into sustaining innovation.

There are ways to get around the restrictions and limitations in using instructional technology. One is to promote the purchase of laptops on mobile carts. The use of laptops to help students learn means that teachers might not have to worry about the computer lab being open in any particular time of the day. (Of course, some schools may preempt the laptops for testing and drill anyway.) Other ways are to use instructional grouping techniques, such as making sure students with Internet access at home are paired with those who don’t. Another approach is to have half of the student in a group do research using books, etc. and half online; then the students can compare findings. Elementary school teachers might set up a computer station as one of the rotations. For other instructional ideas see Nuts & Bolts: Meaningful Classroom Integration of Information Technology.

Research Links for Engaged Learning and Technology Applications has shown that engaged learning using technology has many positive benefits including increasing standardized test scores as well as turning students onto learning. It is frustrating to teachers when you know certain teaching approaches work better than others but, due to the lack of availability of resources, you have to settle for less effective means.

It must also be frustrating when the bottom line for “success” defined as increasing standardized test scores. Will Richardson wrote in Owning the Teaching…and the Learning “Today, in our parent conferences, I asked my daughter’s teacher if there were opportunities for her class to work on extended projects, projects that in the end would have a purpose beyond the grade and the classroom. Projects that, to quote Marco again, would “have wings.” The response I got was this: with all of the objectives that must be met for the state tests coming up in the spring, there just isn’t time for it. When I asked my son’s teacher whether she had read his blog, her answer was that blogs were blocked at school and so, no, she hadn’t. And so I am frustrated, and I am wondering what will it take to make our classrooms places of learning rather than places of teaching.”

As I said, it is frustrating when the bottom line for “success” is defined as increasing standardized test scores to satisfy the federal No Child Left Behind Act, when the aspirations and ideals we could be basing success on, i.e. “makes valuable use of the building technology”, could be so much more.

I Love Teaching

I am writing this at 10 p.m. and feel exhausted. Just taught a three-hour off-campus graduate class for Aurora University and District U-46 as an adjunct instructor. Ninety percent of my graduate students, all K-12 teachers, in this class had me in other courses before. One benefit of having returning students is that they know what to expect from one of my courses:
--- investigation of the research dealing with the theoretical focus of the course (in this particular course investigating WebQuests);
--- discussions of the participants professional concerns and needs and the use of technology to assist in addressing them;
--- creating teaching units or lessons for their classrooms incorporating the foundations / theories learned in the graduate class.

Another benefit is that they understand how to use the blog we use to facilitate communicating reflections and concerns.

Using an off-campus site is always not without its challenges. I’ve taught in this school and computer lab before. I had emailed the school’s support tech with a list of applications I would be using and web sites to be accessed (filter and network concerns) and even addressed logging-in issues. I knew this room did not have a projector and brought mine. And there was the housekeeping duties associated with adjunct teaching such as registration and assorted paperwork.

Still, as teachers know, things just don’t always go as planned, especially when using technology. The door was locked and we had to track down someone with a key. Some graduate students couldn’t log in to their home school servers (I prefer my graduate students to have access to their work at their home school where they will be using the products developed in this course) for a variety of reasons, but they did get access eventually with a phone call to the district’s Help Desk (a resource dedicated to provide immediate assistance in solving network tech problems). Some students couldn’t log onto our blog and those issues had to be addressed. Half way through class we even received a message over the network informing us that our computers would power down in five minutes. My students told that this was a new energy-saving program the district had built into the network and that I shouldn’t be concerned as long as we kept using the keyboard and moving the mouse.

As a matter of fact, distractions like these are to be expected by teachers. I realize that some people want everything neatly flowing on course, but teachers understand this rarely happens because we are dealing with people and with devices. So we learn to take diversions in stride while continuing to focus on the important stuff and, in the end, the class went well.

Through it all, I was exhilarated, perhaps from the rush of adrenalin that comes from teaching. I draw energy from the interaction / interplay / relationship with people, goals and process that is teaching. One of the greatest feelings in the world is when you help someone “get it”. Because I had not taught since last summer, I realized that I missed the act of teaching. Working as consultant is wonderful, and I get a great deal of satisfaction from it. Yet, in the end, I love teaching.