For the Course 1 Final Project, my colleagues and I decided to take a previous unit we did for the Individual Oral Commentary (IB Literature) and jazz it up with a little something called Youtube.
Prepare students for the Individual Oral Commentary, an IB assessment which asks students to deliver a 10 minute analysis on an unseen poem.
Students tend to see this particular assessment as the “hardest” of the IB assessments for Literature. They’re nervous partially because they don’t know which poem they’ll be discussing, but mostly because it’s pretty daunting to have a one-shot recording of your analysis. With a written exam, they always have an eraser, but with this exam, if they make a mistake, they have to accept it and keep going. No erasing.
The update for this unit was to add an element of technology (youtube) as a way to assuage anxiety and allow students a comfortable environment (their home) in which to practice the skills for this assessment. They get to erase and re-record as many times as they want. Essentially, the technology allows them to get it “just right”. We’re hoping that they’ll be so obsessed with getting it “just right” that they won’t even realize that they’ve been practicing their speaking skills the entire time.
The feedback element is key, too. In the past, we’ve struggled with figuring out how to allow all students the space and time to practice this skill in a crowded classroom. Using youtube takes care of that piece and now offers students the opportunity to listen to their classmates IOC’s and respond with constructive feedback.
We’re excited to see how the new and improved unit pans out. Keep you posted…
COETAIL. It’s making huge ripples in my life. Just ask my colleagues. My next tech tool to bring to the classroom? To change the “learning landscape”? The blog. Da da da…Not a big deal to most edtech gurus out there, but as I’m currently a blog novice myself, I feel like I’m taking a risk here – a responsible risk, yes, but still a risk. Thankfully, I don’t have to convince my grade 10 teaching team on the blog front – they’re very amenable to technology as a learning tool – so that’s one hurdle I do not have to overcome. What concerns me the most is the implementation of the actual blog and moving it beyond, as Andrew Marcinek calls it in his article, “Help Students Use Social Media to Empower, Not Just Connect”, a tool of simple connectivity.
Most of my students have had or currently have a blog, so it won’t be new technology to them. I want this to be a different experience for them, though. A more meaningful way for them to make connections, grow as writers (in a context that they’re not used to), discover their voice, learn from other writers and offer sound advice to other bloggers. In short, I want this experience to be meaningful and authentic and yes, different than anything they’ve done before in English class. Expectations too high? Nah.
Writing is a process.
So now I need to figure out how I’m going to use the blog as more than “just an efficient publishing platform” as blogger/educator Tracy Kracht mentions in her blog. (Okay, honestly – that’s what I was envisioning. Good thing I read her post.) Kracht continues, saying that in order to move beyond a blog’s basic function as a “publishing platform”, the focus needs to shift from the final product to the actual process of creating that final product. Kracht notes that writing a blog can be a “cycle” of “revision” whereby students are engaged in a process of “evaluat[ing] and revis[ing] their work so that they are increasing publishing quality.” I like her idea of using blogs as a way to increase the quality of students’ writing and the fact that writing is a process. It’s a constant cycle of revisions, editing, rewriting, crossing out and revising again.
So I think that’s where I will begin this blogging endeavor – as a journey of discovery that I will embark upon alongside my students. We’ll explore this fascinating new learning landscape created by technology and hopefully, forge our own trail forward.
This week, my school is hosting a Learning Think Tank on the topic of, not surprisingly, “The Future of Education.” On the To-Read/To-Watch list are a number of insightful, compelling and forward-thinking articles. One, in particular, got me thinking about competency-based classrooms where differentiation is the norm, not the goal. Another got me all fired up when the author remarked, “If you can google it, why teach it?” You can NOT google critical thinking, I thought rather smugly.
All together, I spent an enjoyable morning preparing for the Think Tank and reflecting on the “future of education“…and of course, pondering all of those wonderful challenges that lay ahead of us.
There was one video, however, that really got my goat: Sugata Mitra’s Ted Talk, “Building a School in the Cloud“. In this hugely popular talk (2.4 millions views and counting), Mitra argues the idea that schools, in their current state, are antiquated, obsolete and in fact detrimental to learning itself. Inspirational at times, reasonable & thought-provoking at others, the video left the teacher in me feeling just a wee bit, I don’t know – deflated? With comments like
“Schools as we know them are obsolete, not broken”
and “Learning’s not about making it happen, but about letting it happen”, I felt myself doing two things: 1. considering my shelf-life as a teacher and 2. wondering how many 21st century classrooms Mitra has visited.
He does make several significant observations, like the fact that our education system is based on a Victorian era “bureaucratic machine”, producing identical results and creating identical people. And in terms of our current mode of assessing learning, where we ask students to perform under pressure (often quite enormous, e.g. SAT/IB/AP exams), he notes that the avian (bird) part of our brain shuts down everything else when it feels threatened. Thus, he posits, we are essentially asking our students to “shut their brains down and then perform.”
Mitra suggests that our current system of testing was relevant when there was a time “when we needed people who could perform under threat”, but those circumstances no longer exist. This idea was both enlightening and provocative. Lots of room for improvement here.
Finally, Mitra gets to his solution: the “school in the clouds”, or simply SOLE – Self-Organized Learning Environment. Based upon the notion that, if students are provided the space, materials and time, they will not only create their own learning, they will accomplish this learning independent of a teacher.
To be fair, he does allow for one adult presence in the learning cloud. The “method of the grandmother” seems to be Mitra’s answer to the teacher problem. A virtual granny (in the video, it turned out to be, ironically, a retired teacher) is Skyped into the SOLE classroom, doling out little morsels of encouragement and probing “What’s next” questions to the eager students. It would seem that the role of the teacher, in Mitra’s eyes at least, is akin to that of a doting, loving granny. It was hard for me to see my profession – my craft – reduced to something so simplistic as a granny in the cloud offering encouragement.
I’m left contemplating Mitra’s findings – that students learn best when they work together; that students learn best when they’re offered hands-on, experiential opportunities; that students learn best when they receive feedback, particularly positive feedback.
Don’t get me wrong – I love the idea of a self-organized learning environment. Isn’t that what we’re all trying to achieve, to some extent? Giving our students the power to be the authors of their own education? My question remains though: where’s the balance? I need to go between facilitator and teacher in a hurry, because I’ve got a whole lot of content to cover, but don’t necessarily have 6 months to play with (like the kids in his video). Not to say that content wins, but that there has to be a balance between the skills and disposition and the things we want students to know and to understand. How do we pull all of this off while still encouraging organic, self-organized learning environments.
If I had asked the people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.
Included in his list of the obsolete, along with archaic technology policies and unhealthy cafeteria food, is the notion that “all students get the same.” Ómarsso notes that “school systems were originally set up to meet the needs of industrialism. Back then we needed people to work in factories, conformity was good and nobody was meant to excel or be different in that environment. That doesn’t fit our needs today, let alone the future but many schools are still set up like the factories they were meant to serve a 100 years ago.” In my own personal musings about the efficacy and practicality of the traditional classroom, I always come back to that image of the old-fashioned one-room school house…you know, the one that looks eerily similar to the classrooms of today.
This struck a chord with me, probably because I had also recently watched “If students designed their own schools”, a fascinating short documentary, where one intrepid high school in Massachusetts is rewriting the rules of the traditional high school experience. The “Independent Project”, as Monument Mountain Regional High calls it, puts the onus of the learning on the students, allowing them to be, as NY Times writer Susan Engel calls them, “the authors of their own education.” As one senior in the video notes, “If the question is yours, the answer is going to feel great when you obtain it.”
Monument Mountain Regional High isn’t the only school capitalizing on this new wave of autonomous learning. In his blog, Will Richardson discusses a similar idea, and cites Northstar and The Princeton Learning Cooperative as two models that are willing to “shed the traditional narrative of how kids become successful in the world.” Indeed, Richardson goes so far as to perhaps support Philip Schlecty’s point that if school’s can’t ‘get it together’, then:
customized, commercially provided education is likely to replace both public and private schools…Those left behind will be the children of the poor, who will be trained in state- run bureaucracies rather than educated in outstanding schools, making even more real the social class divisions that are tearing at America’s social fabric.
Schlecty’s vision of a post-industrialized educational system is scary – Hunger Games‘ish post-apocalyptically so. Perhaps a bit much of the doomsday, but certainly worth considering.
The bottom line – it is glaringly obvious that significant reform is needed in the organization and structuring of our schools. It seems crazy that we expect our students to excel in an educational system that is more than 100 years old. Sure, it works for some, maybe even for many. But is that enough? Shouldn’t we keep striving for more? For something…revolutionary?