There are not a lot of perks in my job. I have not had a full week off of work since August 2008. I earned more as a teacher, considering the length of contract. And I have a ton more nonsensical bureaucracy to navigate now. But there are a few perks I mentioned last fall. In addition, I do get to work from home one or two days a week. Best of all? I get all the time I need for planning. I used to love this part of teaching---the creative energy that comes with sitting down with your materials and putting the pieces together in meaningful ways.

It is just as big of a rush to plan staff development for adults as it is lessons for students. The difference is the timeframe. With adults, I typically have anywhere from 90 minutes to 16 hours of meeting time. Quite often, I only get to present the material once. This can be a maddening thing. When I started doing staff development several years ago, the original Boss Lady told me that there is usually a 3:1 ratio of time for these events: three hours of planning for every one hour of delivery. It is a luxury that could never be afforded for classroom work (although I would argue it is more important there). There are 15 hours of content I will be managing next week during my assessment group meeting---which means that more than a work week should be devoted to planning. A part of this planning is easy, because this group does need time to work. All I have to do for that is set the task and budget the time, then support the process during their efforts.

Some of this planning, however, is mind-bending. It would be embarrassing to admit that I needed five hours to put together just a single hour of content (presentation plan, slides, materials), if the results weren't so good. I keep thinking that things will be easier as I accumulate experience---that I will be able to just crank out staff development. I suppose I could if I didn't care about quality (or didn't have the time to devote), I could easily whip out some PD. Doing so would probably be more painful for participants to sit through than it is for me to have to be so very tedious with my planning. I can't let that happen when it hurts so good to put something magical together.

Labels: staff development

My assessment group will be meeting again soon. There is a very ambitious plan developed for our time together and I know that this group of educators will be focused and work hard on the tasks at hand. Those who work hard also deserve to play hard---not just at the end of the day when Happy Hour cranks up, but during the work sessions themselves. The brain likes a little novelty...some opportunity to think about different ideas and be creative.

At the first meeting, I kept things fairly simple. I used Paul Rogers' Name That Movie posts to construct a series of slides. I inserted the slides at different break points during the work. Below is one example---the only movie no one in the room was able to guess. (Can you recognize it? If you need a hint, it represents a Hitchcock film.)


Not everyone is a movie buff, however, and there are a variety of ways to engage an audience without having to resort to the cutesy icebreakers that send educators screaming from a session. Pull a few questions from an old Trivial Pursuit deck you have lying around the house. Find a few good riddles. Print a list of brain teaser questions. Pick up or draw your own Droodles. Or, use my favourite: The Name the Baby Contest.

Jim and Jane Roe are the proud parents of a newborn son. What should they name the baby?

If you want to play, leave your best suggestion in the comments. This question is a lot of fun to leave in the staffroom (or to play over email) with teachers. You'll get some very creative answers.

The first key here is to know your audience. Select adult-friendly items (read: items that won't be perceived as insulting to intelligence or dignity) that reflect your group. You also want to look for items that will allow people to choose their level of engagement. Even those who lurk will still have something different to think about, if only for a few minutes. It only takes one to two minutes of change for the brain to be ready to focus again and you will stimulate some creative and critical thinking for the next task. This is very helpful when you have 90 minutes of writing rubric descriptors lying ahead of you.

My next challenge is to find a way to work in the graphics and post-it wall modeled in this TED talk by Tom Wujec:



I really like the idea of including visual elements that people create. Not only does it require them to represent information in different ways, but it allows them to manipulate the various pieces we are trying to put together. We can share ideas in a different way---take them out and play with them. It seems important to be able to provide this opportunity for learners of all ages, including what happens during professional development for educators.

Labels: fun, staff development, teachers

I mentioned in my last post that I don't believe in grade inflation. I also don't believe in "learning styles." There is no such animal as an "auditory learner." With the exception of those with hearing loss, we are all auditory learners. We are also visual and kinesthetic learners. Our brain processes information in different ways. All of these methods of input have an impact on our learning and memory.

I have been thinking more and more about the kinesthetic part as of late. As we move further into a digital age, what will become of "hands on" learning? I understand that an online dissection can replace a real one...that a flash-based simulation can model experiments that students might not be able to complete in a school setting...that open-source tools can put powerful options into the hands of kids to create new meaning from the knowledge they've gained. There are amazing wonders to be had...but what will we lose in the process?

I haven't looked around to see if there is any ed research out there comparing the learning that occurs in a digital environment vs. real world manipulative one. I'm sure that each can be effective in their own ways. What I'm most interested in at the moment is how a teacher would determine when to use one or the other---is that based on the student or the content? Does the purpose of the learning and cognitive demand necessary make a difference when selecting one form or another?

It would seem unlikely that hands-on opportunities will disappear from lower grades. I have a hard time imagining elementary schools without scissors, glue, paint, sand, and other bits of analog exploration. At upper grades, as 1-to-1 programs become more popular and learning is moved beyond meatspace, will we forget what it is like to reach out and touch some learning?

Labels: technology

I'm never quite sure what is meant by the term "grade inflation." Does it reference a student who gets a grade that is higher than what has been earned/deserved (however that is defined)? Or are we talking something larger in scale---that out of any given student population there should always be a normal distribution of grades and any distribution which has a positive skew means that some sort of grade-related shenanigans are occurring?

Arkansas is judging grade inflation as a mismatch between a grade on a transcript and a score on a standardized test (via Memphis Daily News):

The Arkansas Department of Education says 58 public high schools inflated Algebra I and geometry grades last year.

The action means graduates of those schools face additional requirements to qualify for the new Arkansas Academic Challenge Scholarship. The scholarship is funded by the lottery and could be worth up to $5,000 a year.

Graduates of the 58 schools will have to earn more than the minimum 2.5 grade point average or earn more than the minimum 19 on the ACT college entrance exam.

The inflation report compares the grades of students who made an A or B in Algebra I and geometry in the 2008-09 school year — but scored at below-proficient levels on state exams.

There are two points of interest here for me. First of all, the state exam represents what a student knows on a given day about only a sample standards selected for that test---not what a student understands about Algebra or Geometry on the whole. However, I can also see the other side of the argument here. If a "well-taught hard-working" student has been provided a standards-based education, then the sample score should reflect the overall score. If you have a teacher who starts on page one of the textbook and just keeps working forward, regardless of relevance to learning targets (or instructional adjustments), then you're definitely going to have a mismatch between the scores.

The assumption, of course, is that the test score is not only accurate, but will always be lower than the grade. Otherwise, there is no "grade inflation." I have to think that there are going to be students for whom the reverse is true---the blow the top off the state test and earn a D or F in their math class. This happens when factors like late work or missing work or non-academic factors get rolled into the grade. You end up with a kid who knows the standards, but the grading scale only counts that as part of the score.

I don't believe in grade inflation, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny. I do believe that there are inaccurate grades and Arkansas would do well to address that issue as opposed to punishing kids because schools/teachers need help with grading practices.

Even more mythical---or so I thought---was grade deflation. Until now, I can't recall a single news article that I've seen which describes such an issue. (via New York Times)

When Princeton University set out six years ago to corral galloping grade inflation by putting a lid on A’s, many in academia lauded it for taking a stand on a national problem and predicted that others would follow.

Galloping grade inflation! Jumpin' Jehosaphat! It's a national problem...or not.

But the idea never took hold beyond Princeton’s walls, and so its bold vision is now running into fierce resistance from the school’s Type-A-plus student body.

With the job market not what it once was, even for Ivy Leaguers, Princetonians are complaining that the campaign against bulked-up G.P.A.’s may be coming at their expense.

It is no secret that grades are currency. They buy things---from cheaper car insurance rates to athletic eligibility, scholarships, and college entrance to a final ticket to the working world. Princeton students and families have paid a lot of money for that Golden Diploma Ticket. You can argue all you like about whether or not being able to fork over tuition is enough to entitle someone to a sheepskin, but the school isn't playing fair, either:

In September, the student government sent a letter to the faculty questioning whether professors were being overzealous in applying the policy. And last month, The Daily Princetonian denounced the policy in an editorial, saying it had “too many harmful consequences that outweigh the good intentions behind the system.”

The undergraduate student body president, Connor Diemand-Yauman, a senior from Chesterland, Ohio, said: “I had complaints from students who said that their professors handed back exams and told them, ‘I wanted to give 10 of you A’s, but because of the policy, I could only give five A’s.’ When students hear that, an alarm goes off.”

Nancy Weiss Malkiel, dean of the undergraduate college at Princeton, said the policy was not meant to establish such grade quotas, but to set a goal: Over time and across all academic departments, no more than 35 percent of grades in undergraduate courses would be A-plus, A or A-minus.

I realize that college is not a standards-based environment. However, if a student completes the requirements of a course at a top level, shouldn't s/he receive an A? How does one justify a cutoff of one-third of the population?

It would appear that schools at every level need to take some time to really think about what a grade does and should represent. Until then, artificial terms such as "grade inflation" don't help the discussion---and they certainly don't support students.

Update: Looks like grade inflation isn't just for kids. NYC plans to change the way it "grades" public schools so that not so many will have A's and B's. You can read more in this NYT article.

Labels: articles, grading

I have seen any number of fussy bloggers over the years---the kind who only post negative thoughts and angry sentiments. I have no beef with them. Blogging should be whatever you want it to be. I have hoped to be more reflective and positive. When I hit the patches in my professional life where I am more interested in shaking my fist than being capable of finding solutions, I don't write as much.

For whatever reason, I've been feeling rather impotent (in terms of job function) as of late. This has led me to thinking about who really has power in education and who those people listen to. Even with a stateside balcony seat, I often find that I have very little influence on educational events. My goal is not one of power or influence for its own sake---my interests are in supporting kids. It was too difficult to stay in a district where money meant more than people. I wish I could tell you that people at a higher level serve a higher purpose where schools are concerned. The fact is, a lot of them do. Many of the people I work with have kids first and foremost in their minds as they make decisions. Unfortunately, these people are not in the kinds of leadership positions where that could make a real difference.

I do know that the biggest impact on kids is made at the classroom level. In that sense, teachers have more power than anyone. And yet, in terms of the education system as a whole, teachers often have the least say in what happens in terms of policy and budgets.

I'm not sure how to resolve this---or even if this rambling makes a lot of sense. I don't wish to be negative about it, although it's been a downer sort of thing rolling around in my head. How do we ensure that those who are most passionate about doing what is best for kids are the ones who have the biggest voice in shaping policy?

Labels: teachers

Not only did I have to deal with coming down off of a ScienceOnline 2010 high this week, I also had to kick off the assessment project which is the primary reason for my employment...all while having a rather nasty case of laryngitis. However, I have been looking forward to this week for months and even sounding like a 12-year old boy undergoing puberty was not going to stop me from enjoying the work.

There is an stunning group of educators working on this project. You never know when you put a call out for help who will respond---and even sifting through a pile of applications is no guarantee that you will have the cream of the crop. I am sure that I am not the only one who has been burned in the past by an applicant who looked beautiful on paper and was nothing but heartbreak in the flesh. This time, however, there appears to have been a perfect storm of events and I have roughly a dozen superstars from all walks of education to help guide this process.

Their presence comes at a time when I need them most---not simply for the task at hand, but as I wrestle with various ideas related to educational technology and what happens in a classroom. I had to listen this week to talk about the worthlessness of public schools and teachers from someone who has never worked in one (nor places any value on my lifelong passion for them and experiences within them). Public education is far from perfect, but it is not a useless social experiment either. How and where the most recent advent of educational technology fits remains to be seen. There are plenty of predictions out there---how these tools will transform education in the next 10 years. I don't agree. I have nothing to base that opinion on, other than anecdotal evidence. Over the last 20 years, we've seen computers and internet move into classrooms; but I am unconvinced that instruction has undergone any significant changes as a result of these tools. I think more change has been driven by policy, not tools.

I was thinking this week about the various stakeholders in the educational process and their buy-in for educational technology. It's simpler to think about those associated with higher SES; however, if I'm working a minimum wage job at Wal-Mart, should I care that my child is able to create a Voicethread or collaborate on a wiki when those tools have no impact on my world? Is that what I want schools teaching my child? Does a migrant worker care more about whether or not an interactive white board is in a classroom or whether his child feels safe at school? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I am thinking that it is a mistake to not know what these voices would say. It contributes to the ever increasing divide of haves and have nots.

I know that there is a lot of instructional power in educational technology. I know that the tools are engaging for students and can create opportunities for learning that did not previously exist. I also know that they aren't necessary in order to develop students who think critically and creatively...who can collaborate and organize information...who can read and write. As I move forward with the assessment group that I have, I will be looking for some answers as to how we justify change.

Labels: assessment, technology

I don't really know how to eloquently sum up the whole ScienceOnline 2010 experience. All I can think of is a Keanu Reeves' like "Whoa."

I am sure that I will be processing all of the ideas, conversations, and experiences for awhile. There is quite the archive of tweets from the conference, if you are so inclined. Here are some of my Lessons Learned:

• I will never be the owner of a Sleep Number bed. I tried to find my perfect sleep number---I really did. I inflated and deflated the inner balloon in the mattress. I set different numbers for each side so I could do a comparison before making a decision for the night. I even read the posts Bora suggested for us in my search for a comfortable night on such a mattress. It was all for nought. The problem with these mattresses is that they have no give to them---they don't conform to the shape of your body or your sleeping position. Very uncomfortable.
• I gained a cold (courtesy of Scicurious) and lost my coat. Double sigh.
  
• As frustrated as we educators are with our IT staff and administration when it comes to using web 2.0 tools in the classroom, I can guarantee you that similar frustrations are being voiced at colleges, universities, science museums/zoos, and other institutions. However, there are exceptions to every rule. Damond Nollan, web manager at NCCU, is just such an exception. While there is no doubt that there will always be concerns about web security and the "digital footprints" we leave as we make our way through the internet, these should not rule out our attempts to learn and connect. Thank you, Damond, for your leadership in this area.
• Cell phones in learning (and not just for science) will become increasingly important. I understand the challenges of harnessing their power for the classroom---and that we educators will have to figure out how to manage that. However, I picked up two interesting pieces of information last week that has made me more determined to work on incorporating cell phones into instruction. First of all SMS (texting) is the "king" of communications---it works across all types of carriers and in all countries. Secondly, it is a tool that is not necessarily impacted by disparities in equity. (Data plans/Smartphones are---but not texting from a basic cell phone.) This means that the kinds of divides we see among "haves and have nots" for other technology and access don't exist with this tool.
• I still cannot believe I really met all of the amazing people that I did. I will try to work on a list and some links to share of new-to-me blogs and conversations. There was only one session which was a disappointment to me---the moderators being the only evidence of a clique I ever saw for the conference and their approach to a topic which showed no hint of personal reflection was a bit insulting. However, the blogosphere takes all kinds. I can appreciate examples of what not to do just as much as the blogs which inspire me.
  
• Finally, below are three screenshots of tweets from the conference. They are the ideas that intrigued me most, but didn't get explored. Perhaps they will serve as fodder for future posts. If you have some thoughts to share about any of these ideas, I'd enjoy hearing them.

Assuming that ScienceOnline continues and grows, I wonder if what makes it intimate and participant-driven will be able to stay as the center of things. What is the maximum size a conference can be for remaining a reflection of what attendees build for themselves?

Did you attend the conference either in-person or "ether"eally? If you're an educator, would you be interested in something like this---what sorts of topics would be most useful? Educon is coming up, which is probably akin to ScienceOnline in some ways, but does not attract the diversity and expertise we had last week (although it attracts plenty of attention from the EdTecherati). Maybe we need to reboot our educational gatherings.

Update: There is a great list of BlogMedia Coverage on the ScienceOnline 2010 site. One in particular, is a response to this post by Greg Laden. Go give him some comment love.

Labels: blogging, science