I attended four sessions at MACUL, two full and interesting, two partial and less so (for my own purposes). My primary takeaway was this: using technology in the classroom is fantastic... if you have the resources.
In my opinion, one of the most promising uses of technology in the classroom is formative assessment. I love apps like Socrative and InfuseLearning to get fast snapshots of student understanding and hear from every student in the room, not just the chatterboxes. So when I saw a session for this type of app listing apps both familiar and unknown to me, choosing to go was a no brainer. Even better, the description promised to help with implementation of these strategies without a 1:1 classroom. Happily, I did learn more about particular apps - I had never heard about TodaysMeet, which is basically a chatroom a teacher can create on the spot, and I got more information about PollEverywhere and Socrative. However, when it came to implementation in a tech-deprived environment, I was more disappointed about the insight provided. The presenter said that such assessments don't have to happen simultaneously, and that you could have a couple devices in the back of the classroom for students to take turns on. The problems I can see with this approach in my context are legion; the class period is only 55 minutes, and I generally can't afford to have two or three students not paying attention at all times. Additionally, one of the huge upsides of this technology is its instant nature, and such an approach abolishes that benefit.
I actually did make my first foray into Socrative last week and had a chance to try out one solution to the problem - I brought students to a computer lab for a project, and before they began, I had them take a diagnostic quiz to take their temperature before I began test review the next day. This worked very well, and I got a lot of valuable data - but it worked because I momentarily transformed my classroom into a 1:1 environment. This is not a solution for the question of how to work such formative assessments into my classroom on a daily basis. One possibility is to have students share their smartphones; Socrative allows you to pass the device to another person to answer the same question. I have yet to try this method but I want to soon.
The other full session I attended was called "Create a Student-Centered Learning Environment," and it was very fun and engaging. The two presenters gave us a fast rundown of many interesting tools for use in the classroom, several of which I had not heard of. Fellow MACers, you can see the full list in the MACUL Google drive folder created by Eliza. I particularly enjoyed Kahoot, a tool that allows teachers to create and run a game show-like quiz. However, it once again requires a 1:1 classroom. The presenters were both from a very nice high school that seems to have fully incorporated technology into its methods. So I say once again... that's great, but how, practically, can I use it?
MACUL was a fun experience, and I really enjoyed the opportunity to hang out with some MACers I don't see nearly often enough. I also got some solid information, but it will take quite a lot of thought and strategizing to figure out how to make use of it in my own teaching.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Monday, November 18, 2013
BYOD: Advice from Michigan teacher of the year, Gary Abud
This past weekend, I had the privilege of attending the Metropolitan Detroit Science Teachers Association (MDSTA) conference. I went to some cool sessions, including one led by a MACer from two years ago, but I think my favorite was the one called "All aboard the BYOD express!" It was run by a delightful man named Gary Abud, who just so happens to be the Michigan teacher of the year. He has taught chemistry, biology, and physics, but currently serves as an instructional coach for the Grosse Pointe school system. I got the chance to talk to him one on one earlier in the day and he's a really great guy, approachable and fun, and I'm very glad to have made that connection. His session turned out to be as enjoyable - and informative! - as I hoped.
Gary began with a very interesting point about BYOD as a concept. He said that we often tell students to put their devices away because we don't want them to look up the answers. His counterpoint was simple and powerful: if a student can Google their way through your class, you have some serious rethinking to do. And he's absolutely right. If a phone can do all the thinking for a student in your class, then you're not asking for any higher order thinking and that's a problem. Gary also addressed another common worry about BYOD by saying that not every student in your room has to have a device because it's easy to do grouping activities and have students share.
Gary spent most of his presentation doing in depth demonstrations of three tools: GoSoapbox, InfuseLearning, and Socrative. We have heard of the last two in 504, but I really enjoyed seeing the tools in action with a room full of 40 people. Also, GoSoapbox was new to me, and it was Gary's favorite. As his presentation demonstrated clearly, each of these tools has its own strengths and weaknesses, and choosing between them really depends on what you want for your classroom.
I'll summarize some of the highlights of these three tools here. At the bottom of the post you'll find a video Gary made about various tech tools in the classroom - start around 8:30 for the specific discussion around these "total participation" tools.
GoSoapbox
With this tool, a teacher creates an "event" that students use a code to enter. Once in the event, students can navigate between three types of objects: polls, questions, and discussions. The teacher can pre-load polls and questions, keep them invisible, then switch them to visible at the appropriate moment during class. The discussion section is more open; students can ask each other questions and have conversations about the class. Students can see poll results on their own device if the teacher has that option selected, but the responses are anonymous.
Pros: Students can explore all the pieces of the "event" whenever they want - revisit past polls, see other answers to questions, respond to peer questions. This event remains open beyond class time, allowing flexibility for its use beyond the hours of the school day.
Cons: Teacher has no way of knowing whether all of the students have replied without scanning through the names and seeing if someone's missing. Students could get distracted by the flexible format.
InfuseLearning
With this tool, the teacher does not load in specific questions. Instead, she clicks on a certain type of response (true/false, multiple choice, free response) and students see a prompt to reply. The specific question itself must be delivered by the teacher verbally or on the board. The teacher sees a list of students and each student gets greyed out as they submit a response, so she can ask any missing students specifically to respond. The teacher also has the option of saving results for later analysis. One really cool function of InfuseLearning is the possibility of submitting a drawn picture as a response. This could be very useful in a science or math classroom. Ask students to sketch a graph or balance an equation, then scroll through and discuss everyone's responses projected up on the screen. I think this is a really cool way to get a snapshot of the whole room's thinking. It also makes student work the subject of conversation rather than the teacher always writing things on the board. Another useful feature of InfuseLearning is the quiz function. You can load in a complete quiz beforehand, then start the quiz and have students complete it during class. The results are saved and any multiple choice questions are graded automatically.
Pros: Teacher can check for 100% response rate and know exactly who is missing. Draw response function. Saving results (polls become a csv file, drawings become a PDF). Easy quiz execution and grading.
Cons: Inability to pre-load questions into the event for formative assessments during class. Students can't see anything except the currently active prompt - they don't see results or past questions. Results have to be shown from the teacher's device.
Socrative
Socrative is kind of a blend of the two above tools with its own quirks. Socrative allows for one device to submit multiple assessments which can really help if not all students have a compatible device. We didn't get as complete of a demonstration of Socrative, but Gary did get a chance to show us his favorite feature of Socrative. Like the other tools, students can submit a free response answer to a question. After these responses are gathered, students can then vote on the one that they feel is most correct. This is very useful for promoting reflection and developing a class consensus around an idea.
Pros: Multiple responses, voting on free response answers.
Cons: No drawing feature. Students cannot see anything except the currently active prompt.
These summaries are by no means complete, and each of these tools is a rich resource in its own right. I personally am most attracted to InfuseLearning - I love the ability to save results and use them as part of my evaluation of class progress on the individual and whole hour levels. The drawing feature would be incredibly useful to get a quick sense of where students are on a topic. There's something so much more authentic about a hand drawing (even if it's on a digital tool) than typing in an answer. I also like that students can't click around idly while I'm trying to keep them focused; the tool enters the conversation only when I want it to. The prospect of auto-graded quizzes is also very attractive.
The more I learn about these tools, the more convinced I am that I want to make them part of my teaching. There's potential here to bridge the generation gap and reach students where they are as incredibly proficient users of advanced technology. As a young teacher who has grown up with technology (well, I got my first laptop at 14 and my first phone at 18... but I caught on quick!) and is also very proficient in it, I feel that I am well-placed to leverage these tools in my classroom. I loved learning about them in such a fun, interactive environment. I recommend checking out teacher conferences when you get a chance!
Here is Gary's video about BYOD:
Gary began with a very interesting point about BYOD as a concept. He said that we often tell students to put their devices away because we don't want them to look up the answers. His counterpoint was simple and powerful: if a student can Google their way through your class, you have some serious rethinking to do. And he's absolutely right. If a phone can do all the thinking for a student in your class, then you're not asking for any higher order thinking and that's a problem. Gary also addressed another common worry about BYOD by saying that not every student in your room has to have a device because it's easy to do grouping activities and have students share.
Gary spent most of his presentation doing in depth demonstrations of three tools: GoSoapbox, InfuseLearning, and Socrative. We have heard of the last two in 504, but I really enjoyed seeing the tools in action with a room full of 40 people. Also, GoSoapbox was new to me, and it was Gary's favorite. As his presentation demonstrated clearly, each of these tools has its own strengths and weaknesses, and choosing between them really depends on what you want for your classroom.
I'll summarize some of the highlights of these three tools here. At the bottom of the post you'll find a video Gary made about various tech tools in the classroom - start around 8:30 for the specific discussion around these "total participation" tools.
GoSoapbox
With this tool, a teacher creates an "event" that students use a code to enter. Once in the event, students can navigate between three types of objects: polls, questions, and discussions. The teacher can pre-load polls and questions, keep them invisible, then switch them to visible at the appropriate moment during class. The discussion section is more open; students can ask each other questions and have conversations about the class. Students can see poll results on their own device if the teacher has that option selected, but the responses are anonymous.
Pros: Students can explore all the pieces of the "event" whenever they want - revisit past polls, see other answers to questions, respond to peer questions. This event remains open beyond class time, allowing flexibility for its use beyond the hours of the school day.
Cons: Teacher has no way of knowing whether all of the students have replied without scanning through the names and seeing if someone's missing. Students could get distracted by the flexible format.
InfuseLearning
With this tool, the teacher does not load in specific questions. Instead, she clicks on a certain type of response (true/false, multiple choice, free response) and students see a prompt to reply. The specific question itself must be delivered by the teacher verbally or on the board. The teacher sees a list of students and each student gets greyed out as they submit a response, so she can ask any missing students specifically to respond. The teacher also has the option of saving results for later analysis. One really cool function of InfuseLearning is the possibility of submitting a drawn picture as a response. This could be very useful in a science or math classroom. Ask students to sketch a graph or balance an equation, then scroll through and discuss everyone's responses projected up on the screen. I think this is a really cool way to get a snapshot of the whole room's thinking. It also makes student work the subject of conversation rather than the teacher always writing things on the board. Another useful feature of InfuseLearning is the quiz function. You can load in a complete quiz beforehand, then start the quiz and have students complete it during class. The results are saved and any multiple choice questions are graded automatically.
Pros: Teacher can check for 100% response rate and know exactly who is missing. Draw response function. Saving results (polls become a csv file, drawings become a PDF). Easy quiz execution and grading.
Cons: Inability to pre-load questions into the event for formative assessments during class. Students can't see anything except the currently active prompt - they don't see results or past questions. Results have to be shown from the teacher's device.
Socrative
Socrative is kind of a blend of the two above tools with its own quirks. Socrative allows for one device to submit multiple assessments which can really help if not all students have a compatible device. We didn't get as complete of a demonstration of Socrative, but Gary did get a chance to show us his favorite feature of Socrative. Like the other tools, students can submit a free response answer to a question. After these responses are gathered, students can then vote on the one that they feel is most correct. This is very useful for promoting reflection and developing a class consensus around an idea.
Pros: Multiple responses, voting on free response answers.
Cons: No drawing feature. Students cannot see anything except the currently active prompt.
These summaries are by no means complete, and each of these tools is a rich resource in its own right. I personally am most attracted to InfuseLearning - I love the ability to save results and use them as part of my evaluation of class progress on the individual and whole hour levels. The drawing feature would be incredibly useful to get a quick sense of where students are on a topic. There's something so much more authentic about a hand drawing (even if it's on a digital tool) than typing in an answer. I also like that students can't click around idly while I'm trying to keep them focused; the tool enters the conversation only when I want it to. The prospect of auto-graded quizzes is also very attractive.
The more I learn about these tools, the more convinced I am that I want to make them part of my teaching. There's potential here to bridge the generation gap and reach students where they are as incredibly proficient users of advanced technology. As a young teacher who has grown up with technology (well, I got my first laptop at 14 and my first phone at 18... but I caught on quick!) and is also very proficient in it, I feel that I am well-placed to leverage these tools in my classroom. I loved learning about them in such a fun, interactive environment. I recommend checking out teacher conferences when you get a chance!
Here is Gary's video about BYOD:
Sunday, November 17, 2013
"Standards-based grading," or, reaching out to an edublogger
For one of my responses to an edublogger, I revisited the blog that I wrote about over the summer, Science Education on the Edge by Chris Ludwig. There have only been two new posts - I imagine he's been rather busy getting the school year rolling! - but they were both candid and informative, as all of his posts are.
His latest post, Zero Points Were Given (which, by the way, is a play on a popular (and profane!) internet saying that I will not repeat here, which says to me that this guy is very plugged in, much like myself), is a provocative screed against traditional points-based grading system followed by his thoughts about an alternative. His alternative could be broadly termed "standards-based grading," but Chris prefers to frame his approach as asking "'what do you want students to know and be able to do?' and 'what will you be looking for in their performances of learning?'". He replaces assignments with content and skill goals that he wants his students to be able to attain. He provides them with concrete feedback about how to improve, then allows them to respond to his feedback by, you know, improving! He uses a system called BlueHarvest that I blogged a bit about in my last post to keep track of this narrative feedback (and responses by students). As for converting this type of feedback into numerical grades, as required for most schools and college applications, he provides some advice about establishing a consistent method of doing this. He concludes this advice with a pretty powerful insight: "It will be subjective. But so is everything about teaching if you are doing it right and responding to different student needs and abilities." I gotta say I agree with him. From what I've seen so far, trying to stick to some "objective" grading standard is not only impossible, it's irresponsible. By making the subjective system something that also helps students to improve, it seems like Chris is significantly improving the experience of his students. The final piece of his system is to have students make a weekly check-in in which they argue for a certain grade they have earned that week, and they have to use evidence of their work to support their argument. Perhaps as a happy accident, this also lets students practice one of the 8 scientific practices in the new standards: arguing from evidence!
While I enjoyed his post very much and like the sound of his classroom, I couldn't help but puzzle over exactly how such a system could get up and rolling in my classroom (and any high needs classroom I might find myself in). It seems like it requires significant student independence. So I made the following comment on the post:
Only hours later, Chris responded with a generous comment filled with advice:As a pre-service teacher trying to figure out my “own” approach to teaching (which will inevitably be a pastiche of other peoples’ ideas until I really get my legs under me), your blog is fascinating because it presents a perspective I haven’t heard yet. I appreciate your candor and detail because it helps me to envision how these things can work in a classroom.I am intrigued by your critique of points-based grading and the alternative you have developed. I was a kid (still am, kind of, in my masters program…) who was excellent at playing the game and got As across the board pretty much throughout my educational experience. As I’ve grown older and realized that the world doesn’t give you an A simply for following directions, I’ve begun to worry that what earned me the label of “brilliant” in school is not terribly useful in the real world. This makes me think hard about what I want to communicate to my own students. Does the ability to successfully complete a multiple choice test about atomic structure correlate to any real world ability? I’m not sure it does. I am searching avidly for ways to make learning chemistry relevant and enriching. I’m wondering if your approach could be part of the key to that.What I struggle with, however, is figuring out how to earn enough buy in to this system to get it to work. I am currently student teaching in an urban arts school. My students, by and large, have a dismissive attitude towards science, and the ones that try do so mostly because they need to pass chemistry to graduate. Many of my 11th graders are at a middle school or lower level in math and/or reading. I struggle with how I could inspire and foster the kind of independence and motivation it seems like such a system needs in order to function. I have a vision of students excitedly investigating questions related to chemistry of their own volition, but then I think about how many of my students need extensive one-on-one scaffolding to carry out unit conversions and I hit a mental roadblock about how to translate one into the other.That said, right now my mentor and I have students who have a grade of literally 4%, students that I know are sweet kids and don’t want to fail. I want to help them. And I think stepping away from empty number grades would be one way to do that.I would appreciate any advice on how to kickstart such an effort – maybe some baby steps toward the full fledged model. Where do I even begin?
Anne,
Thanks so much for the comment and for being willing to tell us about your situation! As a chemistry teacher for ~15 years now, I have yet to really hit on the magic formula that will make it appealing to everyone. I have some small victories at times, but often it feels like I’m losing the battle to get kids to really understand chemistry at the level that I think they should. With that said, some things work better than others to get chemistry students involved in class:
-Labs seem to work really well at engaging students, although they sometimes seem to come away with a more superficial understanding than I would like because they lack some of the background knowledge about underlying principles.
-Drill and kill worksheets only help a small percentage of students, and while I might think they are necessary, students don’t often agree.
-The best assignments in chemistry are those that respond to student interests. This is tricky, since not every student’s interest can be sparked easily, but I bet your arts students might find some interest in the science behind paint pigments, for example, and maybe the tie-dye lab.
The real trick is to set up a system that can help students realize even small gains in skills and content knowledge in your class. We should reward students with some helpful suggestions rather than having to come up with a number to represent how many points we think they are worth that day. They might be way below where I would like them to be, but if they are willing to work with me at all and follow my advice, I can usually get them on track.
One last piece of advice: allow students multiple ways to show you what they know. That way they’ve taken some ownership of what works best for them, even if it doesn’t always conform to what we think chemistry class really ought to look like.
You have the right attitude about stealing other people’s ideas, and I look forward to stealing some ideas from you in the future.
I very much appreciate Chris's quick reply, his kind comments, and his honest advice. He doesn't try to sugar coat for the newbie but rather responds candidly and specifically to my thoughts. That said, I have to be honest in turn and say that I'm slightly dismayed by these insights from an expert. His concern about labs and students taking away a superficial understanding is definitely one of my biggest concerns for teaching chemistry. Seeing chemistry in action is one thing; really understanding the underlying explanation, and transferring that to other contexts, is a whole other ballgame. I'm also concerned about his lack of regard for "drill and kill" sheets; I think there are some skills (converting between units, naming compounds, balancing equations) that can only really be nailed down with repeated practice. Does he remove emphasis from such skills in his classroom? It seems as though most higher level chemistry applications are absolutely predicated on having such skills in one's mental toolbox. Since my students have significant difficulties with math, I fear I will leave them behind if I try to jump into the more "solid" stuff without spending time trying to master the "basics" first. I may have to leave a follow up question asking him to clarify this point. Our students do a lot of worksheets right now, but I would be hard pressed to think of an alternative method to learn the skills we're targeting right now.
I do quite like his suggestion that chemistry teaching try to draw from and respond to student interests. I think there's a lot we could do with our students' passions and talents at DSA. I'd love to hear them come up with a chemistry song, for example, or do an interpretive dance of covalent bonding. Such ideas might be something I would consider going into the second semester, when I have more autonomy.
The central piece of his thinking, which he highlights in his comment, is to give students something real to build off of, a blueprint for their own improvement. I think this is a valuable insight. Right now, my mentor teacher generally gives numerical grades with little substantive feedback. On the other hand, what we're grading is often problems with clear cut answers, and it would take ages to explicitly write out responses and corrections for every student's work. Chris's use of BlueHarvest is crucial in supporting him in this endeavor to provide substantive individualized feedback and I think I will seriously consider using this system, if not next semester, then when I begin my own teaching practice.
On a more meta level, it was great to get such a substantial response in such a short time. I will definitely be keeping track of Chris's work and probably drawing on him as a resource again in the future.
I do quite like his suggestion that chemistry teaching try to draw from and respond to student interests. I think there's a lot we could do with our students' passions and talents at DSA. I'd love to hear them come up with a chemistry song, for example, or do an interpretive dance of covalent bonding. Such ideas might be something I would consider going into the second semester, when I have more autonomy.
The central piece of his thinking, which he highlights in his comment, is to give students something real to build off of, a blueprint for their own improvement. I think this is a valuable insight. Right now, my mentor teacher generally gives numerical grades with little substantive feedback. On the other hand, what we're grading is often problems with clear cut answers, and it would take ages to explicitly write out responses and corrections for every student's work. Chris's use of BlueHarvest is crucial in supporting him in this endeavor to provide substantive individualized feedback and I think I will seriously consider using this system, if not next semester, then when I begin my own teaching practice.
On a more meta level, it was great to get such a substantial response in such a short time. I will definitely be keeping track of Chris's work and probably drawing on him as a resource again in the future.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Student podcasting
A few weeks ago in Ed Tech, we were treated to a truly excellent "Tech Tools in Use" presentation by the podcasting folks. I was quite skeptical going in because podcasts are something I struggle with personally a lot. There's only one particular type of situation in which I can fully focus on and enjoy a podcast: when my eyes are occupied in a fairly mindless task. The best example is when I'm driving. Driving is automatic enough that I can process the information in a podcast, but it requires my full visual attention so I don't let my attention wander. Another way I can listen to podcasts is by playing a fairly automatic game (Bejeweled is a favorite). But the fact is that podcasts are just not a very efficient or appealing way for me to gather information.
That said, I wish I did like podcasts more, because they can be really amazing! A series that I have particularly enjoyed is called the Naked Scientists, where some charming narrators (with delightful British accents) break down the latest science news by going straight to the source: journal articles and scientists. They talk about the actual data in the papers, and they often interview scientists directly about the work. This is aimed at a perfect level for me - I get the big picture without the horrible reductionism and hyperbole that goes into much of popular science media.
So that's the perspective on podcasts that I brought to this presentation: not the biggest fan of the medium itself, but really impressed by the ways it's been used. And I was immediately impressed as well by the creative ways the presenters chose to make example podcasts that could be used in the classroom. It was even more impressive that they had all just taught themselves the tools and created these polished, professional sounding productions. I can see easily how podcasts could be a really interesting tool in classes like history or English, where spoken narratives can be so powerful.
I do have to stretch a little more to think about how the tool could be used in a science classroom, but I think it's possible. I probably wouldn't go for making podcasts of lectures, just because so much of science (and math, my minor) is visual and needs to be seen while being described. But an application that I think could be potentially quite powerful is having students create their own podcasts. This could be a group project where students are assigned some topic and they need to create a podcast to teach their peers about the topic. This podcast could be played to the class and used to prompt a discussion in which material provided by students is the catalyst. Students love to talk and I think this could be a really cool way to harness that particular teenage impulse. It would also let those who are so inclined to tap into their creative sides and really get into the spirit of making a mock radio show or including sound effects. Given that I have students who are actually Radio/TV majors at Detroit School of the Arts, it would give them a chance to shine and perhaps engage enthusiastically with the material of chemistry. It also takes away the pressures of something like a class presentation; students have the opportunity to think carefully about what they want to say and then re-record if they mess up in some way. From a teacher's perspective, having a record to listen and re-listen to in order to closely and carefully evaluate their thinking could be quite valuable.
So thank you to Rachel, Griffin, Steve, and Mike for an engaging, entertaining presentation. You've given me some real food for thought!
That said, I wish I did like podcasts more, because they can be really amazing! A series that I have particularly enjoyed is called the Naked Scientists, where some charming narrators (with delightful British accents) break down the latest science news by going straight to the source: journal articles and scientists. They talk about the actual data in the papers, and they often interview scientists directly about the work. This is aimed at a perfect level for me - I get the big picture without the horrible reductionism and hyperbole that goes into much of popular science media.
So that's the perspective on podcasts that I brought to this presentation: not the biggest fan of the medium itself, but really impressed by the ways it's been used. And I was immediately impressed as well by the creative ways the presenters chose to make example podcasts that could be used in the classroom. It was even more impressive that they had all just taught themselves the tools and created these polished, professional sounding productions. I can see easily how podcasts could be a really interesting tool in classes like history or English, where spoken narratives can be so powerful.
I do have to stretch a little more to think about how the tool could be used in a science classroom, but I think it's possible. I probably wouldn't go for making podcasts of lectures, just because so much of science (and math, my minor) is visual and needs to be seen while being described. But an application that I think could be potentially quite powerful is having students create their own podcasts. This could be a group project where students are assigned some topic and they need to create a podcast to teach their peers about the topic. This podcast could be played to the class and used to prompt a discussion in which material provided by students is the catalyst. Students love to talk and I think this could be a really cool way to harness that particular teenage impulse. It would also let those who are so inclined to tap into their creative sides and really get into the spirit of making a mock radio show or including sound effects. Given that I have students who are actually Radio/TV majors at Detroit School of the Arts, it would give them a chance to shine and perhaps engage enthusiastically with the material of chemistry. It also takes away the pressures of something like a class presentation; students have the opportunity to think carefully about what they want to say and then re-record if they mess up in some way. From a teacher's perspective, having a record to listen and re-listen to in order to closely and carefully evaluate their thinking could be quite valuable.
So thank you to Rachel, Griffin, Steve, and Mike for an engaging, entertaining presentation. You've given me some real food for thought!
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
"Class, take out your cell phones!"
A couple weeks ago (has it been that long? Boy time flies when you're getting no sleep and working all the time!) we had a great presentation by guest speaker Liz Kolb. Her enthusiasm is infectious and, despite the frustration I expressed in my previous post, I found myself able to start to think about ways technology can be useful in ANY classroom, even one faced with tough issues of access.
Cell phones - and, in particular, smart phones - are an incredible resource. Sometimes I just have to stop and boggle at the fact that I carry what is, effectively, a mini computer around with me in my pocket at all times. I can do almost anything on my phone that I can with a laptop, especially anything that involves communicating with the outside world. (And let's stop for a moment to appreciate the magic of laptops too. I'm old enough to remember when having a family desktop was a Big Deal. And I'm not very old.) Teenagers love their smartphones. They spend every possible second communicating - texting, snapchatting, instagramming, whatever kids are up to these days, it always revolves around sharing some piece of themselves with the world. As teachers, we need to be aware of this reality, and instead of fighting it, it seems like a pretty darn good idea to try to make it work in our favor.
Liz's talk helped me to see this idea as a genuine resource for the classroom with a lot of potential. She also struck a bit of a nerve with the whole "we can only imagine the classrooms we've been in" idea. I used a laptop a lot in high school (my school was a bit ahead of the curve and required all freshmen to bring a laptop) but it was pretty much only to take notes or write papers. The interactive piece wasn't really there yet. Unless you count emailing with the guy sitting right next to me during English class... but that brings me right back to my point. High schoolers ALWAYS want to be talking to each other. That's why one of the biggest challenges of classroom management is to get them to just stop talking for a while. But why is that the goal? Aren't their voices equally as valuable as the teacher's? If there's one thing that's really sunk in in my time in the MAC program, it's that people don't learn passively. It's the rare, dedicated bookworm that can learn well from lectures (*raises hand*). And because I do learn well in that style, it's required some stretching of my mental boundaries to fully realize that this is not at all the case for everyone, and that if I hope to be a truly successful teacher, I'm going to need to shift away from the mentality of "telling as teaching".
All of which is to say: Liz convinced me that cell phones can be a fantastic tool for making all student voices heard. One challenge I have encountered in my first stumbling forays into teaching is the difficulty of making on-the-fly assessments of the whole class. If I ask a question of the whole class and get a correct answer, well, I know that student understands, but chances are they are the same student who answers questions every day. This type of evaluation doesn't tell me the really valuable information: who DOESN'T get it.
Enter cell phones. I am envisioning a class in which we have some sort of collaboration tool set up and projected on the wall (Celly, Poll Everywhere, etc.) Students have their phones out, ready to answer any questions. At particular moments in the class, I solicit the whole class's ideas. Students use their phones to submit answers. If any student doesn't have a phone, or if the activity requires a smartphone, students can share in pairs and just pass off the phone for the other to submit their answer. The whole class's ideas come up on the screen - anonymously - and I can quickly get an idea of where the class is, and they in turn can see where their response stands in relation to their peers'. The conversation continues, enriched and shaped by both correct and incorrect answers, or just a variety of ideas, contributed by the students.
Liz helped me see that this model could really work. It's all about reaching students where they are. Students at my placement have their phones out all the time. They're not bad kids - they're just bored and itching for that sense of contact. If I could provide that contact to them in the form of a legitimate classroom activity, I think the buy in could be very high. Students would have greater ownership over the class conversation and even the quiet ones would have their ideas heard. Another benefit is that silence would no longer be a requirement - I could see all student answers even while there was a general level of chatter in the room (which is almost always in our class, I'm afraid).
The important thing is I can actually see this happening in a classroom now. There's a lot of details to think about, but I might even try to launch it as part of the "January restart". I am grateful to Liz to helping me to open my eyes to a whole new world of possibilities. And when I teach, I'll be sure to always ask my kids: "What do you like to do?"
Cell phones - and, in particular, smart phones - are an incredible resource. Sometimes I just have to stop and boggle at the fact that I carry what is, effectively, a mini computer around with me in my pocket at all times. I can do almost anything on my phone that I can with a laptop, especially anything that involves communicating with the outside world. (And let's stop for a moment to appreciate the magic of laptops too. I'm old enough to remember when having a family desktop was a Big Deal. And I'm not very old.) Teenagers love their smartphones. They spend every possible second communicating - texting, snapchatting, instagramming, whatever kids are up to these days, it always revolves around sharing some piece of themselves with the world. As teachers, we need to be aware of this reality, and instead of fighting it, it seems like a pretty darn good idea to try to make it work in our favor.
Liz's talk helped me to see this idea as a genuine resource for the classroom with a lot of potential. She also struck a bit of a nerve with the whole "we can only imagine the classrooms we've been in" idea. I used a laptop a lot in high school (my school was a bit ahead of the curve and required all freshmen to bring a laptop) but it was pretty much only to take notes or write papers. The interactive piece wasn't really there yet. Unless you count emailing with the guy sitting right next to me during English class... but that brings me right back to my point. High schoolers ALWAYS want to be talking to each other. That's why one of the biggest challenges of classroom management is to get them to just stop talking for a while. But why is that the goal? Aren't their voices equally as valuable as the teacher's? If there's one thing that's really sunk in in my time in the MAC program, it's that people don't learn passively. It's the rare, dedicated bookworm that can learn well from lectures (*raises hand*). And because I do learn well in that style, it's required some stretching of my mental boundaries to fully realize that this is not at all the case for everyone, and that if I hope to be a truly successful teacher, I'm going to need to shift away from the mentality of "telling as teaching".
All of which is to say: Liz convinced me that cell phones can be a fantastic tool for making all student voices heard. One challenge I have encountered in my first stumbling forays into teaching is the difficulty of making on-the-fly assessments of the whole class. If I ask a question of the whole class and get a correct answer, well, I know that student understands, but chances are they are the same student who answers questions every day. This type of evaluation doesn't tell me the really valuable information: who DOESN'T get it.
Enter cell phones. I am envisioning a class in which we have some sort of collaboration tool set up and projected on the wall (Celly, Poll Everywhere, etc.) Students have their phones out, ready to answer any questions. At particular moments in the class, I solicit the whole class's ideas. Students use their phones to submit answers. If any student doesn't have a phone, or if the activity requires a smartphone, students can share in pairs and just pass off the phone for the other to submit their answer. The whole class's ideas come up on the screen - anonymously - and I can quickly get an idea of where the class is, and they in turn can see where their response stands in relation to their peers'. The conversation continues, enriched and shaped by both correct and incorrect answers, or just a variety of ideas, contributed by the students.
Liz helped me see that this model could really work. It's all about reaching students where they are. Students at my placement have their phones out all the time. They're not bad kids - they're just bored and itching for that sense of contact. If I could provide that contact to them in the form of a legitimate classroom activity, I think the buy in could be very high. Students would have greater ownership over the class conversation and even the quiet ones would have their ideas heard. Another benefit is that silence would no longer be a requirement - I could see all student answers even while there was a general level of chatter in the room (which is almost always in our class, I'm afraid).
The important thing is I can actually see this happening in a classroom now. There's a lot of details to think about, but I might even try to launch it as part of the "January restart". I am grateful to Liz to helping me to open my eyes to a whole new world of possibilities. And when I teach, I'll be sure to always ask my kids: "What do you like to do?"
Monday, September 30, 2013
Issues of access
As Ed Tech has been getting back into full swing for the fall, I have also been getting settled into my placement at Detroit School of the Arts. And as we have been discussing ways of using technology in the classroom, one major issue keeps coming up for me again and again: access.
I loved Rory's presentation about a fun way to get to know your students and for them to express themselves. It sounds like a great tool that creates classroom community and produces valuable information for the teacher. But I couldn't help but think about how it would be all by impossible at my placement. We have a laptop cart, sure, but when we tried to turn them on with our mentor, something like 6 out of 25-30 turned on successfully, and we couldn't log in to half of those. Even if we could get all 30 on, how would that work with our class of 40? (Never mind that we had 50-60 for the first three weeks of school.)
So I can't help but be a little frustrated. I wish I could think about fun ways to use technology with my whole classroom, but the resources simply aren't there. And the sad fact is that this is true at many, many schools. Additionally, based on student surveys we administered as an assignment for our Methods course, several of our students don't have a computer and/or internet access at home, and some don't have a smartphone. These challenges are reality. And the fact that it's a minority of students doesn't matter - for any strategy to be equitable, it must be accessible to all my students, and if even one student can't participate, I can't use the strategy. There are many computer labs at our school, but since the students don't have any free periods during the day, and are often busy with extracurriculars after school (or need to get a ride or bus home immediately - our students live scattered around Detroit, so they can't walk home), I feel I can't assign any work that requires computer use outside of the classroom. It's a conundrum.
Of course, in the future, an important and accessible answer to this problem is to seek funding for resources for my classroom. A set of Chromebooks, a document projector, iPads, etc. That is certainly a route I will pursue in the future, especially after seeing what having technological resources for my whole class can do. But this solution doesn't work for my current situation, and I admit to feeling some frustration. That said, I appreciate having the experience of teaching in a high needs environment (relatively speaking - DSA is quite well off as far as Detroit schools god) while my peers experience very different settings because I am learning in a very concrete way what differences in resources and opportunity mean for the learning of students.
I loved Rory's presentation about a fun way to get to know your students and for them to express themselves. It sounds like a great tool that creates classroom community and produces valuable information for the teacher. But I couldn't help but think about how it would be all by impossible at my placement. We have a laptop cart, sure, but when we tried to turn them on with our mentor, something like 6 out of 25-30 turned on successfully, and we couldn't log in to half of those. Even if we could get all 30 on, how would that work with our class of 40? (Never mind that we had 50-60 for the first three weeks of school.)
So I can't help but be a little frustrated. I wish I could think about fun ways to use technology with my whole classroom, but the resources simply aren't there. And the sad fact is that this is true at many, many schools. Additionally, based on student surveys we administered as an assignment for our Methods course, several of our students don't have a computer and/or internet access at home, and some don't have a smartphone. These challenges are reality. And the fact that it's a minority of students doesn't matter - for any strategy to be equitable, it must be accessible to all my students, and if even one student can't participate, I can't use the strategy. There are many computer labs at our school, but since the students don't have any free periods during the day, and are often busy with extracurriculars after school (or need to get a ride or bus home immediately - our students live scattered around Detroit, so they can't walk home), I feel I can't assign any work that requires computer use outside of the classroom. It's a conundrum.
Of course, in the future, an important and accessible answer to this problem is to seek funding for resources for my classroom. A set of Chromebooks, a document projector, iPads, etc. That is certainly a route I will pursue in the future, especially after seeing what having technological resources for my whole class can do. But this solution doesn't work for my current situation, and I admit to feeling some frustration. That said, I appreciate having the experience of teaching in a high needs environment (relatively speaking - DSA is quite well off as far as Detroit schools god) while my peers experience very different settings because I am learning in a very concrete way what differences in resources and opportunity mean for the learning of students.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
The Next Big Thing(TM)(R)(C)
I knew that the education field was prone to fads, but it seems all this standardized testing malarkey (great word, non?) just makes the situation worse. There's always someone trying to throw their hat in the ring, to establish new standards that are somehow better than those that came before. Then comes the new tests. It's exhausting and I haven't even been in the middle of it yet.
I'm suspicious of the whole Common Core/Smarter Balanced Assessment thingamajig (cool words is the theme of this post, I think). I do appreciate Rory bringing this to our attention - particularly to the SBA - because my initial response when he asked us to jot down what we knew about it was "No idea." And Rory has convinced me that that was a problem - that we definitely should know that this is coming down the turnpike and we should be braced for impact. Perhaps a violent metaphor... but then I think the obsession with standardization is violence being done to our education system.
I might have strong opinions on the matter.
Anyway! I appreciate being forewarned about the disaster so we can at least think ahead and prepare as well as we can. The brainstorming we did in class may turn out to be incredibly valuable in the not so distant future. So I thank Rory and Jeff for making space for that conversation in their classroom.
We also had another, much more splendiferous, conversation about different ways to apply the game that was demonstrated in our different content areas. I love that the notion of games is branching away from pure video games and into thinking about how the thought processes and teamwork involved in game play and puzzle solving can be brought into classrooms in many creative ways. I know I will be alert to such possibilities in the future.
I'm suspicious of the whole Common Core/Smarter Balanced Assessment thingamajig (cool words is the theme of this post, I think). I do appreciate Rory bringing this to our attention - particularly to the SBA - because my initial response when he asked us to jot down what we knew about it was "No idea." And Rory has convinced me that that was a problem - that we definitely should know that this is coming down the turnpike and we should be braced for impact. Perhaps a violent metaphor... but then I think the obsession with standardization is violence being done to our education system.
I might have strong opinions on the matter.
Anyway! I appreciate being forewarned about the disaster so we can at least think ahead and prepare as well as we can. The brainstorming we did in class may turn out to be incredibly valuable in the not so distant future. So I thank Rory and Jeff for making space for that conversation in their classroom.
We also had another, much more splendiferous, conversation about different ways to apply the game that was demonstrated in our different content areas. I love that the notion of games is branching away from pure video games and into thinking about how the thought processes and teamwork involved in game play and puzzle solving can be brought into classrooms in many creative ways. I know I will be alert to such possibilities in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)