Having just completed our CEESA (Central and Eastern European Schools Association) Conference, I'm filled with the usual flurry of ideas running around my head.
The keynote, Tom Guskey, was excellent with his presentation on the follies of our current grading practices. If I follow the theme of this blog regarding educational change, I'm not sure if there is a topic bigger than that of "how we grade" to make a difference.
But since I was a presenter at the conference I'll be a little selfish and share some thoughts and questions that I'm still trying to answer.
Initially, I intended a solid session from Bill Mackenty from the American School of Warsaw who shared how he is working with staff there to integrate tech more using the SAMR model. Interesting stuff.
It led in nicely to a session I led on trying to link tech-based simulations to standards and benchmarks. My premise is this: (and I say all of this with a big question mark, looking for some guidance and feedback)
When we consider "content-based" technology solutions (think simCity, not Skype, wikis, etc.), there are two general camps and most solutions tend to fall on one side or the other - seldom in the middle.
In Group 1: Some technology solutions are strictly content based, and targeted specifically at standards.. (Mavis Beacon, online math sites, etc.) While these sites are usually much easier to integrate into the classroom, and they are most likely more successful at helping students reach a specific few standards (compared to teaching without the technology), they are quite narrow and algorithmic. We could call them educationally "efficient" uses of technology to teach specific skills or content- helping students learn multiplication tables faster than they would without the technology. But they do little to transform education.
In Group 2: Simulations (simCity, World or Warcraft, Farmville, etc.) offer excellent examples of Project Based Learning (and Challenge Based Learning). However, they are so open-ended that I believe teachers have trouble implementing them into the classroom unless they are willing to put in a large amount of time linking them to standards. Or, alternatively, they may want to neglect the standards to some degree in an attempt to get at more engaged, holistic learning. Despite their practical limitations, this group offers the potential to transform learning if done correctly.
My presentation is asking why we don't have more technology-based applications that link specific content into open-ended learning where students make choices in a dynamic, authentic environment? We reviewed 2 examples which I would consider this "middle ground" - based in enough content to be easily used by the teacher, and flexible and open-ended enough to place students in authentic situations where they will need to make decisions in a complex environment:
1) simCEO
2) Jason Science
And we ask the same question in two different ways:
1) What are some other examples of technology that fall into this middle ground?
2) At what point are we going to provide a structure where strong teachers who have ideas galore for these types of projects can tap into the development world of technology to make them available for students on a large scale?
For example, in what way could creative teachers use technology to put students in open-ended, authentic, complex, (collaborative?), "choose your own adventure" types of learning tasks centered around specific content goals such as:
a) photosynthesis
b) man versus nature (in relation to a specific book, perhaps)
c) international coalitions for regime change
d) individual rights vs. collective security
I know of many teachers who teach these concepts in fascinating, authentic ways. But why aren't we tapping into these ideas to produce technology integration ideas that can do it for us - better.
Or, to put it another way: Why don't we use the students' natural engagement with simulation-based learning to modify World of Warcraft to teach specifically about American History?
Any thoughts? Let me know. I'd love to hear em.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
one-to-one computing webinar and CEESA conference
A great opportunity for those of you who are interested in making the transition to a one-to-one computing environment.
This webinar from DyKnow is scheduled for March 10.
Here's the link to the registration page and the webinar summary overview.
Presented by: Kyle Berger, Executive Director of Technology Services
Alvarado Independent School District
Seventy percent of students who attend the Alvarado Independent School District (AISD) are considered economically disadvantaged. Just like everywhere else, budgets are strapped and money is tight. So how is this district two years in to a one-to-one computing initiative?
In this webinar you will learn about the innovative strategies and groundbreaking ideas used by AIDS’s Executive Director of Technology Services Kyle Berger. As a change agent and thought leader, Kyle gathered support from local businesses, board members, parents, teachers and students. You will learn about what it took to plan this program and ongoing implementations. A question and answer session will follow the event so come ready to ask questions and gather insights.
I'm busing preparing for the upcoming CEESA (Central and Eastern European Schools Association) Conference presentation on March 17-19. CEESA is an organization of international schools in the region.
The write-up of the presentation is shared below, and I'll post the slideshow of the presentation and notes after the conference.
This session will be an interactive session in which participants will share and walk away with examples and ideas applicable for the classroom.
The session will consist of:
1) a brief explanation and list of criteria defining 1) Project Based Learning 2) Challenge Based Learning, and 3) Authentic Assessment
2) briefly sharing a few simulations which come close to meeting these criteria:
a) content based simulations: Jason Science and simCEO*
b) open-ended simulations: Farmville and World of Warcraft
3) briefly sharing the benefits of using simulations in the classroom and the potential barriers/solutions that these same simulations pose in terms of assessment practices
4) collectively sharing other effective simulations that session participants have used
5) a collective discussion about the potential for and challenges with developing simulations for use in classrooms
This webinar from DyKnow is scheduled for March 10.
Here's the link to the registration page and the webinar summary overview.
Presented by: Kyle Berger, Executive Director of Technology Services
Alvarado Independent School District
Seventy percent of students who attend the Alvarado Independent School District (AISD) are considered economically disadvantaged. Just like everywhere else, budgets are strapped and money is tight. So how is this district two years in to a one-to-one computing initiative?
In this webinar you will learn about the innovative strategies and groundbreaking ideas used by AIDS’s Executive Director of Technology Services Kyle Berger. As a change agent and thought leader, Kyle gathered support from local businesses, board members, parents, teachers and students. You will learn about what it took to plan this program and ongoing implementations. A question and answer session will follow the event so come ready to ask questions and gather insights.
I'm busing preparing for the upcoming CEESA (Central and Eastern European Schools Association) Conference presentation on March 17-19. CEESA is an organization of international schools in the region.
The write-up of the presentation is shared below, and I'll post the slideshow of the presentation and notes after the conference.
This session will be an interactive session in which participants will share and walk away with examples and ideas applicable for the classroom.
The session will consist of:
1) a brief explanation and list of criteria defining 1) Project Based Learning 2) Challenge Based Learning, and 3) Authentic Assessment
2) briefly sharing a few simulations which come close to meeting these criteria:
a) content based simulations: Jason Science and simCEO*
b) open-ended simulations: Farmville and World of Warcraft
3) briefly sharing the benefits of using simulations in the classroom and the potential barriers/solutions that these same simulations pose in terms of assessment practices
4) collectively sharing other effective simulations that session participants have used
5) a collective discussion about the potential for and challenges with developing simulations for use in classrooms
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Challenges, Opportunities, and Inspiration
Sometimes it's great to step back from the trees and see the forest. It always leaves me energized and confirms that we're all involved in the most important process in the world - educating for tomorrow.
While the challenges are many - so are the opportunities.
The videos entertain and point us in the right direction.
Enjoy. Get inspired. Take some action.
Sir Ken Robinson - Changing Education Paradigms
CoSN (Consortium for School Networking) - Learning to Change, Changing to Learn
While the challenges are many - so are the opportunities.
The videos entertain and point us in the right direction.
Enjoy. Get inspired. Take some action.
Sir Ken Robinson - Changing Education Paradigms
CoSN (Consortium for School Networking) - Learning to Change, Changing to Learn
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Bridging Content, Purpose, and Collaboration: Jason Science Reviewed
Reviewing Jason Science
Thinking, writing, and acting with a focus on education today can seem frustrating sometimes - change seems to happen slowly and the potential seems limitless. However, it’s worth acknowledging resources that really are working and changing the way that teaching/learning occur.
In previous posts, we explored three applications that bridge the gap between content, collaboration, and purpose as easy access points to initiate change. One such resource noted in the earlier post was Jason Science and for those of you not familiar with it, you should be. It’s a great resource that scores very high on placing students in an authentic context - thinking and acting like historians, mathematicians, writers, artists, or (in this case) scientists.
The site is geared for middle school students and combines a traditional online textbook with actual research and expeditions undertaken by scientists in the field. Topics then culminate with analysis of the scientist’s findings as well as a call to action for students to conduct their own research. For example, a unit on Plate Tectonics begins with a chapter on geology with the following culminating activity, known as a mission.
From Jason Science: Tectonic Fury, Mission One
To begin this assignment, you will analyze Dr. Wise’s geochemical data collected from rocks around Sebago Lake in Maine to determine the concentration levels of the element tantalum in different areas. From this analysis, you will determine areas which contain high enough concentrations of tantalum for practical mining. Once you have completed the analysis of Sebago Lake, you will analyze your local geology. Using maps and samples collected in the field, you will develop a model of locations in your area which are economically practical for collecting commercially valuable rocks.
Jason Science is a subsidiary of the National Geographic Society, and the site delivers content with print, text, and digital media. While some elements are for sale, a great deal of the curriculum materials are available free of charge online.
The materials are an excellent example of authentic learning, but fall short of being called Challenge Based Learning. (Review the criteria again.)
Another nice touch is the personalization of the content with specific scientists who are shown and briefly introduced. That small piece of personalization, the wealth of content accessible in many formats, and (most importantly) the analysis of real research and the extending challenge/mission of personalizing the concepts to the student’s context, can only help reduce the all-too-familiar student refrain “why are we learning this stuff?”.
It’s worth a visit, and share the site with someone else who you think might be interested.
Changes in the way students learn don’t happen everyday, we need to reward examples that are making a difference.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Death of Education, Dawn of Learning
I've taken the title of this post from an inspirational video that really speaks to the urgency of our job as educators.
The video comes from the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), and obviously includes some technology heavyweights sharing their insights on the future of learning and technology's role with that process.
I found this video on another great blog site called Digital Chalkie.
Thought-provoking stuff. The implications of such a change obviously require decisions from national systems, Boards of Education, and school design experts. But I'd like to connect this topic to the theme of my blog at a classroom level, and ask two questions:
What 2.0 technologies are out there that teachers find engage students in collaboration and authentic applications of content?
2) When we view the new model of technology/education (as it is shared in this video) are we better off:
a) setting up these innovative (and different) types of schools and then comparing their (hopefully improved ) results as an indicator of the new model's effectiveness. In essence, transforming education by leaving the old system behind entirely and signing on new "believers" through data/perceptions?
or
b) developing and sharing technologies that assist and support the existing structures (schools/teachers) to apply this new model of learning within their current environment so that a slower but steady groundswell of opinion builds more quickly for the much-needed change to the system.
Obviously, these options are not exclusive of one another. But which is a more effective model to bring about change?
The video comes from the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), and obviously includes some technology heavyweights sharing their insights on the future of learning and technology's role with that process.
I found this video on another great blog site called Digital Chalkie.
Thought-provoking stuff. The implications of such a change obviously require decisions from national systems, Boards of Education, and school design experts. But I'd like to connect this topic to the theme of my blog at a classroom level, and ask two questions:
What 2.0 technologies are out there that teachers find engage students in collaboration and authentic applications of content?
2) When we view the new model of technology/education (as it is shared in this video) are we better off:
a) setting up these innovative (and different) types of schools and then comparing their (hopefully improved ) results as an indicator of the new model's effectiveness. In essence, transforming education by leaving the old system behind entirely and signing on new "believers" through data/perceptions?
or
b) developing and sharing technologies that assist and support the existing structures (schools/teachers) to apply this new model of learning within their current environment so that a slower but steady groundswell of opinion builds more quickly for the much-needed change to the system.
Obviously, these options are not exclusive of one another. But which is a more effective model to bring about change?
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Hardware with Innovation Potential
Our posts thus far have focused on the software innovations that have the potential to change education. But lets give some fair time to the school design and hardware issues that are also moving things forward as well.
One interesting innovation is the SOLE (Self-Organized Learning Environments) idea being developed by Sugata Mitra. His entire concept raises some thought-provoking questions, but the idea that most intrigues me is the development of these SOLEs, and the potential they have to MAKE us change our approach.
One interesting innovation is the SOLE (Self-Organized Learning Environments) idea being developed by Sugata Mitra. His entire concept raises some thought-provoking questions, but the idea that most intrigues me is the development of these SOLEs, and the potential they have to MAKE us change our approach.
I also wanted to share an interesting idea article from the Washington Post which was featured on a daily emailing I receive from SmartBrief on EdTech (which I recommend as well). My favorite line from the article, discussing the future of education as we contemplate all of these tech changes, states that we'll see a "hybrid model between in-person classes that leverage technology and online classes that replicate human interaction"
I second that.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Evaluating Sites as Effective Problem-Based Technologies: Dreambox, simCEO, and simCity
Our last post developed the criteria for effective educational technology solutions - solutions that have the ability to transform education by integrating Challenge/Project-Based Learning. We outlined criteria that would help develop resources like the Oregon Trail with 2.0 technologies.
Today, we’ll apply these criteria to a few resources, knowing that it is next to impossible to find sites that meet all the criteria. And I’m hoping others can share sites that they feel merit attention!
We’ll start with a quick review of our criteria before reviewing the following three sites.
DreamBox : K-3 Math site
simCEO: cross-curricular simulation primarily for HS/MS economics
simCity: cross-curricular simulation primarily for MS/HS social studies
(Criteria to evaluate effective technology solutions for Challenge/Problem-Based Learning)
What we need then, are educational technology solutions that meet the following criteria:
1) are naturally engaging, placing students in authentic situations which require students to “think like mathematicians / historians / scientists / …” as they apply knowledge and construct their own understandings.
2) are collaborative (and take advantage of Web 2.0 technologies where applicable), promoting an environment that requires learners to discover and make meaning of content together in order to be successful
3) are tied closely enough to content to merit an easy integration in the classroom, but flexible enough so that objectives in varying complexity / disciplines can be met
3b) are naturally holistic connecting multiple disciplines, contrasted with solutions that allow for extension activities that MIGHT possibly be added to provide connections to other disciplines
4) have a timely (immediate) feedback mechanism, whenever possible
5) allow learning to occur on the learner’s schedule in a relaxed environment
6) meet as many of the other characteristics of best practices in Brain-Based Learning and Project/Challenge - Based Learning as possible.
There are numerous examples of effective uses of technology into which content is naturally embedded - and I define effective technology as “able to re-define how learning occurs” contrasted with simply being a more efficient deliverer of traditional learning. A few examples that I like are WebAssign or Jason Science.
But we’re looking for effective examples of Challenge/Project-Based Learning technologies into which content is either embedded or inherent. So, lets get right into applying our criteria to our three sites.
Dreambox Learning
Summary: A K-3 math site which operates in a closed environment (teachers register and then add their students) in which individual students navigate their way through on online map by answering math problems along the way. Think Dora the Explorer solving math problems to find the treasure ! The instructions/problems go beyond mere computation and offer exercises in truly understanding concepts such as place value. The lessons are personalized to the student’s past navigation and a longitudinal record of growth is shared. Parents can access result as well.
Review: As a multi-award winner, Dreambox has a lot of offer and scores quite well in the latter criteria, numbers 3-6. The immediate feedback and longitudinal record of progress are true assets. The site lacks any inherent collaboration for students - perhaps not surprising given the students' age. While I can attest to the natural engagement for students from my own daughter’s personal experience, Dreambox does not perfectly fit the criteria of asking students to “think like mathematicians” in order to succeed in the environment. As mentioned, the tasks themselves are well-developed and aim at mathematical understanding, not necessarily number-crunching. However, the authentic task (navigating the map) is not mathematical in itself. The math lessons are “breaks” along the way of this navigation instead of useful in navigating the terrain.
simCEO
Summary: (full disclosure, author is the co-creator of this site)
A MS/HS cross-curricular closed simulation (teachers register and then add their students) in which students:
Participants "win" in one of two ways:
Review: SimCEO scores well on all six criteria with two potential weaknesses.
The primary asset of simCEO is that is engages the students in an authentic task that is easy to understand. Students are engaged and excited to succeed. The environment also allows teacher to customize the simulation for age groups or specific outcomes.
The drawbacks:
1) The “content” involved is inherent and not directly stated. This allows more instructor creativity, but poses potential problems because specific content cannot be evaluated as effectively/objectively as DreamBox
2) The collaboration is limited. Individual students have a running message board with the instructor, but not each other. And, while students benefit from seeing how other students respond to specific situations (by reading each others’ business plans, portfolios, and the adjustments to each along the way), individual participants* do not interact with each other to further one another’s knowledge and collaboratively provide a solution to the authentic task. (*Exception: Multiple students can be grouped to constitute an individual)
simCity
Summary: You have to be hiding to have not heard of simCity. What began as software that allowed users to create / develop their own cities within a dynamic environment, has expanded now to include additional stand-alone programs focused on creating “destinations”, “societies”, and an added module that allows a more detailed look at transportation issues within simCity.
Review: (note: I have not experienced all the modules mentioned above.)
simCity provides an intriguing and engaging environment for students to apply skills. It scores high on our 6 criteria. The obvious benefits include the clearly defined authentic task that students are engaged in. There are 3 potential downsides.
1) The simulation engages students in the multi-faceted skill of “city-building”, asking students to apply higher-order skills in an authentic environment. However, the content inherent in city-building does not lend itself easily to traditional classroom content. Creative teachers will need to carefully develop their outcomes and structure the simCity environment in such a way as to allow students to apply their knowledge of this content successfully.
2) The finished product is not, in itself, a product that addresses the content. Whereas, in simCEO or Dreambox, the process of the simulation leads to products and natural feedback on content (understanding of math problems (for DB) or analysis of news, investment decisions, or persusive business writing (for simCEO) ). simCity instructors must build in these formative and summative assessment prompts into the simulation.
3) Similar to simCEO, the simulation does not provide inherent collaboration between students who are working to come up with one solution. It could also be argued that there is no obvious "winner" and solutions need to be evaluated much more subjectively.
All three are effective classroom tools. They simply represent examples of what is possible. I’d love to hear of others that stack up well on the proposed criteria. Lets get them out there.
I close this little mini-analysis by sharing an interesting note I picked up from one of my favorite blogs regarding gaming in education: Play Think Learn. From a March 26 post, Nicola Whitton shared Three challenges for game-based learning
The latter two (of the three) have significance for further developing our list and the challenges that remain for educational game programmers in developing effective technologies. She shares:
As always, your thoughts are welcome and needed.
Today, we’ll apply these criteria to a few resources, knowing that it is next to impossible to find sites that meet all the criteria. And I’m hoping others can share sites that they feel merit attention!
We’ll start with a quick review of our criteria before reviewing the following three sites.
DreamBox : K-3 Math site
simCEO: cross-curricular simulation primarily for HS/MS economics
simCity: cross-curricular simulation primarily for MS/HS social studies
(Criteria to evaluate effective technology solutions for Challenge/Problem-Based Learning)
What we need then, are educational technology solutions that meet the following criteria:
1) are naturally engaging, placing students in authentic situations which require students to “think like mathematicians / historians / scientists / …” as they apply knowledge and construct their own understandings.
2) are collaborative (and take advantage of Web 2.0 technologies where applicable), promoting an environment that requires learners to discover and make meaning of content together in order to be successful
3) are tied closely enough to content to merit an easy integration in the classroom, but flexible enough so that objectives in varying complexity / disciplines can be met
3b) are naturally holistic connecting multiple disciplines, contrasted with solutions that allow for extension activities that MIGHT possibly be added to provide connections to other disciplines
4) have a timely (immediate) feedback mechanism, whenever possible
5) allow learning to occur on the learner’s schedule in a relaxed environment
6) meet as many of the other characteristics of best practices in Brain-Based Learning and Project/Challenge - Based Learning as possible.
There are numerous examples of effective uses of technology into which content is naturally embedded - and I define effective technology as “able to re-define how learning occurs” contrasted with simply being a more efficient deliverer of traditional learning. A few examples that I like are WebAssign or Jason Science.
But we’re looking for effective examples of Challenge/Project-Based Learning technologies into which content is either embedded or inherent. So, lets get right into applying our criteria to our three sites.
Dreambox Learning
Summary: A K-3 math site which operates in a closed environment (teachers register and then add their students) in which individual students navigate their way through on online map by answering math problems along the way. Think Dora the Explorer solving math problems to find the treasure ! The instructions/problems go beyond mere computation and offer exercises in truly understanding concepts such as place value. The lessons are personalized to the student’s past navigation and a longitudinal record of growth is shared. Parents can access result as well.
Review: As a multi-award winner, Dreambox has a lot of offer and scores quite well in the latter criteria, numbers 3-6. The immediate feedback and longitudinal record of progress are true assets. The site lacks any inherent collaboration for students - perhaps not surprising given the students' age. While I can attest to the natural engagement for students from my own daughter’s personal experience, Dreambox does not perfectly fit the criteria of asking students to “think like mathematicians” in order to succeed in the environment. As mentioned, the tasks themselves are well-developed and aim at mathematical understanding, not necessarily number-crunching. However, the authentic task (navigating the map) is not mathematical in itself. The math lessons are “breaks” along the way of this navigation instead of useful in navigating the terrain.
simCEO
Summary: (full disclosure, author is the co-creator of this site)
A MS/HS cross-curricular closed simulation (teachers register and then add their students) in which students:
- CREATE their own companies
- RESEARCH each others' companies online
- TRADE: Manage a portfolio of $10,000 by buying and selling shares in each others' companies which immediately influences share prices.
Participants "win" in one of two ways:
- “winning” entrepreneurs create the business that ends with the highest share price
- “winning” investors end with the largest portfolio value
Review: SimCEO scores well on all six criteria with two potential weaknesses.
The primary asset of simCEO is that is engages the students in an authentic task that is easy to understand. Students are engaged and excited to succeed. The environment also allows teacher to customize the simulation for age groups or specific outcomes.
The drawbacks:
1) The “content” involved is inherent and not directly stated. This allows more instructor creativity, but poses potential problems because specific content cannot be evaluated as effectively/objectively as DreamBox
2) The collaboration is limited. Individual students have a running message board with the instructor, but not each other. And, while students benefit from seeing how other students respond to specific situations (by reading each others’ business plans, portfolios, and the adjustments to each along the way), individual participants* do not interact with each other to further one another’s knowledge and collaboratively provide a solution to the authentic task. (*Exception: Multiple students can be grouped to constitute an individual)
simCity
Summary: You have to be hiding to have not heard of simCity. What began as software that allowed users to create / develop their own cities within a dynamic environment, has expanded now to include additional stand-alone programs focused on creating “destinations”, “societies”, and an added module that allows a more detailed look at transportation issues within simCity.
Review: (note: I have not experienced all the modules mentioned above.)
simCity provides an intriguing and engaging environment for students to apply skills. It scores high on our 6 criteria. The obvious benefits include the clearly defined authentic task that students are engaged in. There are 3 potential downsides.
1) The simulation engages students in the multi-faceted skill of “city-building”, asking students to apply higher-order skills in an authentic environment. However, the content inherent in city-building does not lend itself easily to traditional classroom content. Creative teachers will need to carefully develop their outcomes and structure the simCity environment in such a way as to allow students to apply their knowledge of this content successfully.
2) The finished product is not, in itself, a product that addresses the content. Whereas, in simCEO or Dreambox, the process of the simulation leads to products and natural feedback on content (understanding of math problems (for DB) or analysis of news, investment decisions, or persusive business writing (for simCEO) ). simCity instructors must build in these formative and summative assessment prompts into the simulation.
3) Similar to simCEO, the simulation does not provide inherent collaboration between students who are working to come up with one solution. It could also be argued that there is no obvious "winner" and solutions need to be evaluated much more subjectively.
All three are effective classroom tools. They simply represent examples of what is possible. I’d love to hear of others that stack up well on the proposed criteria. Lets get them out there.
I close this little mini-analysis by sharing an interesting note I picked up from one of my favorite blogs regarding gaming in education: Play Think Learn. From a March 26 post, Nicola Whitton shared Three challenges for game-based learning
The latter two (of the three) have significance for further developing our list and the challenges that remain for educational game programmers in developing effective technologies. She shares:
- The commercial focus on the development of behaviourist learning games, which highlight repetition of fairly trivial tasks, because they are easy to design and easy to evaluate the immediate learning impact. I’m not saying behaviourism doesn’t work, or that it doesn’t have a place in learning, but simply that if the focus is on behaviourist games then we are missing out on a big opportunity. While many games exist that clearly show higher-level learning (for example, the lateral thinking, problem-solving and strategizing required in the Zelda games) these have not yet been translated into games for formal learning.
- The barriers to entry into the field for most educators. Except in areas such as computing and engineering, it is almost impossible for a teacher with a good idea to develop a learning game, which means that innovation is limited to commercial developments (where markets for sophisticated constructivist games are unproven), research projects or enthusiastic individuals in technical disciplines (where the outputs are often unsustainable) .
As always, your thoughts are welcome and needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)