SoundOut.org – Student Voice, Student Action

Some of you Generation YES teachers will remember Adam Fletcher, who was lead customer support last year (before Megan came on board.)

Adam has been hard at work on his non-profit organization, SoundOut. SoundOut provides tools, training, and resources to promote student voice in school to realize the powerful and purposeful possibilities of meaningful student involvement.

Adam’s latest article, Making Student Involvement Meaningful, can be found on the SoundOut website. In it, he writes:

Lots of people have thought about why students have changed so much. Media infiltration, commercialism and technology usage have all been cited as sources that have changed the experience of learning in today’s schools. However, as educators search for answers, the drivers who fuel these changes have largely been ignored: students themselves. Rather than working with students to help understand and negotiate why, how, when, where and what they learn, educators, administrators and school leaders have largely changed schools for students, and done change to students, without their ideas, concerns or actions in mind.

Adam goes on to explain how educators can create the necessary conditions for student voice to flourish, how to evaluate it, and make it meaningful.

If you are interested in student voice, be sure to explore the rest of the SoundOut site. It’s packed with ideas, free resources, and useful research.

One Laptop Per Child

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project is an global education project that is working to make it possible for developing countries to purchase laptops for their children. OLPC was founded by Nicholas Negroponte with a core of Media Lab veterans, and is based on the pioneering work of Seymour Papert, the father of educational computing and constructionism, who has spent his life putting the power of computational technology into children’s hands.OLPC in NigeriaVery recently, beta laptops were delivered to children in Nigeria. This would seem to be a cause for celebration, however there has been much skepticism about the plan. It’s too complicated to go into all the arguments for and against this plan, but two of them are of particular interest to us here at Generation YES.

One objection seems to be centered around the personality of Mr. Negroponte. He’s been called “pushy” “overbearing” “self-aggrandizing” and much worse. This sounds really familiar to us. I’ve heard many of these things said about Dennis Harper and others who have a passionate belief that it is their responsibility to change the world for the better. It takes a big personality to dream up big changes, challenge the status quo, and make them happen.

The second objection is that the OLPC implementation plan is based on “magic” – that handing out laptops to children will fail because there is no implementation plan. This is of course ridiculous and silly name calling. People may not like the plan–it’s clearly revolutionary because it focuses on children, not the adults. Read more here.

The alternative plans often touted typically involve first teaching teachers how to use the laptop, giving them carefully scripted lessons to teach the children, developing educational software for them, and then carefully phasing in laptop use by actual children. (Sound familiar?)

I was recently asked to do a guest blog on the OLPC News website (not affiliated with the OLPC project.) OLPC News tries to be an “independent source for news, information, commentary, and discussion” of the OLPC project. Although it skews towards skepticism, they do try to be fair overall. They asked me to share some insight on how our Generation YES experience might shed some light on the OLPC project. I did so in this guest blog post on their site.

I realized it would be a somewhat hostile audience, but it’s worth it to get the message out that Dr. Papert’s pioneering work and belief in “Kid Power” is not magic. Generation YES schools are testaments to that.

I hope I made some good points and don’t get hammered too hard in the comments!

Constructivist Celebration @ NECC

Constructivist Celebration logoJoin colleagues in a daylong celebration of creativity, computing & constructivist learning at the beautiful Atlanta Botanical Garden on June 24th, 2007. This is the day before the National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) in Atlanta, GA starts.

The Constructivist Celebration is the inaugural event for the new Constructivist Consortium, an industry cooperative designed to showcase software and curriculum products that support creativity, constructivist learning, and student empowerment.

Peter Reynolds and Gary Stager kick the day off with an inspirational keynote address. Then it’s your turn to jump into exciting hands-on projects led by some of the nation’s finest ed tech leaders. The day ends with an opportunity to share your creations and a panel discussion, Sustaining Constructivist Learning, featuring leaders of LCSI, Generation YES, Schoolkit, Tech4Learning, and Fablevision.

In addition to a day full of learning adventures, your registration includes a southern barbecue lunch and a fabulous collection of materials.

  • LCSI will provide each participant with a single-user license copy of MicroWorlds EX & MicroWorlds Jr.
  • Tech4Learning will provide each participant with a single-user licensed copy of Frames, Pixie, ImageBlender, WebBlender & Twist.
  • Materials from other members of the consortium will also be available.

We have invited the TechYES students and teacher from nearby Barber Middle School to participate as well.

The Constructivist Celebration @ NECC
June 24, 2007, 9:00 – 4:00 PM
Atlanta Botanical Garden
Atlanta, Georgia

All for only $25!

Find out more and register today at:

http://www.constructivistconsortium.org

Register today! Space is extremely limited!

When blogging becomes a teacher-centered activity

Recently, teachers have come up to me at conferences and say they had turned off the GenYES or Generation TECH blog tools because “the kids write too much.” At first I was surprised that student writing would be a problem!

But in thinking about it, it dawned on me that the the problem wasn’t student writing, it was teacher reading. The teacher was a bottleneck, and the teacher-centric view of how the blog worked (students write, teacher reads) was clearly causing this problem. What’s worse, could our tool design be reinforcing this?

When we first introduced the GenYES blog, we decided to roll it out in a limited way. We know people don’t like change. We said to our long-time teachers, “it’s just like the old journal tool.” Maybe that was a good way to ease it in, or maybe that was a mistake.

What we did notice is that the student use of the blog over the journal immediately went up, jumping significantly in just a few days. The first year saw ten times the posts of the previous year in the journal tool. We saw more writing, longer passages, and more reflection. It was obvious that the students saw the blog as a “real world” tool and knew exactly how it was supposed to be used. So much for media literacy training — students knew what to do because they had seen it outside of school. And they used the blog as intended, for appropriate, on-task writing about how they were collaborating with teachers to use technology in their school.

That all seems like good news–but is the blog tool really working to create a student-centered experience or is it reinforcing a teacher-centric approach?

Do we need to revisit it to make it more peer editable, so that students can act as blog-leaders? Do we need to add more features? Do the introductory lessons and activities need to change? What can we do to make it more student-centered and less teacher-centered?

Our goal is to facillitate the student-centered collaboration that goes on in Generation YES classes with the best tools available. The floor is yours.

Educational software that doesn’t work

OK, so here’s the list of software evaluated in the USDOE study of educational software. No surprises here, it’s pretty much what I predicted after the initial headlines – big publishers, big test prep.

The good news is that these products are great examples of outmoded uses of computers in schools. They are what people are running from in the search for the latest Web 2.0 tools. learning games, and open-ended creativity tools.

Here’s the list:

First grade reading software (11 districts and 43 schools. 158 teachers and 2,619 students.)

  • Destination Reading (published by Riverdeep)
  • Waterford Early Reading Program (published by Pearson Digital Learning)
  • Headsprout (published by Headsprout)
  • Plato Focus (published by Plato)
  • Academy of Reading (published by Autoskill)

Fourth grade four reading products (nine districts and 43 schools. 118 teachers and 2,265 students.)

  • Leapfrog (published by Leaptrack)
  • Read 180 (published by Scholastic)
  • Academy of Reading (published by Autoskill)
  • KnowledgeBox (published by Pearson Digital Learning)

Sixth grade math products (10 districts and 28 schools. 81 teachers and 3,136 students.)

  • Larson Pre-Algebra (published by Houghton-Mifflin)
  • Achieve Now (published by Plato),
  • iLearn Math (published by iLearn)

Algebra products (10 districts and 23 schools. 69 classrooms and 1,404 students.)

  • Cognitive Tutor Algebra (published by Carnegie Learning)
  • Plato Algebra (published by Plato)
  • Larson Algebra (published by Houghton-Mifflin)

It’s a good thing – knowing what was evaluated means we can move on to better uses of computers in education. There has been some discussion around the web that the methodology used for this study is faulty, and that may be true. Wes Freyer also posted some links to research done about educational technology that is much more credible.

But I’m happy if this study helps people conclude that money used for technology test prep is being wasted, and opens up opportunities for authentic, student-centered technology use.

Keep hope alive!

Headlines that won’t help

This morning’s news brings the exciting headlines Education Technology Isn’t Helping, and Study: No benefit going high-tech for math and science, because of a new study released today by the US Department of Education.

Sigh – this is SUCH old news, there has been decades of research showing that drilling kids does nothing, even if you pretty up it up with fancy names and graphics.

But our language for this stuff is so limited. The headlines SHOULD read, “Bad Educational Practice Proved Ineffective, Again!” But no, it gets called “educational software” or “educational technology”, tars every use of computers in the classroom, and immediately gets tied to EETT funding. It’s an obvious conclusion, although the Washington Post gets it sort of right, Software’s Benefits on Tests In Doubt: Study Says Tools Don’t Raise Scores.

OK, if I thought test scores actually proved anything, I might care about that.

But here’s what I care about.

Now, every time we talk about kids doing interesting stuff that involves a computer, we’ll get hit with this. Making movies, programming, blogging, collaboration, projects, kids making games, exploring virtual worlds, GIS, Google Earth? What are you thinking, haven’t you heard? Educational Technology Doesn’t Work.

Here’s what’s worse:
1. These publishers are getting off scot-free. Why is the USDOE not publishing the actual evaluation of the individual software products. Isn’t this public information? This allows individual publishers to hide behind the report. Didn’t we as taxpayers pay $10 million for this information?

2. The apologists will shortly come out. “It’s just bad implementation.” “Teachers need more support.” C’mon people, let’s speak the truth and make meaningful distinctions between educational software that pretends to replace teachers and technology that gives students agency and supports a learning community.

I hope everyone out there who is doing great stuff with kids and computers speaks up in the face of these headlines and shows what “educational technology” really means.

Sylvia

Update – here’s the study. It’s called: Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort. And guess what, the first sentence of the summary already says it’s about “education technology.” That’s just plain sloppy.

Did You Know…

This video was created by Karl Fisch, technology coordinator at Arapahoe HS in Colorado for a back-to-school presentation for his staff. Karl runs a staff development blog where he and his staff (and many times, students) discuss constructivism and 21st century learning.

The video is a mashup of different facts about globalization and predications for the future. I’d love to hear about student reaction to this video and any classroom discussion. I don’t think students will see it as being “scary” as adults might. Students might want to make their own videos about their vision of the future.

The version embedded here has been slightly modified by Scott McLeod to remove the school specific references that Karl originally had in the video. Scott’s blog posting also has it in various downloadable formats.

17 Intentions of an Effective Teacher

(posted with permission of Don Mesibov, The Institute for Learner Centered Education)

The Foundation
Underlying classroom practices

  1. Safe and nurturing environment – do you create a classroom environment where students feel free to think critically and express their views without fear?
  2. Public speaking – do you structure lessons that require and nurture public speaking, in pairs and small groups as well as in front of the entire class?
  3. Opportunities for success – do you provide every student with frequent opportunities to experience “success”?
  4. Validation of student work and responses – do you let each student know when his or her efforts are praiseworthy?

The Exploratory Phase
The beginning of the lesson or unit

  1. Grab attention – do you begin class in a manner likely to encourage students to look forward to what comes next?
  2. Prepare students to engage – do you create activities that focus student thinking, excite their imaginations, and prepare them to meet and exceed the learning standards.
  3. Assess and access prior knowledge – do you design activities that will help students (and you) to access and assess their prior knowledge, interests, and needs?

The Discovery Phase
The part of the lesson in which students learn and demonstrate they are meeting the learning objectives of the lesson

  1. The learning objectives – do you clearly state the one, two, or three specific things you want your students to learn? Have you cast these specific objectives in terms of what your students will understand, relate to, perform or create? Are the objectives aligned with appropriate learning standards?
  2. Authentic task – do you frame learning tasks that are as authentic as possible and that will allow students to demonstrate their skill with or understanding of the learning objective(s)?
  3. Ownership – do you create learning tasks that enable students to feel pride and assume responsibility for their own learning?
  4. Options – do you offer students optional ways to accomplish the learning task, and therefore reach the learning objectives(s)?
  5. Multiple intelligences – do you offer students frequent opportunities to utilize their stronger intelligences (recognizing that there are going to be times when they will also have to rely on their weaker ones)?
  6. Appropriate resources – do you make sure that the resources necessary to accomplish the assigned student-centered activities are available, or can be made available, to students?
  7. Interventions – do you look for opportunities (teachable moments) to intervene either in response to student questions or in reaction to student work, by “working the room” while students are engaged in an activity?
  8. Cognitively rich questions – do you seize every opportunity: to intervene in student work with questions that require students to think critically; to phrase task questions to require critical thinking; and to require students to create their own cognitively rich questions that create disequilibrium?
  9. Reflection – do you, during a learning experience, create opportunities for students to think about their thinking, to assess their progress and their decisions thus far? Do you, at the end of each day’s lesson, provide students with a brief closure activity that elicits evidence of something students have learned as a result of the lesson?
  10. Assessment measures – do you utilize multiple forms of assessment to judge student performance, including effective use of rubrics? Is instructional improvement the primary reason you assess students? Is teacher observation structured to be the most meaningful form of assessment?

Copyright (c) 2005, Institute for Learner Centered Education.


The Institute of Learner Centered Education website offers a number of valuable resources for the constructivist educator, including definitions, resources for applying standards-based constructivism to lessons, a journal, and an email newsletter that always includes thoughtful information like these 17 Intentions. A nice opportunity for constructivist educators is the Institute’s annual summer conference (July 23 – 27) at Grand Island, New York, within sight of Niagara Falls. This unique conference models constructivist teaching and learning — no talking heads here! Visit The Institute for Learner Centered Education for information.