Author: sylviamartinez

Sylvia Libow Martinez is an education change agent, writer, speaker, consultant, engineer, maker, and mom.
Posted on

Constructivist Celebration in the Northwest

The first ever Constructivist Celebration in the Pacific Northwest is an opportunity for you to let your creativity run free with the world’s best open-ended software tools in a collaborative setting with enthusiastic colleagues who share your commitment to children, computing, creativity and constructivism. You might think of this as a spa day for your mind and soul!

Pacific Northwest Constructivist Celebration
Saturday May 16, 2009
Puget Sound ESD (Renton, WA – Seattle area)

Participants will enjoy the day’s activities, complimentary creativity software and a hearty lunch all for just $55. This event is a joint effort between the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), the Northwest Council for Computer Education (NCCE), and the Constructivist Consortium.

Dr. Dennis Harper, founder of Generation YES will be there too!

Go to www.constructivistconsortium.org for more information and to register. Space is limited and past events have sold out quickly.

Sylvia

Posted on

Student-built computer/projector cart project

This terrific idea just came in from Don Kinslow, a GenYES teacher at Parkview Elementary in Chico, CA. His students built carts with computers and projectors, ready to go for classroom use.

Aaron the Cart Quality Inspector
Aaron, the Cart Quality Inspector

Here’s his story:

Step 1: I had cancelled a regularly scheduled GenYES meeting the week before we went out for Winter Break because many of the students told me that they had other obligations in preparation for Chanukah and Christmas. To my surprise, several students (Karla, Rosa, Aaron, Monique, Ana Cristina, Evangelina and Rebeca) showed up anyway begging to do something GenYES-like. So, I gave the okay. The students formed teams to work on this really fun and exciting project.

Step 2: Each team received a box with a computer cart to build, a refurbished computer, an LCD projector, a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, speakers and a 25 foot long power strip. I showed them a cart that I had already built and prepared with all the technology devices. Then after observing my cart, they got to work…or was it play?

Step 3: The teams opened their cart box, read the instructions and started putting together what must have seemed like a 3D puzzle. Once the carts were built and ready for the technology devices, Rebeca and her GenYES friends decided to name their carts as if they were newborns. So, instead of Cart 1, Cart 2, and Cart 3, we got Mia Pink, Banana 2, and Roly Poly. Next, the teams got to work on setting up the refurbished computer, an LCD projector, a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, speakers and a 25 foot long power strip on the newborn carts. This part was more challenging for the teams. Even though they had my example to work from, the quantity of cables to connect was difficult for a few of the students. So, Aaron, a 6th grader, who seemed to have more experience with this type of task, took on the role of Quality Inspector.

Step 4: With the computer carts finished and test run, GenYES students took them to their new classrooms and introduced Mia Pink, Banana 2 and Roly Poly to the receiving teachers. Of course, the teachers were super excited to get their new carts!

This is a terrific idea, and not simply because the teachers got equipment pre-configured and ready to plug in. It also gave a strong message to the whole school community that students can and will be responsible partners in using technology. These students built something of value, not for a grade, but for pride, and learned a lot while doing it. And yes, the names the students gave the carts are cute, but there’s more than meets the eye here as well.

Giving students ownership of their own learning is more than an abstract idea. In an institutional environment where everything is bland and uniform, having an identity stands out. Ownership can be simple and concrete, like the idea of giving the carts names or decorating them. Suddenly, they become more than just the object by itself. They start to represent the children – and are special, just like the children themselves.

If you doubt this, just ask these kids if Mia Pink, Banana 2 and Roly Poly are better than the other carts without names!

Sylvia

Posted on

Off to Qatar

This week I’m off on a new adventure – I’m an invited speaker at the ICT Conference 2009: Exploring ICT in Education in Doha, Qatar. I’ve never worked in this part of the world and I’m looking forward to meeting new people from Qatar and other Middle Eastern countries. They’ve asked me to talk about games in education and of course, student voice and student involvement in technology integration to support education.

Qatar seems like a fascinating place, I’ve read up a bit about it (Wikpedia has a nice article) and I’m looking forward to learning more. The first thing I learned is that I didn’t even know how to pronounce it – I assumed it was “kah-TAR”, and it’s actually more like a cross between “gutter” and “cutter” although I’m sure that’s not exactly right either.

The country has a focus on education as their path to the future; these days looking beyond their oil revenues seems like a really smart policy.

Sylvia

Posted on

Lessons Learned: Please teach kids programming, Mr. President

The focus on “21st century skills” while scrupulously avoiding the only real new 21st century skill completely puzzles me. This post nails it… please read…

So all I’m asking, on behalf of the thousands of nerds who could one day change the world for the better, is that we give them access to simple, open, programmable devices; a little time to work on them; and a safe space to work in. They’ll take it from there. They don’t need adult supervision, or a certified curriculum. If we network them together, they’ll answer each others’ questions and collaborate on projects we can hardly imagine.

– Eric Ries of Lessons Learned Please teach kids programming, Mr. President

Sylvia

Posted on

Tinkering as a mode of knowledge production in a Digital Age

From the “Carnegie Commons” – Tinkering as a Mode of Knowledge Production in a Digital Age.

The MacArthur Foundation brought together educators, “tinkerers,” curators, artists, performers and “makers” to grapple with questions around ensuring that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully and creatively in public, community, and economic life.

These interviews from five of the participants were produced to provide some insights into the thoughtful and passionate conversations from that convening.

These videos make connections between tinkering, innovative ideas, the idea of making work public as in a studio, creativity and collaboration, the ability to incorporate criticism, and more. Well worth watching!

I posted my own thoughts about students having “tinkering time” with technology a few weeks ago and it’s quickly risen to be one of the most looked at articles on this blog. It’s especially important as educators work hard to figure out how to make education more relevant to students and to connect to the real world.

Seymour Papert, the father of educational computing, often used the French word bricolage to describe the kind of playful attitude both children and scientists use to tinker, build, test, and rebuild their way to solving problems. Bricolage has the additional advantage (besides being cool sounding) of implying that you are using materials that you find around you – a very eco-green idea!

Problem-solving in schools is typically taught as an analytical process with clear plans and steps, like the “scientific method.” But bricolage is clearly closer to the way real scientists, mathematicians and engineers solve problems. Sure, they make plans. But they also follow hunches, iterate, make mistakes, re-think, start over, argue, sleep on it, collaborate, and have a cup of tea. Bricolage encourages making connections, whereas School tends to like “clean” disconnected problems with clear, unambiguous step-by-step solutions.

“For planners, mistakes are steps in the wrong direction; bricoleurs navigate through midcourse corrections. Bricoleurs approach problem-solving by entering into a conversation with their work materials that has more the flavor of a conversation than a monologue. ” – Papert & Turkle

For more on the concept of bricolage and computers, Papert’s book, The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer is the one to read. If you want to get a taste, the Math Forum has a nice synopsis of it on their website.

Sylvia

* Note: the Papert & Turkle quote is from their seminal paper, Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. I found this on the Edutech Wiki, hosted by the University of Geneva.

Posted on

The disconnect in science education

Every year, Project Tomorrow administers the annual SpeakUp survey of students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Every year, we hear from U.S. students that they are fascinated by technology, love learning, and want more. Results from the over 300,000 participants in the 2008 survey should be available soon.

While we wait, let’s look at some interesting data from the science questions from 2007.

In the U.S., STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) is a hot topic these days. Pundits bemoan the lack of basic science literacy, blame American students for apathy, and predict we will be crushed by global competition. But who ever asks students what they are interested in or how best they learn?

In looking at the report, Inspiring the Next Generation of Innovators: Students, Parents and Educators Speak Up about Science Education, you immediately see the glaring inconsistencies in how students learn, what fascinates and excites them, how teachers want to teach, and what’s actually happening in classrooms. What does it mean for the future when less than 40 percent of these students see learning science as important for making informed decisions in the future? How does that square with the same students reporting that they “…are open to learning science and pursuing STEM careers—intrigued by opportunities to participate in hands-on, group-oriented, “fun” experiences, as well as by opportunities to meet with professionals and use professional-level tools.”

It’s obvious that students are experiencing a disconnect. They are interested and intrigued by science — but not in school.

  • Students report that their especially fun or interesting learning experiences using science and math have been hands-on and group-oriented.
  • Students are interested in pursuing careers in STEM fields — when they know about them.
  • When asked about the essential features of their imagined ultimate science classroom, the leading answer for students in grades K-2 and in grades 9-12 was “teachers excited about science”. Students in grades 3-5 were more interested in “fun experiments” (69 percent). Other highly essential features for students in grades 3-12 were “real tools” (standard lab and technology-based tools) and being able to do “real research,” including online research on computers.

Imagine that — students want teachers who are inspired and inspiring, who bring the classroom to life with real world tools and examples. These teachers are out there, students want and need them, but apparently are getting them too rarely.

This disconnect is reflected in the teacher responses as well.

  • Just 25% of teachers say they’re using inquiry-based methods with their students; methods that both educators and researchers argue are essential for the development of scientific literacy.
  • Only 16 percent of teachers reported they are assigning projects that help students develop problem-solving skills.
  • Teachers report that 21st century tools and projects would help — but lack the time and funding to implement them, and feel constrained by mandated curriculum.

But the biggest disconnect is that most K-12 school administrators don’t see this problem. Here’s the percentage of each category that gave a passing grade to their school for preparing students for jobs of the future.

K-12 Administrators: 57%
Teachers: 47%
Parents: 47%
Students: 23%

This perception gap is a crucial indicator that we are not only failing our students in providing the relevant, inquiry-based, hands-on science education they hunger for, but that we are fooling ourselves about it. What’s worse?

Full report (PDF)

Sylvia

Posted on

Magazines for the (technology) classroom bookshelf

source: stock.xchngSome of the best resources for a technology-using classroom are not found online! Technology projects need support and ideas from outside sources, and books and magazines can be terrific for that. Plus they come in a convenient format that is easy to carry, share, and sits neatly on the desk while doing the real work on the computer.

Magazines can inspire, inform, and offer fresh ideas. And they shouldn’t just be stuck in the back bookshelf, these resources can be used in whole class lessons, be resources for projects, and be part of an always up to date classroom library.

Many Borders and Barnes & Nobles have expanded their magazine sections to include magazines you may never have seen before. Browse these racks with an eye open for articles and visuals that can teach about design, media literacy, art and photography, do it yourself projects, and provide inspiration.

If you find a magazine you really like – consider getting a subscription. And yes, I know, it’s not free, but subscriptions are always a good thing to ask parents to purchase! Look for deals, these magazines are often discounted heavily with special offers for additional books or CDs. And don’t worry about them disappearing, because they will; just think of it as making room for new stuff. So if you find an article that is the basis for a really good project or lesson, be sure to make a high quality copy of it and tuck it away somewhere!

Magazines and their accompanying online resources are a great way to get inexpensive, up-to-date ideas and resources into the classroom. In this case, more is better because you never know where inspiration will come from and which student will resonate with an idea. Of course, with any materials not specifically written for the classroom, it’s up to you to be the ultimate judge about appropriateness!

Here’s a couple of magazines to consider:

Craft and Make – These two magazines are new, but have become instant classics. They celebrate the inventor in all of us, and show you how to do it with a decided techno beat. Every issue is packed with do-able, make-able projects that can be adapted for classroom use. The photos show how real people have constructed these projects, which makes them very real and accessible. The websites are also treasure troves of videos, podcasts, blogs and forums.

Before & After: How to Design Cool Stuff – this is a beautifully designed magazine about design. Some of your secondary students may be enthralled by the notion that every object that humans make is speaking a secret language that can be better understood. Color, placement, symmetry, use of fonts and typeface, and more are all dissected in clear language and beautiful pictures. The magazine is available in print, or even less for individual articles or in PDF form. There is also a blog that dissects design found in everyday objects. This latest post analyzes the new Pepsi logo design from a historical perspective, as a consumer brand, and as design. It’s fascinating!

Photography, Video, Audio magazines – There are quite a few magazines on these subjects, however, you have to be careful that the magazine is not all product reviews of stuff you frustratingly can’t afford – you may want to just pick up an issue on the newsstand now and then when you see a great article. Books are the better bargain here, and I promise to do a book roundup soon.

Computer specific magazines – if you have Macs and/or PCs, why not get magazines that cater to those platforms? They are fun reads, full of reviews, tips and tricks of the hardware that some kids will just soak up like sponges.

I recommend buying a month or two on the newsstand first. Some of these magazines (not the ones below) are simply advertisements disguised as magazines and not worth the money. Here are some of the tried and true:

Mac Life or MacWorld – C’mon, for less than $20 a year you get either of these great magazines with reviews, news, projects and access to a website full of videos and blogs. They are similar, but Mac Life has a bit of “attitude” while MacWorld is a bit more sober — so try them both and pick which works best for you and your students.

ICreate – For Macs, based in the UK. This one is a litter harder to find, but worth it. Gorgeous, with amazing ideas for creative projects.

PC World and PC Magazine – Again, two main choices with slightly different viewpoints.

Tech support and troubleshooting – if you have students helping with tech support, the magazines above are a great addition to the technical library. There is one online magazine that might be a real hit with older tech-savvy students – TechRepublic. Their emailed newsletters are full of tips and resources for network administrators and tech support professionals. This is going to be over the head of most students, but for some of those who are heading for technical professions, it’s a snapshot into the world of an IT career.

Last but not least – Wired magazine. This one is not project oriented, but explores the high tech frontier of all fields from around the world. The articles are well written and dense, but if we want students to learn how to be citizens of the 21st century, we should be sure that they at least get a glimpse of it.

Wired does have a “how to wiki” – and this could be a great source of project ideas. Featured today is an article on recycling e-waste. What a great project for a student or group of students! Does your school recycle computers, printers, and batteries? Could students form a committee to investigate this and propose a plan? All the facts are here to support this cause.

Sylvia

Posted on

Does peer review work? Thoughts on conference session selection.

So here’s something interesting from my inbox!

Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that “peer review works well as it is.” (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).

“A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research.” (Horrobin, 2001).

Horrobin concludes that peer review “is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance.” (Horrobin, 2001). This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors. (full text and references)

I got this email from the International Symposium on Peer Reviewing: ISPR being organized in the context of The 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication and Management: KGCM 2009, which will be held on July 10-13, 2009, in Orlando, Florida, USA.

I assume that I got on their mailing list because of my post from almost a year ago, Conference 2.0 – changing how sessions are selected. In that post, I mentioned the KGCM conference and how these experts are investigating how people learn at conferences and are questioning how conference sessions are selected.

In the past year, I’ve read many blogs wondering about conference sessions and the selection process. Many use a form of “peer review”, meaning that people who are presumably peers of the paper author or conference session presenter rate the submission and determine whether or not it gets selected. Academic journals use peer review as a means to claim that their articles are superior to those found in lay magazines, books, or other sources. And many conferences use this same technique to select sessions, whether or not there are academic proceedings that result from the conference.

So this research not only calls into question the methodology of selecting conference sessions, it questions that whole academic tradition of journals representing the highest level of publishing and “truth” about current research in any field. They find that the principle of peer review is well-regarded, but that the methodology and implementation is flawed. Doesn’t that sound familiar…

If peer review is a flawed process, what does that say about conference session selection? You have to ask yourself, would a completely open selection process, where everything is out in the open be more in keeping with the principle of fairness and making sure best practices and research are shared to benefit all?

Would an open selection process for conference presentations be more or less prone to favoritism, self-promotion, populism, and cronyism than the current process? Is that just throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

If you are interested in joining a conversation about improving conferences, check out this social network created by the Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education (AACE) — Spaces of Interaction. They are having an online conversation Feb 18-20 with interactive live sessions.

And by the way, what does this say about school librarians who insist that students use only peer-reviewed journal articles for their research. Do they have a leg to stand on anymore?

Sylvia

Posted on

See you at PETEC

Well, I’m heading back to the other coast once again to attend the Pennsylvania Educational Technology Expo & Conference in Hershey, PA. I’ve never been to this conference before, so that’s always fun!

Chris Champion of Cumberland-Perry AVTS is doing a session called, “My First Year with a GenYES Student Tech Team” on Monday 2/9 at 10:15AM. I’m really looking forward to being in the audience for this one!

We are hearing so much about GenYES students from all over the country stepping up to the plate in these rough financial times to help their schools keep a vibrant technology vision alive. GenYES We Can!

Love to meet more PA folks – so email me or send me a Twitter and we’ll get together!

Sylvia

Posted on

Educon 2.1

The second year of anything is always a test of faith against the sophomore slump. Expecting lightning to strike twice is hardly a good bet, so I approached the second year of the Educon conference with deliberately low expectations. Last year, the first year, was brilliant and amazing, so how could it be any better? Whatever happens, happens – and I was prepared for pretty much anything, or so I thought.

But it happened just like last year – the conversations were meaningful, I went to lots of great sessions, the social events were all too much fun.

What I didn’t expect was to gain so much new clarity about the issue of student voice and teacher voice as the crucial element in creating the kind of learning environment I want to promote in schools. Maybe it all seems blindingly obvious that I would figure this out after having worked to promote student empowerment through technology for the last eight years, but it really hit home as I watched the interactions between the students and teachers at Educon.

I’ve talked before about the Science Leadership Academy (SLA) and Chris Lehmann, their inspirational principal. (Read last year’s blog post about Educon: I’m the luckiest teacher in Philadelphia) He’s a big part of the reason this school exists, why Educon exists, and his mastery of this domain is apparent. And he’s hired a great bunch of teachers who care about kids’ minds and hearts. But I’ve seen lots of adults who walk easily with youth, with the kind of two-way trust and respect that makes you believe that anything is possible.

What is different at SLA is the feeling that it’s more than students “being heard” or “being liked” or even “being taught” — any one of those is hard enough in many schools.

It’s much more complex and intertwined with teacher voice. Teachers being listened to and taken seriously, given responsibility and trusted to be education professionals. It’s like the whole community has a voice – trust and responsibility, respect and care, and everyone who comes in the circle gets the same treatment. You notice it at first in the small gestures and acts of kindness, the ease with which intellectual challenge is assumed as the norm, and then you start to see it everywhere, between kids, teachers, and staff, and extended to us, strangers and visitors to their school.

And I also saw clearly how the expression of teacher and student voice is not just about social action, or being a change agent, it’s about taking charge of learning, of facilitating choice and agency in the academic process. I saw teacher voice being honored in choosing avenues of learning with their students, teachers being respected by students because of it, students taking their choices seriously, and the resulting mutual responsibility to get the job done and not let each other down.

This kind of learning is often caricatured by the “back to basics” crowd as contentless and rudderless, but it’s simply not true. Charting a unique course doesn’t mean you let go of the tiller.

Hoping that you can replace teacher passion and knowledge with a checklist results in kids knowing that something is wrong. Students need to see teacher expertise, and they know full well when it’s missing or if the system doesn’t care about it. One silent voice in the chain means every voice is lessened.