I’ll write that app for you

classRecently, MIT App Inventor featured a story about Pauline Lake, a Trinty College student in Connecticut who developed and runs an app invention class for high school students. Curious, I gave Pauline a call and we talked about her idea and how the class has run.

App Inventor is a set of tools and resources to write software applications (apps) for the Android phone. Google has given/shared the Android App Inventor with MIT so it is freely available for all to use. EdWeek has also profiled a couple of programs where young people learn to write apps.

But Pauline’s story struck me. Here was one young college student who wanted to do something to help other young people learn important skills. Pauline told me that she is pursuing two majors, education studies and computer science, and that she is the only one at her college doing that. She went on to talk about how she has shaped her course and the resources over several trials in local schools, learning what works best to engage high school students. She’s even taught students as young as 4th to 6th grade how to program apps. Although she’s won awards for her work (and met Michelle Obama at the White House), she worries that the programs won’t continue. However, she is working to spread the idea locally and with presentations at STEM conferences in her area.

But most of all what impressed me was her pride in her students and the changes that a simple programming class had brought to their lives. When you talk to Pauline, it is not difficult to see that creating engaging learning experiences in computer science for young people really matters.

Her resources and lesson plans are all free online on her website.

Sylvia

Learn how to be a constructivist teacher in a digital world


Constructing Modern Knowledge
 is back for a 5th year, July 9-12, 2012 in Manchester, NH.

This year’s CMK 2012 promises to be bigger and better than ever before!

Guest speakers include award-winning filmmaker Casey Neistat; MIT Media Lab professor and Lilypad Arudino inventor, Dr. Leah BeuchleyMark Frauenfelder, Editor-in-Chief of Make Magazine, Founder of BoingBoing.net and author of Made By Hand: Searching for Meaning in a Throwaway WorldExpert educator and advocate for “the project approach,” Dr. Lilian Katz and Web phenom, Super Awesome Sylvia.

The Big Night Out in Boston will begin with a reception at the world-famous MIT Media Lab, hosted by Dr. Leah Buechley.

Register today! Space is extremely limited!

This will be my fifth year on the faculty of this amazing summer institute for teachers and I hope you will join us!
Sylvia

PS I am NOT super-awesome Sylvia. But I can’t wait to meet her!

Young activists tackle bullying prevention

Anne Collier of Net Family News has collected some examples of youth-led responses towards solving bullying in their schools and communities. As you know at Generation YES, we believe strongly that youth-led initiatives are an outstanding way of involving youth as leaders and problem-solvers. These initiatives can really make a difference!

Read more about:

  • The Voice – a program where high schools students buddy with younger students to become “hallway friends” and become mentors and role models.
  • Torin Hovander in Albuquerque, NM and his friends who started a bullying prevention club in their high school. Their goal is to raise awareness and spread the club to all 13 district high schools.
  •  Aidan McDaniel and friends who hold a “friend zone” at his West Virginia school’s cafeteria so that students can have a safe place to eat.

As Anne concludes, “There are so many things about these social-good projects to celebrate, including that young people 1) aren’t waiting around for adults to end bullying and social aggression, 2) are taking positive, supportive action in diverse ways that are meaningful to them, 3) are showing a remarkable level of commitment to solving the social aggression problem, 4) instinctively get what the research says, that the solution is not punishing individuals but changing the community’s culture and 5) are creating that school climate through a collective, whole-school approach. They are modeling the respect they so deserve!”

Congratulations to all the students profiled!

Sylvia

2011 Student Speak up results

From Student Speak Up press release

INTEREST IN MATH AND SCIENCE CAREERS SPARKED IN CLASSES WHERE LEARNING IS DIRECTED BY STUDENTS AND SUPPORTED BY TECHNOLOGY

Just Nine Percent of Student Describe Their Most Recent Math and Science Classes This Way; More than 40 percent Still Describe Traditional Format

Nearly one-third of high school students who experience math and science classrooms where instruction is led by teachers, learning is directed by students and where technology is used to support both, express a strong interest in a STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) career, according to the latest findings from the 2011 Speak Up survey. Nationally, just nine percent of students described their most recent math or science class this way.

Only 20 percent of students in traditional classrooms, where the instruction is teacher directed and the use of technology is limited, expressed the same interest in STEM careers.

“This is the first time we’ve noticed this correlation between the type of math and science instruction and the students’ interest in STEM careers,” said Julie Evans. “For a nation concerned with developing the next generations of scientists, engineers and innovators, this finding should raise some eyebrows.”

When asked to describe their most recent math or science class, the majority of middle and high school students chose one of these three classroom paradigms:

  1. Traditional class with teacher-directed instruction – lectures, textbook assignments, group projects and labs (43 percent)
  2. Traditional class with teacher-directed instruction as in #1, but with some technology used to support instruction (33 percent)
  3. Traditional class with a mix of teacher-directed instruction and student-directed learning and the use of technology tools to support both teachers and students (9 percent)

“For three-quarters of today’s students in grades 6-12, math and science class is still much like it was when we adults were in school: predominately teacher-centered with little or no opportunities for students to direct their own learning, at their own pace, with their own tools,” said Evans.

“Think about that in contrast to what is being called for by the new Common Core Standards for math. The Common Core approach is based on teachers laying out a specific task and inviting the students to dig in and solve the problem using appropriate tools and resources,” explain Evans. “If our schools are able to implement this type of teaching and learning, the potential for interest in math and science should grow.”

These findings can be found in a Speak Up 2012 report, Mapping a Personalized Learning Journey – K-12 Students and Parents Connects the Dots with Digital Learning.

This year’s survey findings also show:

  • Significant increase in students’ mobile Internet access outside of school with more than half of all students (urban, suburban and rural) reporting access through 3G/4G mobile devices.
  • Middle and high school students’ access to a personal tablet device doubled from 2010-2011 (26 percent of middle school and 21 percent of high school students now report personal access to a tablet).
  • Students are adopting technologies and then adapting them to support their own self-directed learning (tweeting about academic topics, tutoring other students online, using mobile apps to organize school work, used Facebook as a collaboration tool for classroom projects, etc.).

The 2011 online survey – completed by more than 416,000 K-12 students, parents, teachers, librarians and administrators – offers the largest collection of authentic, unfiltered input on education and technology from those ‘on the ground’ in the schools.

Scalability as empowerment, not replication

More often than not when I hear about some wonderful teacher or promising educational innovation there is an immediate reaction of “well, that’s not scalable.” It’s  a knee-jerk reaction, especially for Americans. We believe in big. We believe that bigger is better, from highways to space stations, and we need to do it at a large scale. This expansion and replication by being the biggest and bestest is seemingly in America’s DNA.

But it often strikes me that the best and most ingenious solutions to human problems are not large scale. They rely on personal relationships at the core. One person making the right decisions and making things happen.

For example, If you think about the problem of people getting the food they need – low cost, delicious, nutritious food – there are many local community farm to table programs that have had tremendous success. These programs encourage people to grow their own food. Better yet, they empower them not only to participate in the farming of food, but to form a supportive community that cares about feeding the hungry, how to get the food to those people, attention to nutrition, teaching, and more.

People are empowered when they have control and choice, and the when solution to eat properly comes from themselves and people they know and trust, it’s a better solution.

So, great! We have a solution – now, the big question – how does it SCALE?

Well, it’s not obvious.. should we recreate necessary infrastructure – the pieces and parts? Can we document the process of making a local farm to table program, interview participants, determine best practices, create instruction manuals and worksheets? Should we then we then hire a bunch of people who go into positions of authority in new areas to recreate the program?

Do you see a problem? I do…

Not everything scales the same way. Just like an ant would be crushed under it’s own weight if it were the size of elephant, not every process, practice, and program can survive a “scaling up” process that is based on replication. It disempowers the individual, and tends to create uninteresting meals that people wouldn’t want to eat anyway.

What’s gone wrong is the assumption that scaling requires replication. But we need models, you say? How would the “clones” know what to do without being told?

And therein lies the problem. The empowerment is what needs to be replicated, not the procedures.

The way to solve a big problem is not to duplicate small solutions, it’s to allow new small solutions to flourish, all slightly different because humans are different, communities are different, and that’s ok. In fact, that adaptability is what makes them work. It’s what distinguishes human solutions from bureaucratic solutions.

The answer to “is it scalable?” must be yes – if you allow the central core, the “what” to remain small, adaptable and nimble.

Last year when I was at TEDxNYED, there were lots of great talks, but the comments I heard afterwards all were about scaling. Why can’t every classroom be an incubator of science discovery like Brian Crosby’s? Why can’t at-risk kids build amazing robots like in Gary Stager’s classroom in that Maine youth prison?

What we are told is that you can’t guarantee that every teacher is a Brian or a Gary, that these few and far between “magic teachers” are required to make these miracles happen.

But it’s just not true. We are looking down the wrong end of the telescope at this problem. The problem is that we think that what these people do, and who these people are is the secret ingredient that must be replicated. That’s not the way. What needs to be replicated is empowering new people to take up the reins and try it their own way, to follow these pioneers and make it on their own, in their own way.

The mistake is thinking the scalability is replication, when it’s empowerment.

But you know what comes next. “What makes America great is how we scale up! Big problems need big solutions! We built the highway system across the continent, put a man on the moon, etc. Schools are broken and we need a big solution and we need it now!”

Not every problem is a moon shot or a highway. I know we love to compare everything to the U.S. highway system. But think about it, the highways are not monolithic, every offramp has to be individually designed to fit into the existing cities, roads and natural elments. No one in their right mind would design a single offramp and expect it to work for every exit from east coast to west.

And in schools, where the learning is constucted anew each and every day, we can’t expect teachers to use the same methods as every other teacher. The highway planner can design an overpass once and it will remain in place for decades. The teacher has no such luxury. Learning opportunities can’t be designed once and delivered endlessly. The  human mind of the learner is a constantly growing, changing entity, not an empty uncaring slab on which to chisel. It’s not the same, not in the least, and certainly not as an example of “scaling.”

If we expect to scale up these kinds of examples of student learning, students have to be empowered. And for students to be empowered, you have to empower teachers. That’s the ONLY way to scale up a real solution for America’s schools.

Sylvia

Engagement, responsibility and trust

A few weeks ago I was on a panel for a Connected Learning webinar with Howard Rheingold:  Social Media and Peer Learning: From Mediated Pedagogy to Peeragogy.

Webinar archive here…

Early on, Howard talked about the idea that responsibility and trust work together. This is something I’ve been saying for a while. Here’s a graphic that I frequently use in my talks.

empowerment cycle
Feel free to use — with credit!

All these things are interrelated. I think we completely miss the boat when we talk about Digital Citizenship. Mostly it’s about rules and things students shouldn’t do. The word citizenship is such a good clue – it’s about belonging to something bigger than yourself. Engagement is part of that.

You often hear people talk about how technology is so “engaging” for kids. But that misses the point. It’s not the technology that’s engaging, it’s the opportunity to use technology to create something that is valued by the community and by yourself. Yes, a new device can be entertaining for a while, but when the novelty value wears off, what are you left with?

Engagement is not a goal, it’s an outcome of students (or anyone) doing meaningful work. Meaningful to themselves AND to the community they are in. Meaningful because someone trusted them to do something good and they shouldered the responsibility. Engagement is not something you DO to kids or you GIVE kids, it’s the outcome of this cycle of experiences.

Howard was talking about giving students in graduate school the responsibility to be co-creators of learning, the trust that that engenders, and the engagement and empowerment that ensues.

I think this can (and should) happen in K-12 education as well.

Sylvia

EdGamer podcast: Khan Academy, gamification, and constructivism

I was recently a guest on the online podcast show EdGamer with Zack and Gerry, part of the EdReach network. We had a great back and forth on all sorts of issues, ranging from Khan Academy to the gamification of education, and how  constructivism looks in the real world.

It was great fun and I hope you enjoy it!

EdGamer 47: Is Khan Academy a Monday Solution?

A snip from my blog post on KA that gave Zack the idea for the title of the podcast.…This is the Monday… Someday problem – the fact that even if a teacher changes everything in their classroom, nothing else in the system will change. How can one argue for a long term (Someday) overhaul of math curriculum, pedagogy and assessment when you know even if it does change, it’s going to be long time from now, and you have kids coming in on Monday who need to pass a test on Friday that will depend on them memorizing a bunch of facts and skills? What good does it do to fight when the system not only doesn’t care, but will slap you down for it.

Unfortunately, Khan Academy is a simplistic “what do I do on Monday” solution that is being hyped as a Someday solution. If you have a long-term vision that in any way aligns with more open-ended, more constructivist learning, Khan Academy is not a step on that path. It’s a “more us, more us” solution.

You can’t expect an instructionist solution like Khan Academy to pair with, or even more implausibly, eventually turn into a constructivist solution.

Instruction begets instruction.

See more about my views on Khan Academy here: Khan Academy posts: implications for math education

Free webinar: The voices of girls & women and the future of STEM

Girl Scout Research Institute STEMinar: The voices of girls & women and the future of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math

When: Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Time: 2PM EDT (time in your time zone)

This “STEMinar” will bring together experts from diverse backgrounds and different sectors of the STEM work force to speak about the current status of girls’ interest and engagement in STEM fields, as well as current efforts to diversify the STEM workforce by boosting the number of women in STEM careers in the next decade.

We will highlight new research from the Girl Scout Research Institute, along with exciting new mentoring initiatives from Women@NASA, science education programs from the New York Academy of Sciences, and outreach efforts to college STEM majors from Johns Hopkins University.

Reserve your Webinar seat now!

Generation STEM: What Girls Say about Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (2012)

To replicate, to remediate, or to reinvent – the 3 Rs of education

I meet a lot of teachers in my work. It’s interesting to listen to their stories about who they are and how they became teachers. I’ve noticed that there seems to be a real split in the ranks about the reason they became teachers.

On one side are teachers who themselves had a good experience in school. They generally were successful and their mission is to create those same kinds of experiences and memories for the children they serve. They are replicating their own experience.

On the other side are teachers who feel the school system failed them. Some dropped out, some rebelled, some got horrible grades, but at some point in their lives they decided to dedicate themselves to righting that wrong. They are determined to create different kinds of experiences and memories for the children they serve. They are remediating their own experience.

I don’t know any other profession where there is such a polarization. And yes, of course this is a generalization. You can’t expect to split a large and varied group of people into two neat groups (let’s not get all left brain/right brain here now.)

But there is a point to be made. Replicators and remediators bring two divergent world views to the table. This disparity can become a problem when we try to talk about how to change education, because we hear the same words and think we are being understood, but the underlying experiences are so vastly different that the meaning is muddled.

And yet, I don’t believe either of those stances are sufficient. We must reinvent education in a way that doesn’t depend on childhood experiences. Because childhood experience is too narrow a lens with which to view the world. We have to think about how our own learning experiences color our opinions and allow other’s experiences to carry just as much weight as ours.

To replicate, to remediate, or to reinvent. I choose reinvent.

Sylvia

Social media and peer learning

Here is the archive of the Connected Learning webinar I participated in recently.

Social Media and Peer Learning: From Mediated Pedagogy to Peeragogy
Discover how giving students more responsibility in shaping their own curriculum can lead to more active participation.

This was a really interesting experience. The panel, moderator, and main speaker Howard Rheingold all convened in a Google Hangout. The Google Hangout is very good for groups and it was easy to have a very natural conversation. There was also a livestream and a moderated chat so that questions were coming in from the virtual audience.

You can watch the video, and read the PDF capture of the online chat here.

Even though Howard Rheingold opened the session talking about college-age leaners, I connected with many of his thoughts about how to create open-ended classrooms where the students co-create the learning. In my experience in K-12, it’s very similar as you figure out how to be a learner and/or a teacher in these kinds of situations.

I’ll write more later to expand on some of the points made in this webinar, but for now, I hope you enjoy watching the recorded video!

Sylvia