Making and the Common Core

I get asked a lot about how making and tinkering can be integrated into classes in light of the Common Core. I think there are good answers to this, but it involves seeing the Common Core as something more than it is being portrayed in the media and in schools.

Simply, there are three parts to the Common Core – the overarching goals, the standards, and the assessments. I’m not going to go into great detail about each of these, but here is what I see happening in a lot of schools in each of these areas.

Assessment – Tremendous effort is being put into getting students ready to take the assessments and preparing the technology infrastructure to administer the tests.

Standards – New standards are driving changes to curriculum, but mostly in a rearrangement or rebranding of existing curriculum and classes.

Overarching goals – Very little is being done to address the goals of changing how and what we teach students by making it more relevant, more experiential, and requiring deeper dives instead of “covering” too many topics.

This is the problem I’m seeing – that assessment is the tail wagging the dog and taking the focus (not to mention money and time) away from changing classrooms for the better. So when we talk about how “making” can align with Common Core, it requires schools and districts to refocus on those overarching goals, and away from how many computers you need to run the tests.  Unfortunately this is a conversation that is not taking place in many educational organizations.

FabLearn Fellows 2014

I’m pleased to announce that I’ll be formally working with the first cadre of FabLearn Fellows as a mentor and advisor.

This program is a part of a NSF-sponsored project entitled “Infusing Learning Sciences Research into Digital Fabrication in Education and the Makers’ Movement.” The 2014 FabLearn Fellows cohort is a diverse group of 18 educators and makers. They represent eight states and five countries, and work with a wide range of ages at schools, museums, universities and non-profits. They have agreed to contribute to high-impact research and outreach to answer the following questions:

  • How can we generate an open-source set of constructionist curricular materials well-adapted for Makerspaces and FabLabs in educational settings?
  • How are teachers adapting their own curriculum in face of these new “making” technologies, and how can they be better supported? What challenges do teachers face when trying to adopt project-based, constructionist, digital fabrication activities in their classrooms and after-school programs?
  • How are schools approaching teacher development, parental/community involvement, and issues around traditional assessment?

I’m excited to help support the FabLearn Fellows. I believe that too often, researchers and practitioners in education are isolated from one another. As a result, we lose incredible opportunities to learn and share.

I’ll be sharing more as time goes on!

Making Thinking Visible

One of the advantages of using “maker” techniques in the classroom is that when children make things, it helps make their thinking visible to a mindful observer. This is true authentic assessment.

But some teachers may wonder exactly what they can do to make this happen. An initiative called “Visible Thinking”, from Project Zero offers guidelines to help teachers create the culture and climate in classrooms so that visible thinking is a normal part of the learning process.

An article in Educational Leadership, Making Thinking Visible: Teaching Children to Think is a good introduction to these techniques.

Six key principles anchor Visible Thinking:

  • Learning is a consequence of thinking.
  • Good thinking is not only a matter of skills, but also a matter of dispositions.
  • The development of thinking is a social endeavor.
  • Fostering thinking requires making thinking visible.
  • Classroom culture sets the tone for learning and shapes what is learned.
  • Schools must be cultures of thinking for teachers.

This short article contains ideas and suggestions for teachers who wonder about what to do to make sure that “making” in the classroom results in real learning for students. For more in depth resources, including routines and structures for different types of learning situations, check the Visible Thinking website.

Announcing – Invent To Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom

book coverSo some of you may have noticed that I’ve been pretty quiet here lately. All my writing energy has been going to a good cause though! I’m happy to announce a new book: Invent To Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom, authored jointly by yours truly,  Sylvia Martinez, and Gary Stager.

This book has been cooking a long time, fueled by our belief that many schools are heading away from what real learning looks like – projects that are student-centered, hands-on, and authentic. But there is a technology revolution out there that has the potential to change that. New materials and technology can be game-changers: things like 3D printing, microcomputers like Raspberry Pi and Arduino, sensors and interfaces that connect the physical world to the digital, and programming. At the same time, a vibrant “maker movement” is spreading worldwide, encouraging people to make, tinker, and share technology and craft.

Invent To Learn is for educators who want to learn about these new technologies and how they can work in real classrooms. But it’s not just about “stuff” – we explore teaching, learning, and how to shape the learning environment. By combining the maker ethos with what we know about how children really learn, we can create classrooms that are alive with creativity and “objects to think with” that will permanently change education.

Student leadership
One chapter of Invent To Learn is about how learning by doing also gives students a chance to become leaders in their schools and communities. Giving students access to modern creativity tools and technology is not about “jobs of the future,” it’s about real learning NOW.

Making for every classroom budget
Even if you don’t have access to expensive (but increasingly affordable) hardware, every classroom can become a makerspace where kids and teachers learn together through direct experience with an assortment of high and low-tech materials. The potential range, breadth, power, complexity and beauty of projects has never been greater thanks to the amazing new tools, materials, ingenuity and playfulness you will encounter in this book.

Check the Invent To Learn website for information on getting the print or Kindle version of the book, and also about professional development for your district.

Respect: The Essential Ingredient in the Design of Modern Learning Environments

Cross-posted on GetIdeas.org Learning Trends series on Cultivating Leadership.

A modern learning environment should reflect everything we know about building a community, developing young people, and providing a healthy environment for human beings. We know that people, no matter their age, feel better and are more productive in spaces that are comfortable, clean, and suited to their individual needs. When leaders make these choices — in fact, insist on them — it shows respect for the people who inhabit them.

If we take the time, we can structure learning environments that meet all the needs of children and the adults who teach them. Yes, of course they should be safe, secure, and healthy. But we can go further. We can make these spaces more flexible so that the inhabitants have control over aspects that matter to them. We can make them quieter, calmer, and more comfortable. Most of all, we can use design to improve learning opportunities for everyone.

Prakash Nair, a futurist, planner, and architect with Fielding Nair International, a leading architectural firm specializing in school design, says, “Rather than simply be invested in short-term fixes, any new support for school facilities that districts receive should go to develop tomorrow’s facilities as infrastructure responses to an educational philosophy—one whose goal is not to control students, but to empower them to take charge of their own learning.”

We can build spaces that diminish the distinction between the “control spaces” – such as teacher desks, podiums, projection screens, and the “controlled spaces” – student desks facing the front, electronics that are not controlled by the user, locked thermostats, loud bells and intercoms that interrupt at will, etc.

We can give design projects large and small over to students. Why can’t students help design a new classroom, community space, or play space? But this can’t just be an imaginary project, some generic “school of the future.” Why can’t they do it with their real environments?

This creates natural collaboration opportunities with peers and experts of all sorts, provides challenges at many levels, and, best of all, is really useful. Giving students this kind of responsibility creates a win-win situation where students are valued for their expertise and hard work – real, needed work!

All of this has to do with respect:

  • Respect for the inhabitants by flexibly addressing needs of mind, body, and soul
  • Respect for the community by designing a welcoming space that lives in harmony with its surroundings
  • Respect for the communal and the individual
  • Respect for nature by creating sustainable, green spaces
  • Respect for learning and the importance school has for our community, nation, and world
  • Respect for tradition balanced with respect for progress and new ideas
  • Respect and celebration of all aspects of the human spirit that education aspires to. Learning is not just about math or taking spelling tests. The goal of education should be that art and science flourish together, so that young people can imagine and become their best selves.

This sense of respect, belonging, and shared responsibility is the essence of citizenship and leadership. When we show young people that we care about them, we communicate that what they do matters and is valued by the whole community. Respect for others, communicated through the design of educational spaces is leadership that can change lives and make the world a better place.

Sylvia

Where Will Future School Leaders Come From?

Great leadership is inclusive leadership, yet the largest stakeholder group in schools is often forgotten: students. Students are 92% of the population at most every school site. To be a leader, you have to lead 100% of the population, not just the 8% who look like you.

Wonder where the future leaders of education will come from? They sit in front of us everyday. Thinking that “school” doesn’t understand who they are. Wondering what their role will be in changing the world. Wishing that someone would give them the opportunity to make a difference.

Students can be leaders of the future by being leaders today. Leadership lessons cannot be learned in a vacuum. Including students in every aspect of school can be done if caring adults make it a priority. Students can learn to teach others, be on real decision-making committees, provide services like tech support, or run for the school board. Students who take on real and important responsibility learn to trust themselves as they show they can be trusted. Empowerment isn’t something you “do” to people; it’s an outcome of being valued, respected, and listened to. Adults can learn to see young people in a new light as essential partners in creating better learning opportunities for all.

Enabling youth voice in K-12 schools isn’t simple. Once empowered, young people might not say or do what you expect. It takes time to teach them how to speak their minds effectively and to work collaboratively. And they keep growing up and leaving, so the effort never ends. Youth voice is about much more than listening to young people, although that’s a start. It’s about long-term commitment to action, because in action, young people find their voice.

I’m not talking about the kind of token youth panel you see at educational conferences, where students who can be counted on to say acceptable things are trotted out for an hour. Everyone nods and feels good about listening to youth voice, and then lunch is served while the kids are conveniently bused back from whence they came.

Ignoring youth leadership potential is a lose-lose situation. We lose their input, convince them we don’t care, and miss the teachable moment. We enable dependence in youth by not allowing them to participate in the process of school decision making. We create alienation and then blame young people for not caring. The curtailing of student press freedom and the blocking of online discussion creates fewer opportunities for young voices to be heard in every avenue and fewer opportunities to practice these skills.

Leaders of today should be worried about where the leaders of tomorrow will learn how to be informed, involved citizens of the world. Those of us who believe that modern technology is a key to changing schools also know that this digital generation has more direct experience with technology than any other group. They could be powerful allies and advocates–if adults make the choice to listen and provide expertise as needed. When students aren’t included in the effort to improve education, we lose more than their technical know-how; we lose the opportunity to shape the leaders of tomorrow.

Sylvia

Cross-posted on GETideas.org’s Featured Thought Leaders Series as part of a webinar. Here is the link to the archive: http://youtu.be/c77ET5-EX9E

And audience comments: https://plus.google.com/u/0/115848119890273950575/posts/WH1Nko4yhNv

Research roundup: The 14 Key Indicators that Measure STEM Progress

The National Research Council has just published goals for U.S. STEM education. Monitoring Progress Toward Successful K-12 STEM Education gives 14 key indicators for measuring improvements to STEM education and suggests that tracking these indicators will require asking federal and state collection agencies to focus not just on schools (personnel, enrollment) but on schooling (pedagogy, knowledge acquisition).

The report’s authors build on an earlier report, “A Framework for K-12 Science Education,” and point out that with increased focus on U.S. competitiveness and revisions to the Common Core State Standards, the time is right to redouble our attention to making sure STEM is done right, not just reshuffled to match new standards.

Hat tip to the NCWIT blog for this!

Sylvia

Creativity declines in children – what’s the reason?

From: As Children’s Freedom Has Declined, So Has Their Creativity at the Creativity Post.

“According to Kim’s research, all aspects of creativity have declined, but the biggest decline is in the measure called Creative Elaboration, which assesses the ability to take a particular idea and expand on it in an interesting and novel way. Between 1984 and 2008, the average Elaboration score on the TTCT, for every age group from kindergarten through 12th grade, fell by more than 1 standard deviation. Stated differently, this means that more than 85% of children in 2008 scored lower on this measure than did the average child in 1984. Yikes.”

Any chance this could be due to the standardization of curriculum and the decline in art, music and other creative outlets to make sure students pass standardized tests?

Sylvia

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