Pow! Straight to the Moon!

The unique challenges we face at our school are paradigmatic.  We are "the best" American School in the World.  We get kids into the Ivy League.   We offer lots of AP courses which our kids take and ace. We support top notch staff development and attract leaders in education.  Etc. Etc.

It is 1965 and we are dreaming of space exploration.

Telescopes and theory tell us it's possible to get there.

Enter Sputnik, et al

Like the space programs of the sixties, our greatest challenge in education today is overcoming gravity.   The gravity on our campus is tradition and, ironically, our past success as an institution. Furthermore, our administration is just now starting to fund and support  "NASA" on campus.

We are the astronauts, the ground control and the engineers building the "rocket to the moon".  We have the "Sputniks" (Khan Academy, Stanford's and M.I.T.'s Free online classes) driving our efforts.

Google, Cisco and Apple are the Lockheeds, Northrups and Hughes Aircraft of today.  It was the Space Race then showing us the future.  Today, it is the future of education that defines our thinking.

Information is free and unlimited.

The telegraph became the telephone

Air travel became space travel

The Industrial Age has become the Knowledge Age: 

"Post-Industrial – or Knowledge – Age (21st century) people also need ‘know what’ kinds of knowledge. However they need more than this. They need to be able to do things with this knowledge, to use it to create new knowledge. The ‘know-what’ kind of knowledge is still important, but not as an end in itself. Rather, it is a resource, something to learn (or think) with. In the Knowledge Age, change, not stability, is a given."

It has been posited that our favorite songs are those we listened to in the era of our first sexual exploits...

<pause for contemplation>

...While this may be nothing more than drunken logic, it helps me make this connection:

My pedagogical "teeth" were cut in the first few years of my teaching career.  Those experiences and learnings are at the core of my teaching today.  As such check out the following videos from 1999, my fourth year as a teacher and when I first watched  this ABC news report.  Keep your eye on the big red ball:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkHOxyafGpE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVZ8pmkg1do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyugyrCQTuw

"We're not actually experts at any given area.  We're experts at the process of how you design..."

-Dave Kelley of IDEO

Experts in the process.  

Professional Learning Communities are the latest way our school is going to improve our students' learning.  In this work we have a golden opportunity (moral obligation?) to identify the processes for which learning takes place on our campus.

Instantaneous access to infinite amounts of information + guided/purposeful  practices + clear and timely feedback from authentic audiences = Rockets to Mars

Here's one of my colleagues putting on her space suit and getting ready to launch:

10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1664735/what-schools-can-learn-from-google-ideo-and-pixar

This article was in one of our documents. In case you didn't see it buried in there, here it is. It's great! I think our admin should read it. The examples are fantastic. This is what we are trying to do. This kind of physical space along with our leadership tying it to curriculum combined is very exciting!!

As always, thanks for the good conversation.

A Pragmatic and Eclectic Approach to 21st Century Learning

“The two –‘isms’ that perhaps best describe Singapore’s approach (to governing in the 21^st Century) are: Pragmatism – an emphasis on what works in practice rather than abstract theory; and eclecticism – a willingness to adapt to the local context best practices from around the world.”

-    Ravi Menon, the Permanent Secretary of Singapore’s Ministry of Trade and Industry (as quoted in the January 2011 New York Times article, Serious in Singapore)

The way in which we access information has changed radically in the past decade.  All indicators point to even more dynamic interfaces with information in the future.  The pragmatic yet eclectic philosophy by the Singapore government seems an apt approach for education as well in this shifting landscape.

The pragmatism in our schools should be based in understanding the pre-adolescent and adolescent brain, its development, function and potential; the potential to learn as well as to take risks.  Learning should build on the innate talents of each child while identifying and addressing their areas for improvement.  For most children between the ages of 10 and 16 this is inextricably entwined in motivation, confidence and a desire to establish identity.

Enter eclecticism as defined by Secretary Menon.  Pre and Intra Adolescent students have instant access to information.  Therefore, schools no longer have the luxury of housing the learning as it relates to content.  Stanford University and M.I.I. (as well as the Khan Academy) are setting the educational world on fire by offering their education online – FOR FREE!  Education’s response must be in the form of skills.  Information without purpose & application is akin to growing food without recipes & tables on which to serve the meals.  The raw ingredients are transformed into nourishing and, potentially, delectable dishes designed to satiate our palates.

21^st Century Skills are the iron chef for the essential, purposeful and applicable skills necessary for today’s students.  They build confidence by Setting the Stage for Effective and Efficient Academic Success.  Generating & Synthesizing and Organizing & Prioritizing Information utilizes templates and intuitive procedural strategies for managing information.  The Packaging of Information to Inform and Influence addresses the purpose and audience targeted for the information.  Finally, Presentation, Critique and the Revision Cycle involves real motivation through the application of purposeful information molded by critique and revision with peers.  

Waiting for the Train to Come in While the Rest of the World is Strapping on Their Jet Packs

I don't know what Einstein had in mind when he said this, but I like to believe that he'd apply it to our initiative and content-laden

curriculum:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

I have the nagging feeling that we are getting the cart before the horse when it comes to technology in schools.

In the attempt to provoke dialogue (and perhaps healthy debate), I propose that our academic curriculum is too heavy with content (facts and isolated skills) and, hence,  burdened with its preparation, dissemination, assessment and reporting & recording.  This type of content can be more easily managed and quantified, of course.  And, while it is absolutely correct for teachers to prepare, disseminate, assess and record & report student work I put forth that we move away from a content-based curriculum to the skills and applications which empower problem-solving.  It is a deeper, more complete curriculum in terms of building the scaffolding for the infinite (and growing) amount of content now available

My professional (as a veteran teacher) and personal (as a student, parent and lifelong learner) opinion is that kids in school are learning to follow directions and not how to follow a procedure to solve a problem (with the exception of how to do "problem 42 on page 342").  The world today is full of examples of short-sighted solutions to problems which end up creating even bigger ones.  We should be preparing kids to:

*  define a problem

*  make a plan to deal with it

*  execute the plan

*  evaluate its efficacy.

*  propose a new plan if the problem wasn't adequately reconciled (be open to making a mistake and then learning from it).

Technology is made to do just this sort of thing.  The research, collaboration, communication and presentation skills necessary to do the above are inherent in today's technology (which is more comprehensive, powerful and portable than ever). Facts and figures are readily available on the web.  The web is universally accessible.

Therefore, content is at our fingertips.

(The Khan Academy has put our current paradigm of classroom instruction in serious question. We are being outplayed at our own

game.)

What will separate our students from the rest in the next ten years?

It will be our instruction.  If we continue in the current paradigm, we will produce students that are, perhaps, the best and brightest at following directions.  If schools are making the commitment to take the 21st century steps to incorporate technology then we should be taking the steps to align our curriculum to prepare our students to solve 21st century issues.

The Ivy League is not the only answer for our best and brightest:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/10/peter-thiel-were-in-a-bubble-and-its-not-the-internet-its-higher-education/

Getting the Right Answer isn't the answer:

http://hbr.org/2011/04/why-leaders-dont-learn-from-success/ar/1

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/30/26cheat-2.h30.html?tkn=UXOFEl3mENj9xNbp7YpYcRpBA5T4Q14wDcvi&intc=bs&sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4da033659c8e5610%252C0

Depth not breadth

It's time for Rubicon Atlas to shrug

Thoughts?

My Colleague wrote this last night:

I am convinced education will not look the same in a decade.

Don't build too many Walls :):)

http://mindshift.kqed.org/2012/01/legacy-and-lessons-from-stanfords-free-online-classes/



I responded with this:

I absolutely agree.  When I was in Grad school at Claremont I had the privilege to work with a guy by the name of Dave Master. Dave had left teaching to work for Warner Brother’s animation. But what he learned as a teacher, and passed along to me, was how to create a learning environment in which kids work collaboratively on meaningful work with authentic audiences. My advisor and I interviewed dozens of his past students to find out what it was that made his art program so successful (in addition to an engaging curriculum the program produced many young animators which were hired by studios right out of high school). When we analyzed the data the most important factors for success were the teacher's ability to act as "executive producer" and not micromanage every aspect of the kids' work. The kids helped each
other learn and raise their skill level and confidence by being
empowered to share their expertise in a collaborative way. The last, and perhaps most compelling, factor was a constant practice of presentation and critique by Dave and the kids themselves. They had to present elements of their projects to the group at large and learned to give and receive critique.

Later, I worked over three years with Jane Pollock (Marzano associate) on curriculum design and instructional strategies. She emphasized research based methods for designing learning experiences for kids that are systematic and feedback based.  Clear and timely feedback with strong instructional design is empowering and sustainable for teachers and kids.

I envision the Connections space as a place where these worlds come together.

·         Meaningful and creative work in a collaborative environment

·         Clear and timely feedback from adults and peers +

·         Stable & consistent templates and strategies to guide the creative process +

·         Authentic audiences = 

  Empowered kids and connected and applied learning.

     I don't care as much about the tech or the aesthetics as I do the type of work the kids will be doing. Their learning will be dependent on our ability to create opportunities for them to gather, synthesize, organize and apply information.  They will need templates and predictable procedures in order to do this. They will need adult facilitators that are prepared to guide them toward owning their learning and voice with passion and responsibility. Finally, they will need access to a variety of audiences in order to share their work with the "world" in order to inform and influence.  

Tech, textbooks and school buildings will change in a decade. We can see this year to year right now. The fundamental way in which kids truly learn, however, will not.

1. Why Brainstorming Doesn’t Work – and What Does

            In this intriguing New Yorker article, Jonah Lehrer describes how the idea of brainstorming – groups generating lots of creative ideas without criticizing or judging them – was invented by business guru Alex Osborn in 1948 and spread to countless businesses and classrooms. “Brainstorming seems like an ideal technique,” says Lehrer, “a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.”

            Surprising as that may sound, numerous studies have come to the same conclusion. “Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas,” says Keith Sawyer of Washington University. The most striking follow-up study was done in 2003 by UC Berkeley professor Charlan Nemeth. She gave three groups of female undergraduates 20 minutes to come up with suggestions on how to reduce traffic congestion in the San Francisco Bay area. The first group got standard brainstorming instructions – no criticism as the ideas flowed. The second group got no specific instructions. The third group was told to freewheel and generate as many solutions as possible, debate them, and feel free to criticize others’ ideas.

            The third group did by far the best, generating 20 percent more solutions than the brainstorming group and far more than the no-instructions group. When researchers interviewed participants afterward about whether they had any additional ideas on traffic, the debating group had lots more.

            Nemeth’s conclusion: “While the instruction ‘Do not criticize’ is often cited as the important instruction in brainstorming, this appears to be a counterproductive strategy. Our findings show that debate and criticism do not inhibit ideas but, rather, stimulate them relative to every other condition… There’s this Pollyannaish notion that the most important thing to do when working together is to stay positive and get along, to not hurt anyone’s feelings. Well, that’s just wrong. Maybe debate is going to be less pleasant, but it will always be more productive. True creativity requires some trade-offs.” It seems that dissent and disagreement stimulate new ideas because they encourage people to engage more fully and reassess their viewpoints.

            Another problem with brainstorming is its staple, free-association. Nemeth has found that people aren’t very good at it. Most of them come up with very predictable responses. To be creative, it’s important to be exposed to new ideas and unfamiliar perspectives. They surprise us, we work to understand them, and they make us reassess our initial assumptions and try out something new. “Authentic dissent can be difficult,” says Nemeth, “but it’s always invigorating. It wakes us right up.”

            So what conditions produce the most productive collaboration? Brian Uzzi, a Northwestern University sociologist, studied teamwork in 474 Broadway musicals, charting the group dynamics of thousands of artists from Cole Porter to Andrew Lloyd Webber. He found that musicals produced by teams who didn’t know each other did poorly – but so did musicals produced by teams who had collaborated many times before. A slew of shows in the 1920s produced by superstar teams including Cole Porter, Richard Rogers, Lorenz Hart, and Oscar Hammerstein II were mostly flops. “Broadway had some of the biggest names ever,” says Uzzi, “but the shows were too full of repeat relationships, and that stifled creativity.”

            The sweet spot, Uzzi found, was shows like West Side Story produced by people with a mix of relationships (unknown 25-year-old lyricist Stephen Sondheim joined superstars Leonard Bernstein, Jerome Robbins, and Arthur Laurents). “These teams had some old friends, but they also had newbies,” says Uzzi. “This mixture meant that the artists could interact efficiently – they had a familiar structure to fall back on – but they also managed to incorporate some new ideas. They were comfortable with each other, but they weren’t too comfortable.”

            Physical proximity is another key variable in productivity. Studies have shown that co-authors who work within ten meters of each other publish better papers than those whose work locations are more remote. Steve Jobs had this in mind when he designed the office space at Pixar so the bathrooms, cafeteria, mailboxes, and gift shop were all in the central atrium. “At first, I thought this was the most ridiculous idea,” said producer Darla Anderson. “I didn’t want to have to walk all the way to the atrium every time I needed to do something. That’s just a waste of time. But Steve said, ‘Everybody has to run into each other.’ He really believed that the best meetings happen by accident, in the hallway or parking lot. And you know what? He was right. I get more done having a cup of coffee and striking up a conversation or walking to the bathroom and running into  unexpected people than I do sitting at my desk.”

            Lehrer goes on to describe MIT’s Building 20, a temporary 250,000-square-foot, three-story office structure thrown together in the spring of 1942 to house scientists developing radar for the Allies. Despite the fact that Building 20 was freezing in the winter and broiling in the summer and had dim corridors and a leaky roof, this “plywood palace” survived until 1998 and became known as “the magical incubator.” It was the site of extraordinary amounts of innovation – radar technology that won the war, Noam Chomsky’s groundbreaking work in linguistics, Jerald Zacharias’s atomic clock, Amar Bose’s audio innovations that spawned the Bose Corporation, and more.

            The key to all this innovation? “Knowledge spillovers” in the corridors of this chaotically organized, mostly horizontal structure. One of the most productive symbioses was between linguistics professor Morris Halle and the young Noam Chomsky. Although studying different aspects of language, they talked all the time because they were in adjacent offices. “We became great friends,” says Halle. “And friends shouldn’t be shy about telling each other when they are wrong. What am I supposed to do? Not tell him he’s got a bad idea?”

             “The fatal misconception behind brainstorming,” concludes Lehrer, “is that there is a particular script we should all follow in group interactions. The lesson of Building 20 is that when the composition of the group is right – enough people with different perspectives running into one another in unpredictable ways – the group dynamic will take care of itself. All these errant discussions add up. In fact, they may even be the most essential part of the creative process. Although such conversations will occasionally be unpleasant – not everyone is always in the mood for small talk or criticism – that doesn’t mean that they can be avoided. The most creative spaces are those that hurl us together. It is the human friction that makes the sparks.”

“Groupthink: The Brainstorming Myth” by Jonah Lehrer in The New Yorker, Jan. 30, 2012 (p. 22-27) http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lehrer

Back to page one