A different type of thinking ...

A different type of thinking

Schools are interconnected networks that can be either purposefully woven and crafted into a grand tapestry or carelessly neglected and snagged until only a knotted, tangled mess is left.

    Educators need to develop a whole new approach to teaching and learning.  The education students receive must prepare them for the dynamic, ambiguous future ahead of them. This means tailoring curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of the students, using technology as an effective tool, and creating a culture of inquiry and collaboration in the classroom focused on the future. It must also include a systematic approach to education to amplify learning and instruction.   Through continuous efforts to increase their capacity, schools can truly become places of learning where students can thrive and reach their goals.

                We cannot simply rely on the same types of thinking that have brought us to our current state. We must recognize that to affect the level of school improvement necessary to provide students with the level of education they will need in their future we must strive to implement better ideas designed to create better results. A strong and progressive education system is essential for developing the talent and skill base necessary to compete in the world market and defend the sovereignty of the US. It is up to us to ensure that our students have what they need to succeed.

    Part of this “new type of thinking” involves shifting our focus from what is wrong to looking for what is good and improving it. To be clear, this is not to say that we should ignore the problems in schools, nor am I stating that they are unimportant. What I am proposing is that rather than focus on learning about problems and focusing on what we already know is broken, we agree to focus on solutions and recognize that a good deal of what occurs in schools is the result of caring, skilled teachers interacting with students with a desire to learn and be successful.

If we spend all our efforts focusing on what is broken, how it got broken, or who to blame, when will we have time to make things better?

    The title of this article is, in part, it is a reference to a quote often attributed to Albert Einstein “We cannot solve the problems of today with the same type of thinking that we used to create them.” There is debate as to whether that is what Einstein said; however, Einstein did recognize that the development of atomic weapons changed how diplomacy would be carried out in the future.  I would argue that the same level of understanding must be adopted to create the change in the educational system necessary to prepare students to meet the challenges they will face.

    This different type of thinking will be guided by ten fundamental principles.  The first of these principles comes from positive psychology scholars who have developed the concept of appreciative inquiry (AI), a powerful change process based on the principle that organizations can decide to change. 

1.       Stop Trying

2.       Simple thinking won’t solve wicked problems.

3.       Schools must be places of learning.

4.       The right thing is not optional.

5.       Positive organizational leadership is not just being happy.

6.       If everyone is responsible, then no one is accountable.

7.       Schools require students and families.

8.       Great schools are great because they build staff capacity.

9.       Everyone must row in the same direction.

10.   Culture is king. 

 

The importance of trust

The 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer indicates that during the pandemic, global levels of trust have decreased significantly.  The decrease in trust creates an issue that urgently needs to be addressed by school leaders.  The Edelman survey shows that across the board, trust has declined in virtually every sector and country.  

How does trust function in schools?

     Trust plays an essential role in our relationships with each other.  We make decisions based on the level of trust that we extend to others in the relationship. Student-teacher trust is essential for creating an environment where students feel safe to learn through trying and correcting their errors (Lemov, 2021).  When thinking about trust it is important to consider the family as a whole. Trust between students and their families and their teachers has a large effect size on student achievement (Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz, 2008).

When students and their parents trust their teachers the student will work harder for that teacher.Also when a problem arises the parents will reach out to that teacher to help solve the problem and a more positive outcome will be reached for the student.  All year I have been communicating with a mother about her child, we spent several hours in Zoom meetings. Honestly, it really seemed like the mother was experiencing a lot of stress and needed to feel heard. As the end of the term approached her student had started to stop turning in work and even showing up for class. I put a call into her mom, it was refreshing to hear her mom's response which ultimately ended in the student passing my class.  When a trusting relationship exists between teachers and the student's family, everyone is working together to support student achievement.  

So how do teachers build trust with students and their families? 

Piats and Ehmer (2020), discuss the importance of building the social capital of students' families through interacting with the schools' staff.  They provide some ideas:

• Provide several different ways for families to increase their social ties to teachers and the school in general.  
• Utilize social media to engage parents and students.  Obviously, this needs to be done wisely.
• Work on providing ways for parents and students to participate in teacher networks.  (Piats & Ehmer, 2020).

Perhaps the thing that educators need to be most aware of is the importance of working to overcome the barriers to trust associated with social distancing.  At one time building social capital with families may have been a natural part of teaching.  With the restrictions associated with Covid 19, educators need to be more purposefully, interactive with the families they serve. 

References

Hoy, A. W., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher's academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Teaching and teacher education, 24(4), 821-835.

Lemov, D. (2021). Teach Like a Champion 3.0: 63 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College. John Wiley & Sons

Pitas, N., & Ehmer, C. (2020). Social Capital in the Response to COVID-19. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(8), 942–944. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120924531

Quick & Easy Strategy

morphology: the study of  the patterns of word-formation within and across languages.

Morph Latin meaning “form” or ”shape”

+

Ology = study of

Here is a good idea: teach students the Latin or Greek root words when a difficult word comes up in your curriculum.  Several studies indicate that this benefit both English language learners and native English speaking students when reading English (Crosson & Moore, 2017; Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Kiefer, 2010).  It also helps students to learn Spanish.   If you need assistance with the meaning of roots, I like membean.com. 

References

Crosson, A. C., & Moore, D. (2017). When to take up roots: The effects of morphology instruction for middle school and high school English learners. Reading Psychology, 38(3), 262-288.

Ramirez, G., Chen, X., Geva, E., & Kiefer, H. (2010). Morphological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: Within and cross-language effects on word reading. Reading and Writing, 23(3-4), 337-358.

CELL PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM?

  

How should smartphones be used in the classroom?

Internet-based technology has reached a point where students are constantly connected to the answers.  While the answer that they find may not be an accurate answer, chances are that students can find some information to help them.  A recent Harris poll (2014) revealed that while over 53% of elementary students, 66% of middle school students, and 82% of high school students owned a smartphone; yet, only 42% report using their smartphone for school work. 

When addressing the use of cell phones in the classroom educators and students can have vastly different opinions.  Teachers over 50 tend to view cell phones as a distraction more than an educational tool in the classroom, whereas younger, presumably more “tech-savvy” teachers tend to be more open to the use of smartphones (O'bannon & Thomas, 2014).  Smartphone ownership is associated with age, income, and education level in a predictable pattern (See Table 1; Anderson, 2015).  There is still a digital divide associated with SES and living in rural communities (Anderson, 2015).

            Obviously, non-academic cellphone use can distract from student learning.  Students k-12 who participated in the Harris Poll (2015), reported that the majority of students prefer using tablets and laptops for collaborating with other students (Harris Poll 2015).  Hispanic students are much more likely to use mobile technologies in school than African Americans or Caucasians (Harris Poll, 2015).  Despite the potential to use smartphones for more than an endless pool of knowledge to find answers, it seems that web 2.0 and 3.0 applications are not used in the classroom. 

Table 1:Smartphone Ownership 2015
	Smartphone Ownership	Computer Ownership
Age
18-29	86%	78%
30 -49	83%	81%
50-64	58%	70%
65 +	30%	50%
Income Level
<$30,000	52%	50%
$30,001-49,999	69%	80%
$50,000- 74,999	76%	90%
$75,000	87%	91%
Education Level
Less than HS	41%	29%
High School	56%	63%
Some College	75%	81%
College +	81%	90%
Adopted from Anderson, M. (2015). Technology Ownership 2015.  Pew Research Center. Retrieved from  http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/the-demographics-of-device-ownership/

In preparing students for their future, they will need to not only find answers but also evaluate sources.  Students will use technology for collaboration and complex problem-solving.  Yet, this is not what they are learning in the classroom.  This raises some questions that need to be addressed by educators:

1. Does the curriculum taught in schools support Web 2.0 (collaboration) and Web 3.0 (intersection) technologies?  A Web 3.0 application might be using Google Maps and Earth to learn about how city capital buildings are positioned in different parts of the country, or following the movement of a character in a novel.

2.  What encourages teachers to use Web 2.0 or Web 3.0 applications in instruction?

3.  When does using technology for collaboration and problem solving become a necessary skill set?

4. Why are students turning away from smartphones and tablets in favor of a laptop for schoolwork? 

References

Anderson, M. (2015). Technology device ownership 2015 Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/the-demographics-of-device-ownership/

O'bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters! Computers & Education, 74, 15-25.

Harris Poll (2014). Pearson student mobile device survey 2014. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/us/en/pearson-ed/downloads/2015-Pearson-Student-Mobile-Device-Survey-Grades-4-12.pdf

Diagnosis and Design for School Improvement : Review

Diagnosis and Design for School Improvement : Review

The problem with school improvement programs is that they are not created for your school.  It is entirely unreasonable to assume that a school in need of improvement can study what another school is doing, copy it down to the last detail, implement it to perfection, and be successful.  Why? Because schools are not the same.  They do not have the same students, the same teachers, the same leaders, or the same situation.  Yes, lessons can be learned and important knowledge gained through research.  But success lies in the thoughtful data-driven application of this knowledge.

To make the changes necessary school leaders must have a deep understanding of diagnosis and design principals.  Spillane and Coldren's book Diagnosis for Design provides a balanced framework for analyzing how a school is functioning and making structural changes.  
Their analysis includes:

• identifying leaders in the school using social interactions and responsibility for analysis
• alignment between actions and the school's vision; and
• a situational analysis using routines and leadership tools. 

Their book includes tools and strategies to analyze the organizational structure of the school.   Additionally, they provide an analytical approach to improving schools.  Their book is based on almost a decade of research that the authors have undertaken.  

The decades of school improvement efforts in the US has focused on improving teacher's instruction.  The result has been that we have more highly trained teachers.  Yet, our schools are not making the goals that have been set for them.  Maybe, we also need to improve schools. 

Oh, the balloons?  Not a party . . . a physics experiment.  Demonstrating the importance of deep diagnosis.  

Their book can be found on Google Books for a little over $15.00.  

Spillane, J. P., & Coldren, A. F. (2015). Diagnosis and design for school improvement: Using a distributed perspective to lead and manage change. Teachers College Press.

A review: by Rob Koch

Variables involved in creating a school that is based on technology

What does it take for technology to have a meaningful impact on the capacity of a school? 

By Rob Koch

The potential for technological innovation to increase the ability of a school to facilitate instruction remains largely untapped in many schools.  There are multiple factors that influence the effectiveness of technology implementation.  Levin and Schrum (2013) conducted a study of eight award-winning schools that considered technology as an important element of their success.  The study stressed the importance of using a systems thinking approach to implementing technology that addresses all of these factors at the same time.  Peter Senge (2012) defined systems thinking as the study of organizational structures and behavior focusing on identifying high-leverage strategies.

Levin and Schrum’s study identified the following components as being important for the implementation of technology:

·       Vision:  Teachers in their study stressed the importance of having a clear vision that guides the practices of the entire school. 

·       Distributed Leadership:  Levin and Schrum also found that distributed played an important role in implementing new strategies to improve learning.  Their study primarily focused on the teacher empowerment effect of distributed leadership (DL).  Harris (2013) would also point to the ability of DL to increase the organizational knowledge of the school and the data-driven practices of professional communities.  Taken together, teachers in a DL model work harder to implement new practices based on data-driven decisions through collaboration. 

·       School culture:   The most compelling finding of the Levin and Schrum study regarding school culture was the importance of trust and establishing digital citizenship.

·       Technology planning and Support:  Levin and Schrum found that the majority of schools that they studied found it important to have IT support in place.

·       Professional development:    They also found that schools that were effective in implementing technology provided time for professional learning communities.

·       Curriculum and instructional practices:  Some of the benefits that the study found were increased accesses to information, teachable moments for information literacy, and the ability to gather data quickly.

·       Funding:  Many of the schools changed their textbook policies to allow for open educational resources, replacing the cost of a textbook with the cost of a tablet or other device.  Some districts implemented policies allowing students to bring their own technology.

·       Partnerships:  Levin and Schrum also found that technology enabled the schools to strengthen their communications with parents.  Additionally, they noted that through partnerships with businesses, schools were able to increase their funding.

It was interesting to use InsightMaker.com to gain further insight into the findings of Levin and Schrum (Please feel free to explore and comment).  In developing this model, the factors that seemed to arise out of other factors were not considered as independent variables (slider).  For example, it was determined that school-parents and school-organizations partnerships would be influenced by the level of inclusiveness and relationships of the DL practices.  Additionally, independent variable were selected considering the ability of the school leaders to make choices regarding the implementation and allocation of efforts and resources.  (The Insightmaker contains detailed information regarding the assumptions that were made in creating the model.) The importance of distributed leadership and the vision of the school become apparent in this model.   

References

Harris, A. (2013). Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow's leaders Routledge.

Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2013). Using systems thinking to leverage technology for school improvement: Lessons learned from award-winning secondary schools/districts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(1), 29-51.

Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., & Dutton, J. (2012). Schools that learn (updated and revised): A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education Random House LLC.

Open Educational Resources to Improve Student Achievement

A recent review from the What Works Clearinghouse (2014) reported that a study of the effectiveness of using MOOC’s as part of a blended classroom environment resulted in higher test scores. This report and several others indicate that open educational resources (OER) when used in a blended classroom result in higher levels of student achievement. Welsh and Dragusin (2013) discussed the business aspect of OER in relation to post-secondary institutions, concluding that they need to adjust their practices. They identified potential problems that might arise in the future such as revenue models, accreditation, course completion rate, and student achievement. I believe two things to be true. First teachers will always be an essential component of the educational system. Secondly, the work of teachers and organization of schools in their current state is quickly becoming irrelevant. The question that begs to be considered is what is the potential effect of OER on the public educational system? How do public schools need to adapt to capitalize on the vast potential of OER? How do we prepare teachers to provide education in the 21st Century?

References
Welsh, D. H., & Dragusin, M. (2013). The New Generation of Massive Open Online Course (MOOCS) and Entrepreneurship Education. Small Business Institute® Journal, 9(1), 51-65.

What Works Clearinghouse (2014). Interactive online learning on campus: Testing MOOCs and other platforms in hybred formats in the university system of Maryland. WWC Quick Review. Retreived from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/quickreview.aspx?sid=20121

Rob Koch

Robkch@gmail.com
Educator
Google

Gamifying

 Gamification

   Educators can learn a great deal from the science of games.  Children learn at an early age through playing different games.  In fact many of these games are games that they made up themselves.  The benefits of playing games extends beyond learning to the wellbeing of students.  Play relieves stress, improves brain function, stimulates the mind and boosts creativity, improves relationships, and energizes.  

Gamification

What is gamification?  Gamification does not mean reducing learning to simplistic tasks or creating a game.  It means making learning more fun and engaging while preserving the credibility of the lesson (Muntean, 2011).    

                         Gamification v. Classroom Instruction (typical)

Elements	Instruction	Gamification
Set achievable goals within participant’s zone of proximal development.	X	X
Sequential graduation of difficulty	X	X
Generalization of skills	X	X
Engage students to learn	X	X
Anticipatory Set	X	X
Frequent checks for progress and understanding	X	X
Provide models	X	X
Guided Practice	X	X
Independent Practice	X	X
Utilizes social learning and collaboration	X	X
Consequences for not getting the right answer the first time	X
Allows multiple attempts until the learner solves the problem		X
Provides immediate feedback (a condition of flow)		X
Requires mastery of topic before moving on		X
Students earn points to achieve different levels of mastery		X
Students provided with intrinsic and tangible rewards as the learn	sometimes	X

Related Topics:

Video Games

Video games has been shown to significantly improve a variety of metal abilities including reasoning, mental rotation, spatial attention, memory, reasoning, and reaction time (McLaughlin, Gandy, Allaire, & Whitlock, 2012).   However, there have also been numerous studies that indicate that videos games can have a detrimental effect as well.    Addictive behavior towards games, loss of educational time, increase in ADHD behaviors, tie away from other activities such as education or physical activity, and increased anti-social behaviors have all been associated with extensive video game playing Bavelier, Green, Han, Renshaw, Merzenich, & Gentile, 2011).

The Effect of Play on Health

Individuals from low SES environments tend to suffer from higher a higher allostatic load or the amounts of biological repercussions associated with stress resulting from the release of stress mediators such as cortisol (McEwen & Seeman, 2009).  Over time the release of stress mediators can accumulate and have negative effects of various organs leading to diseases (McEwen & Seeman, 2009).  A study of 1207 found that adults with a childhood history of low SES who engage in shift-and-persist strategies had lower allostatic loads (Chen, Miller, Lachman, Gruenewald, & Seeman, 2012).  Playing games involves the skills of reforming a problem and persisting until mastery is accomplished.  

By Rob Koch

References
Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., Han, D. H., Renshaw, P. F., Merzenich, M. M., & Gentile, D. A. (2011). Brains on 
      video games. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,12(12), 763-768.

Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Lachman, M. E., Gruenewald, T. L., & Seeman, T. E. (2012). Protective factors for adults
      from low-childhood socioeconomic circumstances: The benefits of shift-and-persist for allostatic 
      load.Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(2), 178-186.

Deterding, Sebastian (2011). Meaningful Play: Getting>>Gamification right [Slideshare Slides]. Retrieved 
      from http://www.slideshare.net/dings/meaningful-play-getting-gamification-right

Muntean, C. I. (2011, October). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In Proc. 6th International
        Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL (pp. 323-329). Retreived from http://icvl.eu/2011/disc/icvl/
        documente/pdf/met/ICVL_ModelsAndMethodologies_paper42.pdf

McEwen, B., & Seeman, T. (2009). Allostatic load and allostasis. In Allostatic load notebook. Retrieved 
     from http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/allostatic/allostatic.php

Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Lachman, M. E., Gruenewald, T. L., & Seeman, T. E. (2012). Protective factors for adults from 
                  low-childhood socioeconomic circumstances: The benefits of shift-and-persist for allostatic 
                 load.Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(2), 178-186.

Google