-
What if we had a 1:1 Newton Initiative?
When I started teaching in 2008, I inherited a number of tools once labeled “cutting edge” and some were even called “indispensable.” Things like the overhead projector (who could possibly teach without one?) and the laserdisc. Throw in the zip drives and floppy disks (of the 5.5 inch variety, of course… although I’ve heard tales of larger, less capable floppies) and you’ve got a real blast from the past.I’d often pondered the rate of technological change and what it means for education, but having read The Nerdy Teacher’s recent post it made me think: What tools do I have now that need to be retired? What are we using now that will be retired in the near future, even though now we can’t imagine teaching without them? What’s coming later on?The Obsolete:- White Out (not because I don’t make mistakes, but because I don’t print anymore)- Staples and paperclips (if I need to print something, it’s probably really important, warranting its entrance into a three-ring binder or other professional-looking dossier)- Post-its (nothing says “clutter” like small squares of paper all over my monitor and desk)- Copy machine (Do we really need MORE paper floating around?)
On Its Way Out:- Desktop computers (there will be a rare need for a desktop computer to perform tasks that tablets or laptops can’t)- Scanner (simply put: there’s an app for that)- Document camera (There are still a number of uses, so it’s not completely ready to go, but mobile devices are catching up FAST)- SMART board (you heard it here first, folks. This teacher-centered instruction mainstay won’t be here much longer.)- Attendance software requiring manual input (Praise your deity of choice…)On Its Way In:- Internet-connected mobile devices (incl. cameras) for every student and faculty member- Location-based attendance and/or scan-for-attendance (possibly including facial recognition or fingerprints?)- Truly paperless environment (distribution, completion, submission, assessment all without needing Ctrl+P)- Explosion of modeling/AR/VR environments bringing a new dimension (no pun intended) to tactile learnersWhat do you see happening over the next few years? -
Perceived Value in the Classroom
Why is it that some activities have the rapt attention of your students but as soon as you switch to something else, you’ve lost them?Why is it that your monologue on SOHCAHTOA doesn’t seem to be as interesting to your students as the latest search results on Google Images or the social life of the person sitting next to them?Why do teachers text/email/talk during professional development sessions?It’s a matter of perceived value and interest. We pay attention to that which is unique, outstanding, bizarre, different, valuable, and/or useful. We ignore that which is too far removed from its direct application in our lives.So, re-read the previous questions but this time, take out the negative prejudice you held and ask if what (or how) you’re operating could be adjusted to change the perceived value of your content. What if the Industrial Revolution were seen through the eyes of a 12-year-old employee? When something becomes real, its perceived value just increased. When your colleagues around you are bored in their next professional development meeting, ask yourself what could be done to increase the perceived value of what you’re learning.Why else should we gather into the same room for an extended period of time? Do we have anything better to do? Or is our time together the most important thing in the world at that moment? What is our perception of that time together?Truth isn’t nearly as important as the perception of what is true.
—Greg Garner -
Digital Citizenship: Where Did We Go Wrong?
This is cross-posted on the EdReach Network. Also, check out the most recent EdReach Show for more on digital citizenship.Let’s be honest: In the area of digital citizenship, as educators, we are not doing our jobs.Sure, there are pockets of excellence and teachers here and there that are raising this issue, but overall, it’s just another buzz word that we read about in the headlines, right next to “cyberbullying” and “blocking/filtering.” But why does it feel like a ghetto? It’s as though digital citizenship has been relegated to the bottom rungs of curricular society, clearly taking a backseat to a student’s ability to identify the hypotenuse or bubble in the answer “B” for question 23.- Digital citizenship is not someone else’s job. It’s your job. If you interact with children under the age of 18, it IS your job.- You don’t have to know ANYTHING about computers to teach digital citizenship. Any argument otherwise is like saying you need a law degree to teach what it means to be a good citizen in our society. We can grasp some basic tenets without needing to understand JavaScript.- Stop thinking that the “technology teacher” is supposed to do it or that they’re better at it than you. In an era that is increasingly tech-ubiquitous, relegating the term “technology teacher” to just one person is offensive. We should all be using AND TEACHING with and about technology as it is the layer through which our students understand the world around them.We’ve spent enough time worrying about our kids being online, it’s time for each of us to step up and actually do something about it. Be creative! Work it into your lessons! Start small, maybe a discussion about appropriate times to use cell phones (hint: anything with a cell phone is instant engagement) and then work your way up. For example, later this month, my 8th graders will make instructional videos for elementary school students, teaching them how to be safe online. Look for ways to incorporate these ideas into your lessons. Digital citizenship doesn’t teach itself and no, they won’t just “figure it out.”Our students have at their fingertips some of the most powerful and capable inventions known to the history of the world. Are we really going to withhold the instructions from them?
—Greg Garner -
Learning in a Vacuum
Show of hands, who is guilty of the following phrases?“Worry about yourself.”“Focus on your own work.”“Don’t bother your neighbor.”“No talking.”Naturally, there are times when these might be appropriate, but I think they are often overused. It’s as thought we’re teaching to students who are learning in a vacuum, completely isolated from their peers. If you think about it, isn’t that the way the educational system has been designed? Our instructional design is intended to meet the individual goals of each student. We ignore the social learning component, dismissing it as a “distraction” or “unnecessary.”The assumption is that each child is responsible for their own learning and has the tools and capacity to learn the lesson as given by the teacher. Further, it is assumed that class size, demography, or other variables should have no impact on learning (nor instruction) since it is about the individual student. In effect, we have created a system that, in theory, should be able to teach each student as effectively and efficiently as any other. We have standardized learning.Or so we think. More and more we are opening our eyes to the truth that each student is unique. Each group of students will be different from any other combination. We are beginning to realize that giving the same prescription to each patient without properly diagnosing is a bad idea. We are beginning to think that giving students with different strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and disabilities the same test in the same format with the same questions doesn’t give an accurate reflection of whether or not that student mastered the content.Consider this a challenge. Don’t be satisfied with standardized learning. Treat each student as a unique, whole person with gifts and talents that are different from anyone else in their peer group. Open your mind to the notion that maybe your students need to spend more time interacting and learning from one another instead of silently filling in blanks on the worksheet. Maybe the next time we’re tired of dealing with students that are talking, we should try to leverage their desire to interact with an interesting, engaging topic that could change their life. And change yours.
—Greg Garner -
When Incompetence Meets Authority
I don’t envy middlemen. They have the greatest opportunity in the world to be a game-changer. However, they have even more opportunity to get it wrong. They have two parties they have to please in any given transaction. Think about the last time you bought something from Amazon that was actually being sold by a third party. Amazon was just the middleman in that transaction. Generally speaking, though, they do a great job at it and so we keep going back to them. But what about that time when a friend “knew a guy” that could hook you up? How’d that go over? More than likely, you were disappointed.But where was your disappointment directed? At the other guy who couldn’t deliver? At yourself? Or did you press your friend to find out why they couldn’t deliver?We’ve all heard the statistics about teachers that leave the classroom within the first few years and one of the most common reasons given relates to a “lack of support” during their time of employment. It seems many schools and systems have interpreted “support” to mean “training” or “professional development.” And so they give you extra workshops to attend, more books to read, and check in on you frequently to see how things are going. This is their version of support.What if “support” actually meant “resource-sharing”? What if teachers really need ideas for what to do with what appear to be gremlins in their classrooms? Why does the gray-haired teacher down the hall seem to have it all together and here I am busting my butt but only spinning my wheels? Perhaps more importantly, what if “support” meant “consistency”?Maybe what teachers (no matter their experience level) really need is for those around them to just be consistent. When there are rules in place, we are all going to follow and enforce them. Imagine the difference in your school’s culture when there are no gray areas as far as expectations are concerned. Now extend this idea up the food chain.Enter the middleman. They have to balance the expectations of their bosses with the teachers they are over. The tricky spot, of course, is when those expectations aren’t aligned. Or the signals get crossed. Or when a failure to take responsibility turns into finger-pointing. In a worst-case scenario, the middleman exerts their authority to deflect their own incompetence onto their subordinates. Suddenly, the middleman’s failure becomes the teacher’s fault.This is a problem. This is an abuse of power and the exact kind of scenario that results in teachers complaining about a “lack of support.” Consistency is key. -
The Importance of Finishing Well
Today is Friday. These three words typically elicit positive emotions and reactions from the people I interact with, including those that wish me a happy POETS day or TGIF. That’s our attitude, isn’t it? We can’t wait for our two-day break from the horrors of the workplace. Apparently it’s better for us to be miserable five days a week so that we REALLY enjoy our time off than doing something we love and feel privileged to do.And so it is an American tradition that productivity on Fridays plummets. The longer the day goes, the less productive we become. It’s so prevalent that there’s nothing profound about the previous statement. It’s considered normal. We have lost the ability to finish with excellence.Today, after four days of district testing, my students thought we’d have a free day. After all, it’s only one day until the weekend, why not just take it easy? Pop in a movie, maybe watch some funny videos, and call it a day. Why have school at all, then? Aren’t we just riding out the clock?Choose to be excellent. Choose to not settle. If every Friday was viewed as “pre-Saturday” and you didn’t purpose to finish anything great, you are sacrificing far too much. There are 36 weeks in our school year. If I “took it easy” on Fridays, I’m giving up 1620 minutes *per class* of instructional time. This is time that great things could occur. What if I used 1620 minutes towards giving students the option to create something of their own choosing? Much like 20% time? What if these 1620 minutes were used to explore new topics? Or practice collaboration? Or any other myriad of things that can be accomplished in 1620 minutes?Finish each class, each day, each week with excellence. Finish well. This single choice will put you far beyond “normal.” Don’t be normal, be excellent. -
Viral Education
Have you ever seen that crazy YouTube video called “David After Dentist”? Of course you have. So have tens of millions of others. Or maybe “Charlie Bit Me”? How did these run-of-the-mill videos, typically just private moments with a family, become global sensations? They went viral.Someone uploaded the video and sent it to a few friends or family. They thought it was hilarious, so they passed it along as well. This cycle continues, an explosion of traffic a result of the network effect.Why aren’t our classes going viral? Or at least some of our projects?What if students couldn’t help but tell their friends about what they got to do in class? What if students were actually evangelizing your projects? We already see some of this happening with teachers, where teachers post/share what they do and others are quick to snap it up, but are they quick to turn around and re-share it with their colleagues? Or do we run in such closed circles that all we get is a feedback loop?It’s not as far-fetched as you might think. Let your ideas begin spreading virally. For example, if you’re having trouble getting a class on-board with a new project that you’re excited about, find one student to get started. Then, let others think this student is getting to do something special. They’ll ask questions. The idea spreads. Then more students want to participate. You’ve now created an environment of students that want to learn and your one student is now the “expert” that they’re turning to. In other words, you started the virus and then got out of the way and let it run its course.Projects won’t go viral by chance and they aren’t just happy accidents. They are the result of dedicated thought and preparation of how you’re going to change the way ideas are spread in your classroom and even school.How are you going to take education viral?—Greg Garner -
In Education, There are no Magic Beans
We live in a society completely infatuated with the notion that there should be a quick-fix for everything. Got a cough? Try this lozenge. Headache? This pill should do the trick. Sudden breakout? This cream will clear you up overnight! Need to find directions to the nearest drugstore to purchase these items? Well, there’s an app for that. Our entire way of marketing revolves around solving needs as quickly as possible. You’re broken, this is what will make you better. Quick-fix. Topical treatments. Whitewashing the tombs. It’s so pervasive (and so effective) that it bleeds over into every corner of our lives and as so many infomercial pitch-men have proven, it’s profitable. Extremely profitable. We’re willing to fork over good money for that which promises instant results.And so it seems many education reformers (or, at least, would-be reformers) have bought the magic beans.This trick, that tool, this contest, that grant money. Surely THAT’S what will finally fix education.We fail to see that, like our bodies, education is a system. We can hide or cover up symptoms, but the root problem remains. We’ve ignored the real issue and just want to pretend that our simple solution is all that is needed. And often, it “works.” At least from a marketing standpoint. We see this teacher or that school or that district doing something different with positive results and we jump on the bandwagon. We buy the magic beans thinking that will fix our ailing system. We think that one person’s recovery is another’s prescription. We ignore the differences.Think about it. Technology initiatives, teacher training camps, professional development opportunities, private and/or charter schools, teachers’ unions, extended day/year programs, copious amounts of money/incentive pay, and more aren’t inherently bad ideas, but what happens when scores don’t improve (that’s the goal of most reform movements)? Was it the technology’s fault? Should we have not trained the teachers? Should we have offered a different amount of PD? What if schools could determine who they kept and who they rejected? We flounder from one idea to the next, wondering why one change seems to cause another problem. Maybe we should have read the label that reads: side effects may include…So here it is: there is no quick-fix. There are no shortcuts. There are no simple solutions. There are no magic beans. The solution? Hard work. Every instance of success that I read about has exactly one common denominator: a group of people absolutely dedicated to making success a reality and then working towards that goal.The problem, of course, is answering the question: who determines and what defines success? -
Showing Up for Work
Yesterday morning we were sent a list of students that would be invited to attend Saturday school to try and make up for days missed previously in the year. This is an interesting idea, akin to coming in to work on an evening or a weekend after being out with illness or even on vacation. After all, there’s work to be done, right?Here’s the problem: it’s based on the archaic notion that showing up is the same as being present. It (falsely) correlates a student’s ability to sit in a chair with their desire to learn and do great work. If a student has access to the curriculum, class discussions, and more through the Internet, do they really need to sit in a seat in a classroom with 29 others? If the school wants their money, they had better. This helps to explain why a school would use Saturday school in the first place.But we do that too, don’t we?We think that “showing up” is the same as “being present.” As if just our physical presence in a place is enough for a difference to be made. We think that sitting in a chair for 8 or 10 or 12 hours a day means that we are really working hard. Clearly, if you were at your workplace for 60 hours a week, you must have accomplished 50% more than the person who left after just 40 hours, right? How many, out of 60 hours, were you really present? How many hours were you 100% engaged?Or were you phoning it in, while sitting at your desk?
—Greg Garner -
hm. well *this* is interesting… typo, maybe?
