I have mentioned before that our school has a great position - technology coach. We had one on campus. Then, she moved, and we had her by Google Hangout. Then, she decided to work where she lives, so we added the job of technology coach to our media specialist, Daniel O'Brien. He was actually doing quite a lot of tech coaching before, so this really formalized and added to what he was already doing with us. He has taken the baton and run with it.
Teachers learn from watching each other, so Daniel instituted a Pineapple Chart. Pineapples are a long known symbol of welcome, so when you put your name on the Pineapple Chart, it means anyone is welcome to come observe your class that day. Whether it is technology related or not is up to the individual teacher. I put my name down when my kids were designing aluminum foil boats, a thing that has only a little tech. Another teacher invited us in to see her kids use Google Docs for peer editing of AP Language papers. Another has invited us, both physically and digitally, to observe a Twitter chat she is doing with her students. Our AP Psychology teacher invited us to be sharks in a Shark Tank-style presentation her students did on developmental toys. It has been great observing other teachers, especially those outside my own discipline area. Thanks to Daniel's willingness to manage the chart, we get to see the innovations of our teammates and get ideas for our own classrooms.
Another great thing Daniel has done is send out a weekly tech digital newsletter. It is essentially a vlog. He talks to us about events of the week, reminds us who is on the pineapple chart, and chats about new tools. One of my favorite parts of the newsletter is the point/counterpoint videos he includes. Each week, there is a youtube link to an EdTech related video. The first week was Digital Aristotle, in which the case is made that schools will soon be radically different as each child will follow their own digital path of learning. The next week was a video that countered that one, called This Will Revolutionize Education. In that video, the presenter pointed out how many technologies that statement had been applied to (pretty much all of them) and discussed why technology doesn't change education in quite as extreme a way as we expect. These were great for me to discuss with myself and my friends.
One Friday of each month, Daniel hosts Innovation Pods during our lunch. This is when teachers who have the same grade levels (and therefore, usually the same lunch periods) can sit together and talk cross-curricular projects or brainstorm ideas with him. The first one didn't have a ton of attendance, but those who did attend got some great benefit. I encourage people to come to the next ones. On a different Friday, he set up our new VR Goggles in the library and encouraged us to come learn about them so that we could explore different ideas for their use in our classrooms. That was super fun, and I personally had dozens of ideas, not only for my classroom but ones that I could share with my colleagues as well.
Basically, Daniel is making an effort to give us as many venues as possible to spark as many ideas as possible. Way to go, Daniel.
I think the greatest innovation GRACE has isn't really an innovation itself; it's the openness to innovation. It isn't at all unusual for an English teacher and a science teacher to collaborate on a project. If I need to talk through an idea, I have administrators and IT people that I can sit down and brainstorm with. We set aside meeting times specifically for the purpose of discussing innovative ideas that we have. Our students may not know to call it innovation, but they know that we are working together and are not stagnant. Thank you GRACE administration for allowing and encouraging all of this.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Monday, September 18, 2017
#gcsinnovates - Part 1
According to my computer's dictionary, innovation is the act of making changes to something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. Contrary to what we are told at education conferences, educators have been involved in innovation for the past two hundred years. Yes, I've seen the side by side pictures of classrooms that appear to have undergone minimal change, but the photographer in me knows that those pictures show one momentary snapshot of seating. They do not reflect the whole story.
If you walk into a classroom, no matter how traditional the desk setup, you will hear discussions among students and teachers that you would not have heard even ten years ago, much less one hundred years ago. In fact, a person from one hundred years ago might believe you were speaking a different language. The use of youtube as a teaching tool and students creating work rather than simply consuming it was something that couldn't have happened in my own schooling because the tools had not yet been invented. The focus on collaboration that has taken over education is a massive change from what the parents of current students will remember. Schools have definitely changed, and I don't think they are given enough credit for it.
I teach in a one-to-one environment, and my school has been growing in our application of this program for the past six years. We are asked to use technology in our classrooms but not just for the sake of using technology. We are asked to consider what technology makes possible that wasn't possible without it. For example, our students who are reading The Scarlett Letter participate in Twitter chats. The teacher of this class didn't choose Twitter just because she likes Twitter. She chose it because it allows the students to communicate with each other (normal before technology), students in other classes (difficult before technology), teachers across other grades and classes (difficult before technology), and anyone in the world who catches the hashtag (impossible before technology). This is a case in which the use of technology not only improves the lesson but actually makes parts of the lesson completely different than they would have before.
This summer, our faculty all read The Innovator's Mindset by George Cuoros. Despite my irritation with Cuoros' abrasive personality in live workshops, there is much to like in this book. He asks the question, "Would you want to be a learner in your own class?" He poses the challenge to think of yourself as a learner so that students can see your learning process and realize that learning doesn't end when school does. We are asked to think about innovation, not for the sake of innovation, but for what it can bring to your students. Our theater department is putting on a production of Peter Pan this year. We cannot use the traditional cable system to allow our students to fly, so our theater teacher innovated. She asked her students what ideas they had about alternative "flying methods." One of her students is proficient in a program called Blender. He creates incredible works in it and suggested that the students could be scanned, animated, and projected in flight. If she were not courageous, humble, and innovative enough to ask the students, we might not have had the ability to fly our students to Neverland.
One thing that I most appreciate about my school is the recognition that sometimes technology is the best way, and sometimes it only makes sense to use paper and a pencil. Sometimes, an innovation is best, and other times the time-tested way is the best way. We are given freedom in our professional judgment to do what we believe is best for each lesson in our classroom, but we aren't left to figure it out alone. Our media specialists are also technology coaches. Since this post is getting a bit long, I'll talk about how our new technology coach is innovating next week.
If you walk into a classroom, no matter how traditional the desk setup, you will hear discussions among students and teachers that you would not have heard even ten years ago, much less one hundred years ago. In fact, a person from one hundred years ago might believe you were speaking a different language. The use of youtube as a teaching tool and students creating work rather than simply consuming it was something that couldn't have happened in my own schooling because the tools had not yet been invented. The focus on collaboration that has taken over education is a massive change from what the parents of current students will remember. Schools have definitely changed, and I don't think they are given enough credit for it.
I teach in a one-to-one environment, and my school has been growing in our application of this program for the past six years. We are asked to use technology in our classrooms but not just for the sake of using technology. We are asked to consider what technology makes possible that wasn't possible without it. For example, our students who are reading The Scarlett Letter participate in Twitter chats. The teacher of this class didn't choose Twitter just because she likes Twitter. She chose it because it allows the students to communicate with each other (normal before technology), students in other classes (difficult before technology), teachers across other grades and classes (difficult before technology), and anyone in the world who catches the hashtag (impossible before technology). This is a case in which the use of technology not only improves the lesson but actually makes parts of the lesson completely different than they would have before.
This summer, our faculty all read The Innovator's Mindset by George Cuoros. Despite my irritation with Cuoros' abrasive personality in live workshops, there is much to like in this book. He asks the question, "Would you want to be a learner in your own class?" He poses the challenge to think of yourself as a learner so that students can see your learning process and realize that learning doesn't end when school does. We are asked to think about innovation, not for the sake of innovation, but for what it can bring to your students. Our theater department is putting on a production of Peter Pan this year. We cannot use the traditional cable system to allow our students to fly, so our theater teacher innovated. She asked her students what ideas they had about alternative "flying methods." One of her students is proficient in a program called Blender. He creates incredible works in it and suggested that the students could be scanned, animated, and projected in flight. If she were not courageous, humble, and innovative enough to ask the students, we might not have had the ability to fly our students to Neverland.
One thing that I most appreciate about my school is the recognition that sometimes technology is the best way, and sometimes it only makes sense to use paper and a pencil. Sometimes, an innovation is best, and other times the time-tested way is the best way. We are given freedom in our professional judgment to do what we believe is best for each lesson in our classroom, but we aren't left to figure it out alone. Our media specialists are also technology coaches. Since this post is getting a bit long, I'll talk about how our new technology coach is innovating next week.
Monday, September 11, 2017
The Death of Expertise: Part 2 - Social Media v. People Who Actually Know
Eight days ago, I was casually scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed when I saw for the first time that Hurricane Irma would be a category 6 hurricane. I teach science, so I know that there is no such thing as a category 6. Giving my non-sciencey friend the benefit of the doubt, I assume she did not know this. However, I looked at the source of the article and did not find that it came from NOAA or NASA or the National Weather Center or any kind of remotely believable source. This is a smart woman who teaches kids about credibility of sources in research, and she is passing along something from a site with no weather credibility (or arguably no credibility on any topic). Over the course of the next few days, I saw similar articles posted multiple times on both Facebook and Twitter and had people tell it to me in person. When I told them there was no such thing as a category 6, they would reply with, "Yeah, but it's going to the be the same conditions as if there were." This doesn't make sense. It reminds me of when students ask me what UV light WOULD look like IF we could see it. It just doesn't exist that way, so no.
The internet has the power to connect us to so much information - if we take the time to find it. Social media has the power to bring us together with a diverse array of people with perspectives from various cultures, beliefs, and political viewpoints - if we only used it that way. For the first time in the history of the world, we can find out about scientific research from the researcher - if we go past the first page of a Google search.
Sadly, the invention with the power to bring us in contact with a wider variety of people has actually divided us into tribal groups, reading only the articles posted by those we already agree with. Sadly, the powerful tools we have at our disposal have not led to greater connection with experts. We passively consume whatever article our Facebook friends post regardless of source. Chances are, they didn't actually read the article but passed it on based on the headline.
We had already been primed by 24-hour news not to expect experts in our news broadcasts (see last week's post). Then, we started trusting the wisdom of the crowd. (To see how well that worked out, we need only look at the ruined reputations of those men accused by Reddit users who thought they could do police-work in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing.) As we started getting more and more of our news from our phones, we stopped caring where the information came from. A blogger you follow disagrees with your doctor? Who do you believe? Someone posts a meme about a chemical you've never heard of. Clearly, you can conclude that chemical is dangerous and the people who make it are evil without looking it up. Expert, amateur, and nut are all there, in one place, appearing to have equal value.
When an actual meteorologist replied to my friend's post about the hurricane, people argued with him. Later that week, Raleigh's most famous meteorologist, Greg Fishel, had to take time out of his broadcast to address this. I ask, as I did last week, "Do we really have to slow down for these people?" But even after these experts weighed in, people continued to say to me, "Yeah, but it's the same as what it would be if it did exist." We live in a "Yeah, but" world because we cannot be bothered to find out if we are getting information from people who actually know what they are talking about.
Teachers, there has never been a more important time to teach your students about credibility of sources. Teach them the appropriate place for Wikipedia. Don't allow them to use Answers.whatever.answer.com as sources for research. Teach them how to tell the difference between a credible source and a non-credible one. Model wisdom for them by not sharing everything you read on the internet. When you do share, tell them why you find that source trustworthy.
The internet has the power to connect us to so much information - if we take the time to find it. Social media has the power to bring us together with a diverse array of people with perspectives from various cultures, beliefs, and political viewpoints - if we only used it that way. For the first time in the history of the world, we can find out about scientific research from the researcher - if we go past the first page of a Google search.
Sadly, the invention with the power to bring us in contact with a wider variety of people has actually divided us into tribal groups, reading only the articles posted by those we already agree with. Sadly, the powerful tools we have at our disposal have not led to greater connection with experts. We passively consume whatever article our Facebook friends post regardless of source. Chances are, they didn't actually read the article but passed it on based on the headline.
We had already been primed by 24-hour news not to expect experts in our news broadcasts (see last week's post). Then, we started trusting the wisdom of the crowd. (To see how well that worked out, we need only look at the ruined reputations of those men accused by Reddit users who thought they could do police-work in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing.) As we started getting more and more of our news from our phones, we stopped caring where the information came from. A blogger you follow disagrees with your doctor? Who do you believe? Someone posts a meme about a chemical you've never heard of. Clearly, you can conclude that chemical is dangerous and the people who make it are evil without looking it up. Expert, amateur, and nut are all there, in one place, appearing to have equal value. When an actual meteorologist replied to my friend's post about the hurricane, people argued with him. Later that week, Raleigh's most famous meteorologist, Greg Fishel, had to take time out of his broadcast to address this. I ask, as I did last week, "Do we really have to slow down for these people?" But even after these experts weighed in, people continued to say to me, "Yeah, but it's the same as what it would be if it did exist." We live in a "Yeah, but" world because we cannot be bothered to find out if we are getting information from people who actually know what they are talking about.
Teachers, there has never been a more important time to teach your students about credibility of sources. Teach them the appropriate place for Wikipedia. Don't allow them to use Answers.whatever.answer.com as sources for research. Teach them how to tell the difference between a credible source and a non-credible one. Model wisdom for them by not sharing everything you read on the internet. When you do share, tell them why you find that source trustworthy.
Sunday, September 3, 2017
The Death of Expertise: Part 1 - How CNN Ruined the News
I was born in 1976, so I do not have first-hand memories of Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley. I was, however, lucky enough to have a childhood free from 24 hour news. While CNN began in 1980, my family did not have cable until the early 90's, and my first memories of CNN are about the first Iraq war, Operation Desert Storm. I grew up knowing the names of only three national news people, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw. The evening news came on at 6:30 Eastern after the local news unless there was an event that merited breaking into regular programming.
Even though CNN had been around since 1980, the war of the early 90's really put it on the map because it was the first time people wanted to watch a news story for longer than a few minutes. Throughout the 80's, there were only a handful of cable news channels. Of course, after massive ratings spike during the OJ Simpson trial, there was an explosion of cable news networks, all battling for the eyes of viewers primarily by being the first to break a story. This is what led to the death of expertise.
Go to youtube and watch Walter Cronkite interview politicians or NASA officials. It is striking how different those interviews look from what the shouting matches we watch today. Because he was "the most trusted man in America," he got great guests. Because he came on at 6:30, he had all day to research and learn about the topics on which his expert guests would comment. You see him pose intelligent questions because he had learned enough to know what to ask. He ended news broadcasts with "and that's the way it is" unless he had ended the broadcast with a commentary. This was personal rule of his because he wanted Americans to understand the difference between the news and his personal opinion. This small gesture may not have been world altering, but it reflects an attitude that we do not see today.
Because of 24 hour news coverage, there is great pressure to begin speaking about any bit of news instantaneously and keep talking until the next "newsworthy" event occurs. No time is taken to research the story, and the expert guest is whoever answers the phone and can start speaking immediately. In a way only Aaron Sorkin can satirize, his HBO show the newsroom humorously showed well-meaning producers, scrambling to find a guest, booking a professor from the University of Phoenix to comment on a story about Arizona's immigration law, not realizing the it was an online university having nothing to do with the state of Arizona. The pressure to break a story first and keep people from changing channels creates conditions that no serious news professional can endure. Instead, we have newsmen who act more like referees at a boxing match than honest information brokers. Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings may not have been Walter Cronkite, but they weren't bringing on two guests to yell at each other until the commercial break. Lest you think of only the people you disagree with here, there is no difference between CNN and Fox News in this regard. Every cable news channel, no matter what their political bent, is guilty of ruining the news in this way.
Perhaps as bad as breakdown in civility, the most far reaching effect of 24 hour news is the death of expertise. As I mentioned earlier, since there isn't time to bring on experts, the news puts up whoever is nearest to a satellite dish. This has conditions us, not only not to expect an expert opinion, but even to question true experts. Our favorite news source said one thing, and we put our trust in them, no matter what an expert in the field may say. At the same time, we are teach our kids that it is important to treat everyone's viewpoint equally (even if it is clearly nuts). Do we really have to slow down for the flat earth people? Do we really have to place the viewpoint of a conspiracy theorist on the same footing as a scientist, a holocaust victim, or an astronaut who walked on the moon? Do we really think that he who shouts loudest wins? Unfortunately, the current answer to those questions is yes.
Next week, I want to address how social networking and smart phones have contributed to this problem, but for now, let me say this. The next generation will face big, important issues. They are issues that require the depth of research that creates experts. Teaching students about credible sources matters now more than it ever has. We need our students to understand that while we should treat all people with respect, we do not have to place equal stock in their opinions. We need to teach them that expertise matters.
Even though CNN had been around since 1980, the war of the early 90's really put it on the map because it was the first time people wanted to watch a news story for longer than a few minutes. Throughout the 80's, there were only a handful of cable news channels. Of course, after massive ratings spike during the OJ Simpson trial, there was an explosion of cable news networks, all battling for the eyes of viewers primarily by being the first to break a story. This is what led to the death of expertise.
Go to youtube and watch Walter Cronkite interview politicians or NASA officials. It is striking how different those interviews look from what the shouting matches we watch today. Because he was "the most trusted man in America," he got great guests. Because he came on at 6:30, he had all day to research and learn about the topics on which his expert guests would comment. You see him pose intelligent questions because he had learned enough to know what to ask. He ended news broadcasts with "and that's the way it is" unless he had ended the broadcast with a commentary. This was personal rule of his because he wanted Americans to understand the difference between the news and his personal opinion. This small gesture may not have been world altering, but it reflects an attitude that we do not see today.
Because of 24 hour news coverage, there is great pressure to begin speaking about any bit of news instantaneously and keep talking until the next "newsworthy" event occurs. No time is taken to research the story, and the expert guest is whoever answers the phone and can start speaking immediately. In a way only Aaron Sorkin can satirize, his HBO show the newsroom humorously showed well-meaning producers, scrambling to find a guest, booking a professor from the University of Phoenix to comment on a story about Arizona's immigration law, not realizing the it was an online university having nothing to do with the state of Arizona. The pressure to break a story first and keep people from changing channels creates conditions that no serious news professional can endure. Instead, we have newsmen who act more like referees at a boxing match than honest information brokers. Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings may not have been Walter Cronkite, but they weren't bringing on two guests to yell at each other until the commercial break. Lest you think of only the people you disagree with here, there is no difference between CNN and Fox News in this regard. Every cable news channel, no matter what their political bent, is guilty of ruining the news in this way.
Perhaps as bad as breakdown in civility, the most far reaching effect of 24 hour news is the death of expertise. As I mentioned earlier, since there isn't time to bring on experts, the news puts up whoever is nearest to a satellite dish. This has conditions us, not only not to expect an expert opinion, but even to question true experts. Our favorite news source said one thing, and we put our trust in them, no matter what an expert in the field may say. At the same time, we are teach our kids that it is important to treat everyone's viewpoint equally (even if it is clearly nuts). Do we really have to slow down for the flat earth people? Do we really have to place the viewpoint of a conspiracy theorist on the same footing as a scientist, a holocaust victim, or an astronaut who walked on the moon? Do we really think that he who shouts loudest wins? Unfortunately, the current answer to those questions is yes.
Next week, I want to address how social networking and smart phones have contributed to this problem, but for now, let me say this. The next generation will face big, important issues. They are issues that require the depth of research that creates experts. Teaching students about credible sources matters now more than it ever has. We need our students to understand that while we should treat all people with respect, we do not have to place equal stock in their opinions. We need to teach them that expertise matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Güten Pränken is the term coined by Jim Halpert in the series finale of The Office to describe the good pranks that he was going to play on... -
Well, this is certainly not what I had planned to write about this week. I wanted to write some educational wonky stuff in preparation for ...
-
This pendant is a small scale version of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "dissent collar." I bought it a few days after her death in 20...
