The 21st Century Math Classroom

This past weekend I attended the SDCUE Tech Fair.  What particularly impressed me was the work that three math teachers are doing in order to challenge their students and differentiate their instruction.  Julie Garcia, Mundo Cronk, and Michael Salamanca presented Technology + Differentiation = Positive Learning Experiences for All! Differentiation is one of the brass rings in education, and these teachers showed a simple, practical, and successful strategy for using technology to achieve it.

Here’s what they do in a week:

Monday through Wednesday – Teach New Content

Thursday – Review with rotating stations

Friday – Assessment

Prior to each week, students are given a pre-test on the upcoming content.  If a student scores a 90% or above on the pre-test, they are put on what is called the Fast Track.  When a student is put on the Fast Track, they are responsible for completing the warm up each day, but are not expected to participate in the instruction and associated homework that is assigned Monday through Wednesday.  Fast Tracked students are assigned extension activities where they are challenged to create a learning experience for other students on the new content.  They create podcasts to show how to work particular problems or lessons that could be done using the Promethean Interactive Whiteboard.

On Thursdays, students review the new content in stations, and at these stations the name of the game is competition.  This provides motivation, challenge, and fun.  One station is done at the Interactive Whiteboard.   Here students compete in teams to be the first to answer questions correctly.  They use Promethean ActivExpressions to submit their responses.

Another station has students using iPod touches.  They play algebra games like Pop Math and Brain Tuner to hone their skills.  They also have the opportunity to review the content created by their peers by watching their podcasts.

I really like this model for its simplicity and the fact that the model constantly challenges students to do better.  I believe the Fast Track option is a nice motivator to students to want to learn so that they can have the opportunity to complete extension activities.  This strategy is fairly new to these teachers, but I think it shows a lot of promise.  I’m looking forward to seeing how it evolves.

Disrupting Class – An ineffective solution to a big problem?

The authors of Disrupting Class:  How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns argue that the current paradigm of education is broken, and though I agree with their diagnosis of the problem, I do not agree with the prescribed treatment.

The Problem: Since students learn differently and at different paces, learning experiences should be customized.  Part of the reasoning is that if instruction was student-centric and customized, learners would be more motivated.

With this much, I couldn’t agree more.  I believe that education is stuck in a tradition that is not effective, not interesting, and not related to the needs of our current society.

The Solution: The book suggests that computer-based software is the key to provide customization.  The idea is that software could be modular, meaning that it could be inserted at any point as needed.

The author provides several moving examples of how students learn using different modalities:  the young lady who learns to spell by dancing the alphabet, at the teachers suggestion, and a young man whose father helps him understand physics using realia.  Both of these adjustments in learning style were made by an adult who understood the child.  Now how would this work using modular software?  Suppose there was a software for teaching X.  Would that software offer eight different methods of teaching X?  That would mean that for each module you would need to develop eight versions.  Does this seem practical?  Is this what the authors mean?  It is hard to say because despite these moving examples, the authors do not address how software will address these learning differences, which was the whole point – to provide this level of customization.

Now clearly there are things that need to change.  The sage on the stage is the classic embodiment of the monolithic instruction that the authors deride.  This cannot continue.  But at this point in the book I am pondering alternative ways of crafting a solution.  Here are my thoughts so far:

1. Our current system of education is commonly referred to as industrial.  It fit the needs of the factory by conditioning students to repetition and following directions.  It seems to me that any new model should not make the factory model high-tech by plugging students into computer software.  The world uses computers in much more sophisticated ways than that.  Our new model should be based on the current needs of the workplace – creativity, innovation, media literacy, etc.
2. Perhaps another shift in education should be from outlining what teachers have to teach to what students need to learn.  This may seem like one and the same but our current school system does not truly hold students accountable to learning.  Grades are often based on completion, participation, effort, etc. and are rarely a measure of how much a student has learned.

I must admit that I am currently only about one-third of the way through this book, so perhaps my mind will be changed.

The Promise and Peril of 21st Century Learning – Differentiation?

To me one of the biggest promises of 21st century learning is the idea of differentiation.  That learning is no longer one size fits all where the teacher has to decide whether to teach to the middle or one of the extremes.  However, recently I have discovered that there are many different visions of the promise of differentiation, and one particular version worries me quite a bit.

One vision of 21st century learning emphasizes a single powerful element of differentiation only.  In this paradigm students receive instruction from software that is diagnostic and responsive.  Students come to their language arts class, for example, and turn on their computer.  They start up their APEX software, Achieve 3000, or some other online curriculum and start their work.  Instruction is differentiated because each student may be at a different spot in the curriculum. Students can learn at their own pace, and the program adapts to their needs giving them readings and questions at their current level.  This is certainly a powerful type of differentiation.  Learning is tailored to the student’s skill level.

Here are my worries.  This vision of 21st century learning (which I will call the “Plugged In Vision” or PIV for short)…

1. misses an important aspect of differentiation
2. will not adequately develop 21st century skills
3. places the teacher in the role of facilitator but not in a powerful or important way
4. makes technology virtually the only tool for learning

So let me explain my worries because I like to talk and I certainly like to be opinionated.

Worry #1 – The PIV misses an important aspect of differentiation. The curriculum is differentiated by skill level, and this is powerful.  However, the curriculum is not differentiated in any other way.  What other way is there you may ask?  Well, one important aspect of differentiation, in my opinion, is the ability to differentiate instruction by interest as well.  A student in the video Learning to Change, Changing to Learn hits the nail on the head when she says that when you have access to everything (via the internet) it forces you to discover what you are really interested in.  If I were teaching a unit on forces and motion and one of my students was a skilled programer, maybe one way she could demonstrate mastery would be to develop an iPhone application game on the topic.  Or if I have a student who wants to be a songwriter, he can write a song, record it in audacity or garageband on the topic and publish it to CCmixter.  To me this is the power of 21st century learning – to help students realize their dreams and develop their talents while they are learning.  This is not something that an APEX tutor can do.

Worry #2 – The PIV will not addequately develop 21st century skills. The traditional model of education tends to focus on the learning of facts.  That is what students are usually tested on (although some skills are tested such as reading comprehension, etc.)  But in a Google It world, facts are at our fingertips.  There is no reason to memorize anymore except for those things such as mathematical times tables that we need to be able to use with automaticity.  The Partnership for 21st Century Skills identifies some of the core skills students will need to develop in order to be successful in a world where things change quickly and information is infinite.  Some of these skills are innovation, creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, etc.  Now I am not an expert with these online curriculums, but from what I’ve seen and heard, these programs do not develop these important 21st century skills.  In fact, with each student staring at their own computer screen during an entire class period doing their own thing, the differentiation in skill level that the software provides hinders the ability to communicate and collaborate in the classroom.  I could ramble on about this, but I’ll stop there.

Worry #3 – The PIV places the teacher in the role of facilitator but not in a powerful or important way. It is fairly widely agreed upon that “The Sage on the Stage” model of teaching should be replaced by a model where the teacher acts as a facilitator or guide.  Although the PIV model certainly removes the “Sage on the Stage” the facilitator role that emerges is very limited.  From what I understand from proponents of the PIV model, teachers job becomes that of a helper when students are having a hard time and a manager of the classroom, and that’s about it.  The software does the teaching, the evaluation, the interaction.  What I hope for in 21st century learning facilitator is a teacher who is creative and responsive, who is constantly evaluating and adjusting.   Now I understand the worry of the PIV proponents.  The argument is that many teachers do not have the technology skill set (and unfortunately in some cases the pedagogical and content knowledge and skill set) to be able to teach in the responsive way that is possible with new technologies.  This is clearly an important point and the burden is on those of us who envision something other than the PIV model to find a way to develop these skills in our current teacher workforce and help develop skill with a new pedagogy.  Where I disagree with the PIV proponents is I believe it is possible to develop this and I believe it is worth it to find a way to do it.  Just because we have largely been unsuccessful developing this does not mean that we should give up.  To give up would be quite dismissive of teachers and their abilities.

Worry #4 – PIV makes technology virtually the only tool for learning. When students walk into a classroom, turn on their computer and plug in for the duration, instruction ignores the many tools that are possible both high tech and low tech.  Manipulatives, whiteboards (both interactive and not), PAPER, human simulations and performances, etc. are also valuable means of learning, collaborating, and commicating.  Just because computers are a VERY powerful tool does not mean that we should ignore all of the other many tools and strategies that are possible.

Now I feel it is important that I explain my vision a little bit.  My argument is not that diagnostic curriculum such as Achieve 3000 and curriculum that allows students to learn at their own pace such as APEX should not be used.  In fact, I think these tools could be very powerful integrated into a curriculum where students are challenged to do exciting things.  But I believe that project-based learning is more likely to develop the important skills that will help students become life-long learners that are adaptable and excited about learning.  I believe that I would be extremely bored and more likely to drop out of school if I went to seven periods a day where I walked into class, plugged in and did not interact with my classmates or teacher.  This to me is a bleak vision of 21st century learning.

Luckily, I am just starting a class with Dr. Fred Saba at SDSU and I’m looking forward to learning more about the power of 21st century education where interaction and responsiveness are key.  I am hoping to develop a more robust and informed vision myself.

Thanks for reading!

Micro Learning Spaces™ a lá Doug McIntosh

Since I work quite a bit with teachers who are using technology in their classes, I spend a lot of time thinking about what a classroom ought to be like that integrates technology successfully.  I work with middle and high school teacher, so I’ve mostly looked through the lens of secondary education.  I’ve considered, as all stakeholders in 21st century learning have,  many facets of the up-to-date 21st century classroom:

• harware and software needs
• building infrastructure
• professional development
• pedagogical concerns
• management
• scalability
• refresh
• collaboration
• etc.

kindergarten classroom from woodleywonderworks flickr photostream

One thing that I have never considered before are the needs of the physical environment – tables, chairs, and other furniture.  However, after a conversation with my colleague, Doug McIntosh at the SDUSD Edtech department, I’ve begun to see the need for 21st century secondary classrooms to take a cue from the classic elementary classroom.  Here’s his site on the subject, his blog post on the subject and his rLife page)

Elementary classrooms have stations and cozy places for different types of learning.  There are reading nooks, art centers, meeting tables, student desks, etc.  Incidentally, most workplaces have micro environments as well.  You have your personal desk, conference rooms, meeting rooms, reading rooms, storage rooms, labs, etc.

high school classroom from dave_mcmt's flickr photostream

With technology coming into the classroom, we need to rethink the typical secondary classroom design with tables and chairs that are arranged either facing forward or for group work only.  We need flexibility in the environment.  What we’ll need are micro-learning spaces.  Why do high tech  secondary classrooms need micro-environments?  Because high tech classrooms have the potential to innovate how we learn and teach.  If we don’t change the physical environment and secondary classrooms maintain their traditional arrangements, this is less likely to happen.  Students will remain in rows of individual desks, and instruction is likely to continue to be uniform and teacher directed.  Collaboration, differentiation, authentic tasks etc. aren’t as easy to achieve.  We need areas for group work, for individual work, for whole group meetings, for multimedia production, etc.  If every student has a computer, there are so many structures that are possible for learning that requiring students to face forward or even in small groups continually, will curtail the possibilities.  Plus, students don’t all have to be doing the same thing at a given time.  Students can go at their own pace, have different foci for their learning, have an experience that is tailored to their needs and abilities, etc.   Isn’t that part of the dream of 21st century learning?