Friday Focus
learning for life
A few thoughts on Chromebooks in the classroom
We are making steady progress with our 1:1 program thanks to a lot of teamwork. Here are a few updates and thoughts about the classroom.
1. We have five more loaners in the library for when a student is having problems with her device. The loaners have a green case. We are going to have 20 loaners eventually.
2. It's only taking 3-5 minutes total for students to drop-off their Chromebooks in the library after school. There is NO reason to let them go early from class. They have plenty of time to catch the bus. The hallway traffic at the end of the day has been much better. THANK YOU FOR KEEPING STUDENTS IN CLASS!!!
3. YouTube seems to be open for students. That is a blessing and a curse I realize. It's a great learning tool, but it is also a potential distraction. During instruction, students should not be watching unrelated YouTube videos or listening to music via YouTube. If it is not related to learning, it's just hogging valuable bandwidth.
4. I have noticed an increasing number of students with earbuds/headphones in ears during instructional time. If students are working independently, I don't see a problem with that. But it is very difficult for me to understand why headphones are in when the teacher is providing direct instruction or students are to be interacting with each other. I think we should demand full attention during these times.
5. I have noticed some students are playing games at times that learning should be happening. Consistently communicate and reinforce to your students that social and entertainment options on the Chromebook should not detract from learning. From there we have to work with the individual student if they aren't meeting the expectation.
6. I realize as you use digital tools you're going to run into some tech failures. I can think of several examples of where this has happened just this week. Even the junior voting yesterday for homecoming had a glitch. They were using SurveyMonkey to collect votes and it would only accept 100 votes on the free account. The students quickly learning the Google Forms is a much better option for this type of thing. When you have a setback with your tech plans, keep in mind this is an opportunity to model perseverance, problem solving, adaptability, and so forth. It is great for students to understand things are going to go wrong but we won't give up. It shows our students that we are learners too and willing to take risks and try new things.
On that note, I am amazed by all of you and the way classes are utilizing the Chromebooks. I've heard of schools where teachers didn't expect students to use the devices for much. They just kept teaching like always before. That is definitely not the case for us. I'm seeing the Chromebooks being used regularly across the building. Great job!
1. We have five more loaners in the library for when a student is having problems with her device. The loaners have a green case. We are going to have 20 loaners eventually.
2. It's only taking 3-5 minutes total for students to drop-off their Chromebooks in the library after school. There is NO reason to let them go early from class. They have plenty of time to catch the bus. The hallway traffic at the end of the day has been much better. THANK YOU FOR KEEPING STUDENTS IN CLASS!!!
3. YouTube seems to be open for students. That is a blessing and a curse I realize. It's a great learning tool, but it is also a potential distraction. During instruction, students should not be watching unrelated YouTube videos or listening to music via YouTube. If it is not related to learning, it's just hogging valuable bandwidth.
4. I have noticed an increasing number of students with earbuds/headphones in ears during instructional time. If students are working independently, I don't see a problem with that. But it is very difficult for me to understand why headphones are in when the teacher is providing direct instruction or students are to be interacting with each other. I think we should demand full attention during these times.
5. I have noticed some students are playing games at times that learning should be happening. Consistently communicate and reinforce to your students that social and entertainment options on the Chromebook should not detract from learning. From there we have to work with the individual student if they aren't meeting the expectation.
6. I realize as you use digital tools you're going to run into some tech failures. I can think of several examples of where this has happened just this week. Even the junior voting yesterday for homecoming had a glitch. They were using SurveyMonkey to collect votes and it would only accept 100 votes on the free account. The students quickly learning the Google Forms is a much better option for this type of thing. When you have a setback with your tech plans, keep in mind this is an opportunity to model perseverance, problem solving, adaptability, and so forth. It is great for students to understand things are going to go wrong but we won't give up. It shows our students that we are learners too and willing to take risks and try new things.
On that note, I am amazed by all of you and the way classes are utilizing the Chromebooks. I've heard of schools where teachers didn't expect students to use the devices for much. They just kept teaching like always before. That is definitely not the case for us. I'm seeing the Chromebooks being used regularly across the building. Great job!
What if we had Genius Hour for teachers?
As we meet this coming Wednesday as a whole faculty to discuss Personal Learning Plans for this year, it would be helpful if you read this blog post I wrote in June. It has some of my thoughts about PLCs, their benefits and limitations, and what might be an even better way to collaborate and generate new ideas for learning.
We currently have time built into our weekly schedule for teacher collaboration, and that's a good thing. But all good things need to be reinvented, or at least reinvigorated to make them better. We need to be creative to make the use of time and resources as valuable as possible. Our weekly collaboration time grew out of the Professional Learning Communities movement, and our school has benefited from the PLC structure. But I see a new vision for collaboration and growth emerging.
What if we had Genius Hour for teachers, a time for professionals to work on projects they have passion for. I've seen this idea tossed around on various Twitter chats, and it's reportedly been done in forward-thinking schools. The idea is to empower people to use part of their productive work time to pursue projects they believe are most meaningful for them and for their students.
It could be done independently or collaboratively, with several teachers joining together to share work on a project. The point is that time would be devoted to creativity and innovation and developing ideas and projects that are interesting and personally motivating for teachers.
In the PLC model, teachers are expected to collaboratively plan instruction, write assessments, and analyze data as part of a team. Without question, this team approach was a step in the right direction. Prior to PLC, there was a significant isolation problem in schools. Teachers were jokingly described as a set of independent contractors united by a common parking lot. There seemed to be very little sharing or collaboration in schools.
And yet some of the silos still exist, even though people are sitting in the same room on a semi-regular basis. But overall the idea of working together, sharing ideas, and developing a collective sense of shared ownership has improved as a result of PLC's.
But the PLC model also seems to reinforce the industrial narrative of schooling with every teacher implementing a "guaranteed and viable" curriculum and "delivering" instruction to students. In this paradigm, all students need to learn the same information in a similar time frame as demonstrated on a common assessment. Those students who don't meet the proper timeline receive intervention to ensure that mastery is attained.
The PLC method seems designed for efficiency and consistency, but not for inspiring creativity or knowledge creation. With Genius Hour, the opportunity for out-of-the-box thinking would be emphasized. Teachers would have time to pursue creative ideas for enhancing student learning above and beyond the measurable outcomes of a benchmark assessment.
Here are five reasons we need to explore Genius Hour for teachers:
1. If we want to encourage creative thinking with students, we need to start with teachers. Learning is not something that can be "delivered." Learning is inspired and based on curiosity and creativity.
2. We need to encourage learning not as a checklist of standards but as a lifelong pursuit. Our goal should be learning for life, both for our students and teachers. Too much learning is focused on preparing for a test.
3. Teamwork would be even stronger in schools if teachers were allowed to contribute based on their strengths and not a predefined structure. People love to contribute to a team when they feel their work is valued and there is a shared purpose and interdependence among team members.
4. When we empower teachers to do personally meaningful work, they will more fully reach their professional potential as educators. When there is a personal connection to one's work, on an emotional level, there is a far greater chance that commitment and passion will increase as well.
5. Instead of focusing on results (student achievement data), we need to focus on the process (better learning experiences for students). Whether it's from Daniel Pink's Drive or Carol Dweck's Mindset, there is compelling evidence that high performance is more likely when we focus on growth, embrace mistakes as an opportunity to learn, and provide a professional culture that embraces autonomy, mastery, and sense of purpose.
We currently have time built into our weekly schedule for teacher collaboration, and that's a good thing. But all good things need to be reinvented, or at least reinvigorated to make them better. We need to be creative to make the use of time and resources as valuable as possible. Our weekly collaboration time grew out of the Professional Learning Communities movement, and our school has benefited from the PLC structure. But I see a new vision for collaboration and growth emerging.
What if we had Genius Hour for teachers, a time for professionals to work on projects they have passion for. I've seen this idea tossed around on various Twitter chats, and it's reportedly been done in forward-thinking schools. The idea is to empower people to use part of their productive work time to pursue projects they believe are most meaningful for them and for their students.
It could be done independently or collaboratively, with several teachers joining together to share work on a project. The point is that time would be devoted to creativity and innovation and developing ideas and projects that are interesting and personally motivating for teachers.
In the PLC model, teachers are expected to collaboratively plan instruction, write assessments, and analyze data as part of a team. Without question, this team approach was a step in the right direction. Prior to PLC, there was a significant isolation problem in schools. Teachers were jokingly described as a set of independent contractors united by a common parking lot. There seemed to be very little sharing or collaboration in schools.
And yet some of the silos still exist, even though people are sitting in the same room on a semi-regular basis. But overall the idea of working together, sharing ideas, and developing a collective sense of shared ownership has improved as a result of PLC's.
But the PLC model also seems to reinforce the industrial narrative of schooling with every teacher implementing a "guaranteed and viable" curriculum and "delivering" instruction to students. In this paradigm, all students need to learn the same information in a similar time frame as demonstrated on a common assessment. Those students who don't meet the proper timeline receive intervention to ensure that mastery is attained.
The PLC method seems designed for efficiency and consistency, but not for inspiring creativity or knowledge creation. With Genius Hour, the opportunity for out-of-the-box thinking would be emphasized. Teachers would have time to pursue creative ideas for enhancing student learning above and beyond the measurable outcomes of a benchmark assessment.
Here are five reasons we need to explore Genius Hour for teachers:
1. If we want to encourage creative thinking with students, we need to start with teachers. Learning is not something that can be "delivered." Learning is inspired and based on curiosity and creativity.
2. We need to encourage learning not as a checklist of standards but as a lifelong pursuit. Our goal should be learning for life, both for our students and teachers. Too much learning is focused on preparing for a test.
3. Teamwork would be even stronger in schools if teachers were allowed to contribute based on their strengths and not a predefined structure. People love to contribute to a team when they feel their work is valued and there is a shared purpose and interdependence among team members.
4. When we empower teachers to do personally meaningful work, they will more fully reach their professional potential as educators. When there is a personal connection to one's work, on an emotional level, there is a far greater chance that commitment and passion will increase as well.
5. Instead of focusing on results (student achievement data), we need to focus on the process (better learning experiences for students). Whether it's from Daniel Pink's Drive or Carol Dweck's Mindset, there is compelling evidence that high performance is more likely when we focus on growth, embrace mistakes as an opportunity to learn, and provide a professional culture that embraces autonomy, mastery, and sense of purpose.
Taking Notes vs. Taking a Picture of Notes
The article embedded below discusses research that shows writing notes is actually superior to note taking on a device, even though most of us can type much faster than we write.
But the article questions this entire model of note taking, memorizing, and regurgitating on a test. If we are honest, we know this is not the best way to learn. We had buckets of information we "learned" in college courses (psychology, history, even Old Testament--clearly I was an SBU grad). And yet only spoon fulls of this information was retained past short term memory.
These lecture courses are one of the biggest travesties in higher education in my opinion. There is very little benefit to these courses beyond mere exposure to a discipline. The actual understanding of the discipline is not developed by a memorize and regurgitate method. In reflection, those classes felt like a big guessing game in my college days. How can I outsmart the quiz or test this professor will give?
If we want to develop true understanding and help student remember key concepts in our discipline, they need to actually do something with the information they are learning. They need to use the information to create, produce, contextualize, and process.
As you plan for instruction, I would challenge you to go deeper in asking students to ask questions, research, create, and so forth. Create opportunities for active learning and exploration. It's not wrong to ask student to memorize important concepts. I would just suggest we seek to limit the amount of information memorized and increase the work we do to help provide a relevant context for that learning.
It's amazing how we can learn and remember information when we actually need it for work we are doing that we feel matters. If the information matters to the learner, the brain will soak it up. It's why a kid may be able to memorize incredible amounts of information about trucks, or sports, or hunting but struggle to memorize a list of definitions for school. It's all about context and how the brain makes connections.
But the article questions this entire model of note taking, memorizing, and regurgitating on a test. If we are honest, we know this is not the best way to learn. We had buckets of information we "learned" in college courses (psychology, history, even Old Testament--clearly I was an SBU grad). And yet only spoon fulls of this information was retained past short term memory.
These lecture courses are one of the biggest travesties in higher education in my opinion. There is very little benefit to these courses beyond mere exposure to a discipline. The actual understanding of the discipline is not developed by a memorize and regurgitate method. In reflection, those classes felt like a big guessing game in my college days. How can I outsmart the quiz or test this professor will give?
If we want to develop true understanding and help student remember key concepts in our discipline, they need to actually do something with the information they are learning. They need to use the information to create, produce, contextualize, and process.
As you plan for instruction, I would challenge you to go deeper in asking students to ask questions, research, create, and so forth. Create opportunities for active learning and exploration. It's not wrong to ask student to memorize important concepts. I would just suggest we seek to limit the amount of information memorized and increase the work we do to help provide a relevant context for that learning.
It's amazing how we can learn and remember information when we actually need it for work we are doing that we feel matters. If the information matters to the learner, the brain will soak it up. It's why a kid may be able to memorize incredible amounts of information about trucks, or sports, or hunting but struggle to memorize a list of definitions for school. It's all about context and how the brain makes connections.
Will Richardson - Teacher Entrepreneurship Interview