Don Smith’s Incidental Blog

rain-training-resized.wmv

bio-tch-bio1.mp3

I have spent a bit of time over the last couple of days exploring a free educationally purposed discussion board called NiceNet.org.  While I am not fluent with this application, I do find it to have more possible applications in  the classroom than a blog.  The discussion board does not have all the frills of the blog, which is preferred for academic applications–less distractions for the users.  NiceNet’s discussion board is set up to require students to enroll in a class with an assigned “key.”  This feature prevents non-class participants from joining in, and possibly spoiling, commenting.  This feature also makes it easier for the teacher to manage her class/classes as they use the discussion board. I haven’t found where/how students can post comments on others’ comments.  This feature may be there, but I haven’t seen it with my mock class of two of which I am the teacher and all of the students.

You better find out what you can about PBL.  It makes too much sense to disregard this strategy of instruction.  PBL, as defined in Wikipedia, ”is a constructivist pedagogy that intends to bring about deep learning by allowing learners to use an inquiry based approach to engage with issues and questions that are rich, real and relevant to their lives.”   Students generate their own answers to their own questions, which requires higher level thinking skills.  PBL also promotes peer interaction , as most activities work most effectively with groups of two to three.

ISTE, in its Learning and Leading with Technology journal, August 2007, addresses PBL in a Point/Counterpoint format.   Kevin Scott [con], a teacher in Virginia’s public school system  and Susan Thompson [pro], an educational guru from New York State square off in a debate addressing this curriculum strategy. 

It is  easy to empathize with Mr. Scott.  He posits: that PBL :

• is too demanding for classroom use on a regular basis
• is difficult to manage
• distracts our focus from building core skills
• distracts from efforts to cover information assessed on mandated high stakes tests
• is not a cure-all for students who are labeled as gifted
• to students who struggle with basic skills, PBL is a “waste of time.”
• the problem may be too vague for many students to understand the gist of their project
• real world apathy stifles student interest, motivation, and involvement
• does have  advantages for advanced students and students engrossed in particular subjects
• takes more time, energy, and resources for too little return
• causes weaker students to struggle with PBL, because their learning foundation doesn’t support the independen application of  higher level thinking skills [too mush scaffolding need]

Thompson [pro] paints a rosy picture of PBL in the classroom, but her position sounds more fiction-like[plausible,  but not likely to happen in my classroom] than I have experienced. 

• relevant, authentic learning
• provides opportunities for individuals in small groups to hold positions of leadership and work collaboratively with peers
• provides opportunities for the teacher to closely observe how students work as indivuallyl as well as collaboratively
• allows students to learn from their mistakes by finding them and fixing them on their own
• allows students to work at multiple higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy

My heart says that PBL is do-able.  It will take, as Scott stated, more time, energy, and resources than most teachers are willing to spend on something new.  District curriculum planners must build time into the pacing guides to allow for PBL, but that may not be likely to happen given the demands of NCLB.  PBL can be productive for all learners, but as both of our educators in this discussion admit, the students with the strongest foundation of skills and learning will benefit the most. 

If PBL is do-able, where do we start.  Start small. . .model. . .repeat!

In the May, 2007 ISTE journal, Learning and Leading with Technology, this question was posed, “Is it time for a national tracking system?  The answer was provided in a “point/counter-point” format.  This query was a result of congressional testimony by Bill Gates on the “State of Education” and his suggestion to gather inormation on student achievement on a country-wide basis.  Issues such as socio-economic differences and inconsistencies in curriculum and academic standards were addressed by two educational leaders: June atkinson [pro tracking], and Ruth Reynard [against tracking].

This is not tracking in the commonly held definition of educational tracking.  The tracking argued in this article is used to guide states in provided needed training and educational opportunites in cases where there are shortages or gluts in the job market–not the funneling of elementary or secondary students into “tracks” based on academic perfomance.

Both sides agree on one issue:  security and safety of the collected data.   This is where agreement ends.  As a matter-of-fact, it appears that these two education specialist are arguing over “apples and oranges.”  Atkinson [pro] examines the tracking of students who are post secondary–their successes in their vocation or college.  She reports on the benefits of using the data projected from these young adults to “track” trends in job growth and to monitor proficiency in public higher education college and training programs.  Her data guides the “tweaking” of these programs.

Reynard [con] expresses concern over the tracking of high school students while still in their secondary education years.   She  strays [or maybe Atkinson strays] from the post secondary data collection picture into a tracking that is based on test data collected in while children are in high school.  According to Reynard, this proces is discriminatory of minority students and results in their marginalization in our society.  She argues that standardized tests don’t reflect the differences in the “way of knowing” that students of different cultural/ socio-economic backgrounds possess.  Standardized testing, Reynard asserts, “does not ensure learning is taking place,” and tracking based on standardized testing data results in “the student fall[ing]victim to a faulty and biased process.” 

Both sides present solid arguments to support their positions.  This article, however, fails in its format of point/counter-point  in that Reynard and Atkinson aren’t arguing over the same meaning of tracking.   Given this disparity, one “tracking” argument is isolated from the other. A more effective article would show different perspectives of the same tracking.  Don’t hand me an orange when I want an apple.

I don’t believe that the COWs were maximized last year.  Evidently the COWs were monopolized by a few.  What strategies can be implemented so that the COWs are readily available to the whole staff? Don

This is my first post.  I know little about blogging, but I believe it is an ultimately useful higher level thinking teaching tool.  In blogging students must learn to articulate their thoughts and be willing to go public with ideas close to their hearts.  This sharing of ideas can help create a community of thinkers. Speaking of sharing of ideas and communities of thinkers, the video below shows a “sharing of ideas” between my son and his teammate concerning whose “ball” it was. volleyball.wmv