Archive for the 'Teaching' Category

Language Transcending Ink

Published by Arthus Erea on April 29, 2008 in Teaching. 12 Comments

Sparked by an inspirational post from Clay Burell, an incredibly thought-provoking comment thread ensued which challenged many of us to think about the importance of communication. In all its varied forms, communication is the most important skill in a new century where it is, generally, instant. The new tools and ideas challenge us to think and reevaluate how students are assessed and writing’s importance in this “brave new world.” The seed which grew this wide, 75-comment tall plant was, of itself, an interesting and engaging post about Muhammad Ali. In school, Ali got his share of D’s for his poor written skills. Yet, as the following quote from him shows, he had an intrinsic grasp of the English language, which he readily expressed through oral communication.

I went into a restaurant downtown - you couldn’t do that back then, because things weren’t integrated yet - and I sat down with my [Olympic] gold medal around my neck, and the waitress came up, and I said, ‘Yes, I’d like, uh, a cup of coffee, and a hot dog.’ And she said, ‘I’m sorry, we don’t serve negroes here.’ And I got so angry, I said, ‘And I don’t eat them, either. Now bring me a hot dog!’

Is this the kind of word play, humor, and fundamental grasp of language which you expect from a D- student?

Being only 15, I really did not know much about Muhammad Ali. I researched to discover the man behind these words that could “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” As I read (and watch) more of his oratorical genius, the breadth and depth of his ability to manipulate the English language for success has not ceased to amaze me. (How many D- students end up being honored by giving the graduation speech at Harvard?)

I think we can all agree that Ali understood how to use English, but his grade report would beg to differ: Cassius Clay does not have passable English. This discrepancy can be attributed to the overwhelming emphasis upon writing throughout school curriculum. Honestly, as I look at the string of recent exams and assignments I fail to see how I would be able to pass or show any true talent without strong writing skills:

  • English: journalistic essay analysis of Romeo and Juliet
  • Science exam: write a paragraph upon various science concepts
  • Math exam: (along with other problems) explain a problem in paragraph format
  • Health: essay upon the elements of health
  • History: 1,000 word paper upon the background of Iranian nuclear weaponry

As you can see, in almost any subject, particularly English, strong writing is integral to achieving success. Is this really fair to those who, like Ali, do not have excellent command of the written language but can speak words with wings?

library

With so much fodder for discussion, a fertile comment thread developed, centrally around the question of should all communication mediums be weighted equally, or should writing be given greater weight?

To even begin to delve into that question, the arena for debate must be built around English and Language Arts, including the difference between the two:

...the difference between “language arts” and “English” is paramount in my opinion: English deals with the language of English. Language arts deal with the art of language. Language Arts can deal with multiple languages. Graphics are a language. Symbols are a language. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be stressed just as much written English.

If (practically) anything is a language, what separates Language Arts from other courses? I think the answer to that question lies in that LA should focus around how language can be written and spoken to craft meaning, while other courses focus upon the specific applications of the theory of language. Though Benjamin held a divergent opinion, the continual weighting of writing is shown in what courses are required:

Okay, let’s give graphic communication its own course. (Some might call it art) I’m 99% positive it won’t be a required course. In most schools, “art” isn’t.

Yet, English is. Taking my own school, for example, graduation requires 4 years of English (more than any other subject) and only ½ year of “fine art” (which includes both oral communication and visual artistry). Anyone see the discrepancy?

Ignoring the tangents into computers‘ place in the writing process, the continual emphasis upon writing is attempted to be justified by the good ol’ workplace argument that “it’s what employers want.” Looking at the changing landscape of the workplace, that argument continually holds less and less ground. In many of this century’s jobs, reporting is just as likely to be done through quick Skype calls, IM chats, and emails than through TPS reports. So long as applicants have the ability to communicate (whether through writing, speech, or graphics), employers can utilize their talents in diverse fields.

Of course, most of the world’s information is still stored in the written word. Walking into a library, it would be hard to imagine communicating any other way. Even the digital revolution has failed to change this substantially. For the most part, this lengthy debate was battled by masters of the
written typed word. Still, digital tools give us the ability to communicate easily and efficiently using other mediums, such as speech:

books

In fact, I would even go so far as to say that being able to communicate using other mediums makes you stand out from the crowd. As I attempted to communicate, those rare gems shine out in a sea of stones.

Of course, the looming stresses of writing-based SATs and important exams continues to put pressure upon teachers to focus on writing. Though you may not have much room to maneuver, I challenge you: think about how you, as a teacher of any subject, can help to recognize the other mediums of communication and those who have mastered them.

Even after 75 comments, the debate is not yet resolved. For this, I turn to your additional voices and ideas. In a world filled with words, how can equal weight be given to all the forms those words may take?

  1. Photo on Wikipedia, from the Library of Congress
  2. Photo by Sifter on Flickr
  3. Image by author, using icons from the silk set

Where do we draw the line?

Published by Sean "The Bass Player" on February 10, 2008 in Learning, and Teaching. 49 Comments

Draw the lineI’ve just come out of a fairly quick skype call with Jen/Injenuity… I seem to have been in contact with her quite a bit recently. In the chat she put forward a few interesting questions, one stood out to me in particular. It brought up something I surprisingly hadn’t thought about before: “Does it seem strange to you to associate with a bunch of adults?” Strangely, the answer is no. When I think about it and put it in context, I realize that yes, it is a bit weird, but it still doesn’t bother me, and I don’t see why it should. Just because there is an age gap doesn’t mean that there should be a conversation barrier there too (of course there can be if you want there to be).

One of the other questions she asked which stuck a chord was, now that I think about it not really a question, more of an observation - “and I noticed on your blog that you mentioned you’re the only one of your friends that is interested in this stuff… you really haven’t connected with anyone in your area”. This is sadly very true. Student ed tech types are lone wolfs, we just generally don’t come in packs; I suppose what she was asking here ties in with the previous question. Online I need to be in contact with adults in order to be a part of the networks that I am so fond of because I can’t connect with a lot of other students. This is mainly due to the fact that it is outside of what the average student normally does online. The “you really haven’t connected with anyone in your area” part sort of answers the question that she asked right at the start of the chat “why are you up so late” (it was almost midnight at the time… it’s now almost 1:30am). I’m up so late because I really can’t seem to find many people in Scotland who are interested in this, especially people my age. So, if I want to actively converse, I have to be around when all the Americans are out to play. I guess I’m a wannabe American from the hours of 11 pm till whatever am. Actually, that’s a lie, I’m happy being 100% Scottish no matter what the time zone I end up living in.

The main thought that is running through my head when I look back over all these questions is, where do we draw the line? Or even, do we draw a line? What I mean in this respect is if we were to achieve our goal, if we were to have technology (in particular web 2.0 tools) widely used within education then would teachers actually welcome their students to contact them? And converse in the way I do with the adults and teachers I am connected with over my twitter network and similar things online. The reason I find this a difficult question to answer is that although in a traditional school environment this type of communication (especially that outside of the school walls) is discouraged (at least on a relatively large scale) we are proposing change to this system, and a big change at that. Does this mean that the principles associated with the current system should be changed? Or I should probably say, adapted? Should the door be left closed to student - teacher communication both in and out of school? Should it be left open? Or should there be some sort of compromise?

Personally I really can’t answer this. It may be because I’m not a teacher, and I don’t really know how I’d feel about the students in my class contacting me, and hanging around in the places on the web I have found so sacred at times. And let’s face it, there’s always going to be at least that 1 student sitting in that class that gets on your nerves that bit more than the rest of them… does this mean they would do the same within your own personal networks? And should all this mean that a line needs to be drawn somewhere with the use of these tools (at least in the classroom)?

So, back to Jen’s original question - no I really don’t mind networking and communicating with adults and teachers. It can spark up a good conversation from time to time (one which can be difficult to have with many teenagers my age), besides, it also proves that teachers actually don’t live in school. The question I’m now left wondering about though is this: would you be comfortable sharing your networks if there were more of us around? Because if/when classes of students become connected with you it may not necessarily be for the same reasons I connect with you. It would be a part of their classroom learning, and students don’t always participate in the way they should. In saying that though, I’m assuming you were comfortable with it in the first place...

Here’s the audio! - Call to Jen

The Bass Player

  1. draw the line by alfarman on Flickr

What is learning?

Published by Lindsea on January 30, 2008 in Learning, and Teaching. 33 Comments

Learning is the process in which a person consciously takes their self farther away from ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, the inability to understand something without guidance from an outside force. Ignorance can also be the willful act of not learning. As Immanuel Kant said, “Sapere Aude!” (1784 Kant). Dare to know. To take charge of one’s own learning, or the admission of ignorance and the want to change, cannot be done without courage and self-confidence.

Who are these outside forces that guide the ignorant? Those are teachers. In Modern Education, teachers take charge of our learning for 13 years, meeting our individual needs, and educating us in the subjects that have formed the basis for our world. Our teachers become some of the most important and revered authority figures in our lives, next to our parents. We learn from our teachers.

In general, learning is a popular thing. Students learn. It’s our traditional role. Books, and now the wonderful world of the Internet, serve our understanding. They satisfy our requirements. Teachers are generally eager to teach. Teachers are the guardians of knowledge.

However, learning is different from thinking. A teacher can teach and teach but they can never force a student to take the plunge into the vague pit that is critical, applied and abstract thought. A student (with the big brains that come packed onto the human label) can enter in the methodical algorithms that make it possible to pass for a very intelligent person. Yes, they may even be admired by all the right people, and regarded as a prime candidate for all the right schools in all the top places. But the real question is, do they actually think?Original Art by Lindsea

In the past, the leap from learning (and knowing) to thinking has been accepted as a dangerous thing. To all oppressed people, learning—accepting facts and dogmas—helped them survive, but thinking got them killed in an instant. My own fair sex learned all about what it had to do in order to live in a world lead by men. Until we started thinking, that is. The key factor in suppression of growth is knowledge without thought. The collective perception of a group of people jumping from merely learning to actually thinking is what spurs revolutions. In it’s purest form it is change.

As I mentioned before, the teachers in our lives have been pervasive authority figures. They have taught us all they could within their own human limitations. As authority figures, they have the responsibility to educate their students (give them knowledge that will help them survive beyond school), and also help them think critically, applicability, and abstractly. Being the catalyst to the thoughts of students is the most important role of a teacher, because, again, it is what changes the world.

Under what conditions can teachers retain their control, while still teaching all they can and most importantly promoting thought at every opportunity? What can lead students away from the dangerous trap of algorithms and into the belief-questioning probe of thought?

The teaching methods of “don’t ask questions, learn!” or “don’t argue, believe!” will absolutely discourage thought. But certainly complete freedom wouldn’t guide students toward thought, either. Total anarchy is never the answer, I’ve found through personal experience, because if learning is as I described (requiring guidance form an external force), then in order for students to learn, the teacher needs to draw on despotism. (A despotism that instead claims the gain of it’s charges, not its own personal gain.) No, I believe the best answer is, “Question, think, explore and dissent at your own free will, but listen (and obey)!”. A student cannot refuse the direct orders from a teacher to learn, but as a thinker s/he must question all the knowledge that s/he is accepts into his/her mind from the teacher or any other external source.

If in learning, a student applies critical thought and decides that that particular piece of information goes against their belief system and all ideas of truth, then I believe the student is still obligated to learn it. Ignorance is the willful act of not learning, and with ignorance there cannot come knowledge. This leads to the logical conclusion that without knowledge there cannot come thought, and without thought there cannot come change. The idea of a generation that does not fight to change what it sense to be wrong in the world is one that literally sends shivers down my spine.

But I won’t ever have to worry about that, because it is impossible. If we loosely use the analogy of the teachers being the powerful bourgeoisie and the students being the lead masses of proletariats, then we can see that because the bourgeoisie seek to take control over the proletariats, without providing a forum to speak through, the natural thing for the proletariats to do is join together. Once united, the now connected proletariats will now have “improved means of communication…created by Modern Industry [Modern Education]” (1848 Marx). Teachers created Modern Education, and through that, the students have united in order to voice their opinions. I don’t need to point out that Students 2.0 is a great example of what I have described.

In classic education, students’ voices were never fully heard because they were divided. Now, in neo-education, we retain the authority of the teacher, while making sure to provide opportunities for the roles of student and teacher to get lost in the greater goal of learning, and later, thinking; and second, to actually take into consideration the thoughts produced from those exercises. To teach in a neo-educational environment is to truly allow for and encourage thinking in the classroom, which means to lose the conventional boundaries of classic education. It means to obey the students’ wishes as much as enforce the teachers own. It is teachers and students learning, and thinking together, in a way acknowledges the connections and unity formed between the students and the world at large. Neo-education promotes learning both at it’s most basic, and most complex levels.

  1. Original artwork by Lindsea

21st Century Education: Thinking Creatively

Published by Anthony Chivetta on January 22, 2008 in Teaching. 68 Comments

This was originally written for publication for my school’s newsletter’s edition on “21st century learning”. I present it to you here not as an attempt to present any new ideas, but in the hope that it might help to pull together many of the ideas that are floating around in online education discussions. Those familiar with Dan Pink might see some of his influence here. Enjoy.

Twenty-first century education won’t be defined by any new technology. It won’t be defined by 1:1 laptop programs or tech-intensive projects. Twenty-first century education will, however, be defined by a fundamental shift in what we are teaching—a shift towards learner-centered education and creating creative thinkers. Today’s world is no longer content with students who can simply apply the knowledge they learned in school: our generation will be asked to think and operate in ways that traditional education has not, and can not, prepare us for.

Education has long tried to produce students who can think (and at times, think critically) and it has, for the most part, succeeded. As we move into a world where outsourcing, automation, and the ability to produce a product, physical or intellectual, at the cheapest cost, become the cornerstones of our rapidly evolving global economy, the ability to think critically is no longer enough. The need to know the capital of Florida died when my phone learned the answer. Rather, the students of tomorrow need to be able to think creatively: they will need to learn on their own, adapt to new challenges and innovate on-the-fly. As the realm of intellectual accessibility expands at amazing rates (due to greater global collaboration and access to information), students of tomorrow will need to be their own guides as they explore the body of information that is at their fingertips. My generation will be required to learn information quickly, use that information to solve new and novel problems, and then present those solutions in creative and effective ways. The effective students of tomorrow’s world will be independent learners, strong problem solvers and effective designers.

If we accept the above to be true, I would argue that there are two types of education that will prepare students for the world of tomorrow: experiential learning and project-based learning.

Physics Lab

Experiential learning can be best seen in extracurriculars and in some schools, senior projects. These experiences give students the opportunity to face first-hand the challenges that arise when applying the theoretical knowledge provided by traditional classroom learning to real-world challenges. Light designing for MICDS Theatre has taught me how to take my technical knowledge of lighting and apply it to a creative and artistic end. As issues arise, I must problem-solve within the constraints provided by my technical knowledge and my creative vision—I must think creatively.

Project-based learning is the in-class complement of experiential learning. The concept behind project-based learning is simple: give students the basic tools, then ask them to go above and beyond on their own projects, exploring the information in their own way, and on their own terms. The effect can be awe-inspiring. Our students are diving deeper into subject matter than ever before, and doing so on their own terms in ways that they enjoy. Whether it is through producing a movie on burlesque dance or deriving Kepler’s laws using calculus, students are not only learning, but they are learning how to learn.

Traditional-rote learning has its place too, as a jumping-off point for our intellectual endeavors. We are, however, crippling our students if we don’t give them the tools necessary to be life-long learners.

Update: A recent post on the Generation YES Blog talks about a Lemelson-MIT study showing that students are interested in having the tools to (in my language) think creatively.

Teaching the Process of Design (or, making student videos interesting)

Published by Anthony Chivetta on January 7, 2008 in Teaching. 42 Comments

As I watch students (myself included, as always) work on video projects for their foreign language, English, or other classes, I see a striking similarity between those videos and my family’s home movies. Just like home movies, most of these student videos are lacking a thesis and a design to support them. As technology allows us to integrate creative projects further into our curriculum, we need to give students the tools to funnel their creative efforts into an effective and cohesive whole.

The need to teach students how to design is not a new idea. Dan Meyer has been posting wonderful lessons from his class on Information Design. Scott S. Floyd in his year-end photo post writes:

While we focus on design being important in educating our youth (or their learning), I have begun to pay particular attention in how things look around me. I think that giving our students the opportunity to understand and appreciate the elements of design will allow them to create better finished products to display their learning.

There are many ways that one can approach design. Practitioners of the visual arts might look at it in terms of the principles of design. My background, however, is in theatre and video production. I will also add that my teacher/mentor Mr. Patrick Huber gets full credit for instilling this process in me.

Rendering from light design

If you asked a director of a theatrical or video production for the thesis of their production, you would surely get a cogent statement of purpose. It might be as simple as “My production is ‘historically accurate’” or a more grandiose theory about the world we inhabit: “by allowing ones’ ambition, not rationality, to take control of the choices we make, we lead ourselves into our failure” (That Scottish Play) or “our perception of our environment is a function of the people in it and our relationships with them” (The Zoo Story). Once a thesis is decided on, a concept for the production is formed that expresses the thesis and every design decision made during the production serves the thesis. This gives directors (or designers, or actors) a basic structure on which to base their production. Used correctly, a thesis can be the most powerful tool in a designer’s arsenal.

I would argue that the reason watching student videos can at times be excruciatingly painful is that they lack a cohesive design. Often, they represent a hodgepodge of ideas strewn together with very little thought to creating a unified whole. However, when students begin with picking a thesis, and then work from that thesis, a pattern, a design, begins to emerge. When the question for every single decision is “what supports my thesis?” those awkward transitions, strange cuts, and random effects begin to make sense.

Let us take, as an example, foreign language video projects. In my school, it is not uncommon for a foreign language student to be producing a short three- or five-minute video to demonstrate their mastery of the curriculum. Normally, the first “production meeting” starts with the question: “What can our video be about that makes it easy for us to use the required tenses and vocabulary?” And so, a script is written and design decisions are made with one goal in mind: satisfying the requirements. The problem is two-fold: While the video satisfies the requirements, it does so only minimally, and while the students are using the class’s language, they may not be fully expressing an idea with the language.

Photo from light design

Rather than simply asking our students to combine video technology with their foreign language, we need to be asking them to use both their foreign language and video technology to express an idea. Asking students to reach beyond the requirements is where the real gold lies: it is when we really start to see how well students can use the tools given to them.

This isn’t, of course, limited to foreign language videos. I would classify student video productions into two categories: (1) videos demonstrating mastery of material (such as the above foreign language example), and (2) videos demonstrating the material (such as a video one might produce for a history class explaining some historical event). In this second case, the purpose of a thesis is simple: to make the video interesting. If students are trying to convey information in a video, they need to hold their audience’s attention. Structuring their video and design decisions around a thesis is a powerful tool for creating a cohesive and powerful piece.

I leave you with a series of questions: How and when do you teach students design skills at your school? What types of design skills do you teach them? Do they have the design skills to effectively utilize the creative mediums you provide them? What attributes have you found make student designs particularly effective?

Edit: Changed the title, and corrected some small errors. ~AJC (2008-01-07)

« Older Entries
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported