Classrooms for TODAY!

I was very privileged to be a Mentor for Coaches in Pennsylvania’s Classrooms for the Future (CFF) initiative. This year, I’m asking educators, “What do Classrooms for Today look like?”

Collaborating – Creating – Communicating – Critical Thinking

A Classroom for Today is some combination of the Common Core Standards, Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTs), blended learning, online learning, flipped classrooms, Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), and reading, writing, speaking, and listening across all subject areas. The list goes on and on. How do all of these good ideas become a cohesive classroom for today rather than individual silos?

Let’s talk about it.

In the upcoming weeks, I’ll be blogging about the intersection of the Common Core Standards and Digital Tools. I hope you’ll join me in the conversation.

You can get an email notice each time I post to the blog, by adding your email address in the Follow By Email box.

Please join me!

 

Should we be teaching the tool?

Part II: Today, let’s talk about teaching the tool.

Our second topic was whether or not we should be teaching tools. There are many who believe that we should only teach the features of a tool that are needed for the job at hand. At the same time, the Common Core Standards require students to make strategic decisions about which digital tools to use. So, if we only teach what is needed at the time, then how is a user to know what the possibilities are so that a strategic decision can be made? How will they know if the tool to use is a table in a word processor or a spreadsheet? When would it be appropriate to share their desktops vs. creating a series of slides? When should they use a movie to tell a story?

Sometimes it’s hard to think outside the box, when you don’t know what is inside it. This engineer commented that he has seen way too many presentations that focused too much on the tool’s bells and whistles and not enough on the content. He’s seen documents with all kinds of formatting, when all that was needed was text on the page. Precious time was wasted, time that could have gone into creative thinking rather than into making a pretty page. So, from his perspective, that person knew too much about the tool!

So, how much do we teach our students about a tool? This engineer’s opinion? Teach me what I need to know to use the tool, then teach me how to learn more when I need it or they change it.

During my early days of delivering training (and I chose those words purposefully), I taught everything there was to know about a tool. Many of my students would have little opportunity to use those features in the near future, and they would lose the learning. As I began to facilitate professional learning opportunities, the learning became more authentic and project-based – just like in your classroom. It was then that the learning began to stick. Now, reflection is part of my repertoire, and those in my workshops are encouraged to make connections to their learning  - how they will use it back in the classroom.

Do I think that we need to teach our students the tool? Yes, to the extent that they have a solid foundation in its possibilities, so that they can later strategically determine when it makes sense to use it.

If they can Google it, should we assess it?

I think it’s really important for educators to talk with non-educators – those who are in the fields where many of our students will work. It gives us a different perspective. I was talking with an electrical engineer this weekend. From what I understand, he spends a lot of time studying the flow of blood cells. We had an interesting conversation that got me to thinking about two things: assessment and teaching the tool.

Part I - Today, let’s talk about assessment.

When I asked if his children could bring their own devices to school, he said that they could not BYOD due to a concern about cheating. My response was, “If they can Google it, then should they be asking the kids to answer the question on a graded assessment?” Considering the deep thinking he does in his area of expertise, I figured he’d answer no they should not. I was wrong. So, we talked about the need for foundational knowledge. We all need to know our multiplication tables. We need to be able to spell. We need certain factual knowledge in order to do higher order thinking with it. Unless we fill in the blanks at the lower end of Bloom’s Taxonomy, make connections to the content we are reading and writing about, and build on our prior knowledge, we are  not going to be able to analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and create new meaning. However, if that foundational knowledge is readily available to our students, should we be testing them on it? Or should we be testing them on how they use it? Is the concern about cheating reason enough for not allowing students to bring devices to school?

As our conversation progressed, he commented that you can search all you want for facts and figures; however, he noted that they are often going to be out of context or embedded into content – content that a student may or may not understand. So, I ask, is cheating really the concern?

As technology becomes omnipresent, this is a conversation we need to have.

It's not about the device.

It's not about the device. It's what you do with it.

Let me re-phrase that. It's actually a combination of what you can do with it, as well as what you actually do with it.

I attended a professional learning opportunity recently and was blown away by the tablet I saw. The presenter talked about it as technology without limitations. It is a full-blown computer that I can use as I want to, when I want to, without having to think too hard about the technology. If I want to write with a pen, I can do that. If I want to mark up my text with highlighting and notes, I can do that. If I want to have several things going at the same time, I can do that too. I do not have to think about how to do it; it allows me to work without limitations. That is important to me. I don't want the device to rule what I do.

I want to be able to create, collaborate, communicate, and critically think about the world around me.

The device needs to get out of my way.

Bloom's Digital Taxonomy

• educational-origami - Bloom's Digital Taxonomy

  tags: bloom's Bloom bloomstaxonomy taxonomy blooms

• Bloom's Digital Taxonomy Pyramid

  tags: bloom's Bloom bloomstaxonomy taxonomy blooms

• Kathy Schrock's Guide to Everything - Bloomin' Apps - Kathy Schrock's Guide to Everything

  tags: bloom's Bloom bloomstaxonomy taxonomy blooms

• APPitic - 1,300+ EDUapps

  Directory of apps for education by Apple Distinguished Educators

  tags: iPad bloom's Bloom bloomstaxonomy taxonomy blooms

• iPad Apps and Bloom’s Taxonomy  | Langwitches Blog

• Types of Questions for On-Line Discussion | Penn State Learning Design Community Hub

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

How high is it?

This morning, I was taking a look at a site that organizes iPad apps for Education - in a Bloom's structure. Hmm. Just like any version of digital Bloom's, I have to question whether or not this is a worthwhile practice. In a session I did with my colleague Jim Gates, we tried to provoke a discussion on the topic - "How High Is It?" We looked at the various sites that link Blooms to web 2.0 tools and asked, "When is the last time you saw a wiki that was truly at the level of "Create" on Bloom's?" Generally, they are repositories of information. In a rare instance, the wiki may include new thinking created by students.So, why are they often listed in the Create tier of Bloom's?


These organizational tools are nice ideas, but, unfortunately, it's akin to putting ketchup (catsup) on the food pyramid as a vegetable. I have to ask - huh? These digital Bloom's diagrams need to be used to start a conversation. They certainly should not be considered a final statement on the topic. 

So, ultimately, what is the answer to the question: How high is it? You should not be able to answer that question about the tool, because it's not about the TOOL; it's all about how you and your students use it. 

When you see one of these digital Bloom's diagrams, take some time to question what's there. Just do a search on "digital blooms" to see some examples.

If you have examples of web 2.0 tools being used at the highest levels of Bloom's, please do share. 

Digital Textbooks - My Questions

With the announcements of new digital textbooks everywhere (see below), I am wondering about the implications for literacy, when we:

• Read online on a screen
• Read eText
• Read interactive text
• Read text that has related links and content that enhances the text

I’m wondering if we need to teach students how to read a digital textbook. The skills are simply not the same as when reading static text. Consider that it is surrounded by content that enriches the reading experience: videos, links, and interactive pictures. How does someone read deeply and understand complex texts without having the enhancements turn into distraction?

The tools that are available to “dirty the text” as we read are of great value. We can:

• Take notes that stay with the text
• Highlight the text
• Review all of our notes and highlighting at one time
• See what others are highlighting (in some cases)
• Look up a definition by tapping the word

 Some of the new digital texts will even create notecards for you; however, there is great value in writing or typing those cards out yourself. The act of writing gets lost when the tool creates the notecard for you.

The media that is embedded with the text is fabulous for clarifying or expanding upon a topic. However, in what order should the reader use it? Do readers read through the chapter and return to the media on a second or third pass? Or do they use it the first time through? What will have the greatest impact? Some of it will just be bells and whistles, which readers will need to learn to filter out. Are the text books designed to be read from front to back? Or are they more of a smorgasbord? How does the reader avoid getting lost in this interactive text?

I do think that the possibilities are wonderful; however, I believe that we need to approach this new genre with care.

• It is not the same as text on paper. 
• All online textbooks are not the same.
• All online text is not the same.

Many of the strategies will be the same. Some will need to be modified. And we will need some new ones as well. More questions here than answers.

Recent announcements about digital textbooks

·         http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/18/chegg-releases-new-online-textbooks

·         http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1201oihbafvpihboijhpihbasdouhbasv/event/index.html

·         http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/18/kno-adds-new-smart-textbook-capabilities-kno-me