Where's Waldo?

Because I had set up this blog specifically for Technology PD at my school, I will not be posting new things here. I do have a (somewhat) regularly updated blog on wordpress:

mrolsonchem.wordpress.com

Screencast-O-Matic

Solid. I can definitely see this coming in handy, not only for giving directions when I am absent, but also for recording lessons for students who are absent, keeping a nice digital record of lessons. I wonder what it would look like to record class daily...? Hmm. Maybe I'll have to try that out next year.

Here's a quick video I made giving instructions on using some different PhET simulators for comparing solid, liquid and gas properties. I like that I can quickly demonstrate some of the features of the video, as well as showing them exactly how to access them from the student save drive.

I thought about writing a snarky comment about not being the next Sal Kahn, but I thought I'd rather give it a positive spin, and hope to be more like Aaron Sams or Brian Bennett (both of whom are pioneers utilizing their own flipped science classes). I am considering doing some flipping next year for general chemistry, and screencast-o-matic would be extremely helpful.

Diigo

Our 4th tool for the 5TTT journey is diigo, which I have found to be quite excellent! It's a bookmarking tool, but it has lots of great features - easy organization of bookmarks, the ability to share bookmarks, screen capture, highlighting, sticky notes - and its all saved to online and can be accessed anywhere. Here's a page I highlighted and added some sticky notes to. I also took a screenshot of Dhaivyd's blog to play around with a  few other features (I love that you can blur!).

Overall, I think diigo is a useful tool. I'm not sure how much I will use the bookmarking (I already have a system of bookmarks set up through chrome) but perhaps if I can get going with them through diigo it will be helpful to be accessed from anywhere rather than just from my computer. I'll have to work on that this summer! I think my favorite feature is the screen capture; it's not perfect - I had some issues with the images moving after selecting them - but it will definitely be helpful for classes as well as for adding stuff to the blog!

Google Docs & Forms

With Dhaivyd talking about the end of the 5TTT timeline, I realize that I need to play a bit of catch-up with my updates on my tech tools. Fortunately, I've got a bit of experience with Google Docs, and I've already been playing around with Google Forms.

Tool #2: Google Docs
I've used Google Docs a number of times for student projects. It is quite convenient for students to share their progress with me (as well as each other), to be able to access it easily from outside of class and for me to efficiently leave them feedback. As Colin had also noted, it is much more streamlined for turning projects in without the worry of losing things. Most recently, students put together some research on the different types of energy alternatives to fossil fuels. Here are some examples of student work via Google Docs:

Student Research 1
Student Research 2
Student Presentation


Tool #3: Google Forms
After the science lab demo gone wrong over at MGJH back in December, I have been a part of  a district-wide group of science teachers that have been discussing how to modify our policies in order to prevent another incident like that from occurring in our district in the future. One of the things that we decided was that any new demo that a teacher would like to add to their curriculum that involves hazardous (i.e. corrosive, combustible, or volatile) chemicals must approved by your building's CHO (chemical hygiene officer) who then works with the teacher and the other CHOs in the district to approve the demo or deem it not safe for school. As the CHO here at Park Center, I thought a Google Form would be a perfect way for a teacher to easily submit a demo for approval, and also create a simple, digital record of what the demo is in order to quickly share it with other CHOs in the district.

Hazardous Demo Approval Form

For anyone that is not a science teacher, this doesn't have much impact on you. To be perfectly honest, most of the demos that are done in our science classes don't involve any hazardous chemicals, and I would be surprised if there were many more that are added to our curriculum. But if/when there are, I'll be ready!

Review of MN Science Standards

Corresponding to my last few posts about standards, I came across an interesting review (via Jack Hassard's blog) called, "The State of State Science Standards" that was done by the Fordham Institute. According to the review, MN's science standards are only worth 5/10 (which according to their standards is a C). I didn't pay much attention to the score, but was much more interested in the analysis:

In the comments about "clarity and specificity" the reviewer made the following comment:

For the most part, the presentation of Minnesota’s standards is clear—but specificity sometimes suffers. With respect to the latter, the main weakness lies in the physical sciences and the all-too-common mismatches between the standards and the examples given... A tendency toward needlessly befuddling language is another failing, particularly when straightforward mathematical concepts are at hand. Consider this demand in the chemistry material: Use the kinetic molecular theory to explain the behavior of gases and the relationship among temperature, pressure, volume, and number of particles. (high school chemistry) This expectation could be much more compactly presented
as, “Manipulate the equation PV = nRT.”

2 big issues that I have:
1) I would agree that the standards are not very specific. However, I see a lack of specificity as an excellent feature that allows creative flexibility to offer students a variety of possibilities for demonstrating their understanding. Standards that are too specific are very constraining, and MN gets much more specific when providing "benchmarks" (the "mismatched examples" he mentions). For reference, here's the chemistry standard  that deals with the ideal gas law:

States of matter can be described in terms of motion of molecules and the properties and behavior of gases can be explained using the kinetic molecular theory.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least half a dozen ways that we could address and investigate this standard. Lacking specificity - yes, and that's a good thing. I don't need the MN Dept of Ed trying to teach my class for me.


2) The reviewer also makes a serious misstep by equating "manipulating the equation" and a scientific explanation. Apples and oranges! Calculating a number using a formula is NOT the same as understanding what the calculated number means, and explaining its relation to scientific phenomena. Ever hear of the Force Concept Inventory?? There are many students who could perform the basic algebra necessary for physics, but that doesn't guarantee that they understand the concepts that are connected to those mathematics.

I think this sums up the unreliability of the review:

A curriculum founded on these materials would be a hodgepodge that fails to convey a sense of system to the student. Indeed, it would be an invitation to science by memorization.

This seems to be contradictory to his previous statements - lacking specificity, but somehow also failing to see the big picture... hmmm... not quite sure I see that, nor how it would invite memorization. Making standards more specific, in my opinion, would lead to a tendency to memorize and not worry about the "system" and how it all relates.

You can find a much more thorough discussion of some of the biases and issues with the review, ultimately giving the review a (generous) D.

Developing Standards for SBG II

As I mentioned in my last post, all of the chemistry teachers in our district recently got together to flesh out our standards as we move forward in our implementation of standards-based grading. Before we get to the goods, I want to clarify the specific terminology that we've been using, as defined by the district. Each class basically breaks down into three levels, starting with big ideas and narrowing down to more specific ideas.

Reporting Standards 

Reporting standards will appear in the gradebooks, and reflect a combination of priority standards (big picture). We based these on the MN state standards.  

Priority Standards

Priority standards are "absolutely essential for student success". These are a bit more specific, but still general enough that they can be assessed in a variety of ways, and will cover a variety of learning objectives. I'm thinking I may put these into my gradebook as well (or at least have some method of tracking them/having students track them). 

Learning Objectives 

Specific nuggets of information, tailored to individual or sets of lessons. These are set by each individual teacher (although each level should have similar ones) so they were not included in our work, even though they are expected to be used to further clarify the priority standards.

Now that we've got that aired out, here's what we came up with for our standards. These will be continuous for all levels of chemistry (conceptual, general, and HP/AP), with the thought that higher levels may add extras or go more in depth.

The first reporting standard (Nature of Science) will be a continuous thread throughout the entire year, and the others will be only in certain trimesters that we cover that particular standard (probably at least two others per tri). The district would also like us to map out exactly which standards (both reporting and priority) are being covered each trimester, so that theoretically a student could transfer from one HS to another within the district and be in basically the same area of the course... still not sure about that idea.

Any thoughts, comments, suggestions, critiques, etc. are more than welcome!

Developing Standards for SBG

One of the most difficult things that I've had to deal with this year is trying to figure out a set of standards to use for chemistry. As I was preparing last summer, I wrestled with our state standards (which, at the time, seemed too "big") and the-slightly-less-daunting learning targets for each (series of) lessons that would be taught.

I spent quite a bit of time reading through lots of SBG tips and ideas, but I was still having a hard time wrapping my head around how it would look for my class. I tried grouping targets by topic (such as "atomic structure", or "chemical reactions") and used a lot of Jason Buell's structure for designing rubrics (or topic scales, as he calls them) and set up checklists similar to what Mylene had done.  When all was said and done, I went about 3 weeks into the year before realizing that the grouping I had done and all of the rubrics I had created were not working the way I wanted them to - so I scrapped them and started over¹.

My intentions were to fully use SBG this year, but the initial setback (without much time to gather the pieces) made it difficult to move forward. I have been utilizing learning goals (targets) for each section/unit and making the targets clear and assessments based on those targets. However, the big ideas (standards?²) are being loosely strung along while we plod through the year and not as clearly tied to the targets as I would like them to be. I'm hoping that by the start of our 3rd trimester in a few weeks, I will be able to have a bit more structure to end the year on a high note.

As our district moves forward with our SBG implementation plan, we are meeting with all of the other chemistry teachers tomorrow to finish developing our standards for next year. I'm hoping that this collaboration will give me a better sense of the "big idea"-"learning target" connection and make it a much easier transition to full SBG next year, and I will have a later post that details what we come up with.

[1] Although at first I felt as though I had wasted a ton of time by doing this, I've come to realize that I learned a lot about how to design useful rubrics through this process - even though I didn't use the rubrics I created.

[2]  I haven't settled on the preferred verbiage just yet (standards? targets? objectives? blah?) but I usually think of standards as being the "big ideas".

Movie Review: Waiting for Superman

Waiting for Superman, directed by Davis Guggenheim

Call it a new-found interest in educational issues; I love reading, watching, discussing and thinking about them. I'm inclined to blame it on grad school. Regardless of where it comes from, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to check out this movie, with all of the (non-educator) buzz about how "amazing," "eye-opening" and "shocking" it is. It had popped up on the Netflix instant-play list a couple of weeks ago, so a friend (who is also a teacher) and I decided to watch it. It was quite thought-provoking, so I figured I would share a few things that came up.

There were a number of issues that the movie examined, many of which involved our "broken" educational system. It mainly follows three students; all minorities living in urban areas and all showing a clear affinity for learning and a great deal of intrinsic motivation. Their story lines mostly involved their school and home life, and their struggles to find a (charter) school that would offer them more/better educational opportunities than their "under-performing" public schools. It also features a former high school teacher, Geoffrey Canada*, who created and runs a charter school in an extremely impoverished area in Harlem. The film even highlights Michelle Rhee's controversial stint as Chancellor of Schools in Washington DC.

The Good
There is no question - our educational system is not perfect. Although the government "tried" to prevent it, students get "left behind" in our school system. But it's not just the students that are getting left behind, it's that some students are also being held back from achieving their full potential. There could be a variety of reasons for this, including (but not limited to) peer groups, school resources, motivation, and their classroom teacher. The movie focuses predominantly on the issues involving the school (resources & teachers), and doesn't do much to consider the influence of other factors.

The Curious
One factor that arose only briefly was the "outdated" idea of teacher tenure, which is an increasingly contentious component of teacher contracts. It made sure to show samples of video taken by students in public high schools of teachers not doing their job while in class (reading the newspaper, etc.). While it certainly is curious that tenured teachers could "get away with it," it certainly is not justification for removing tenure. However, I'm still considering the idea that it needs to be reformed. The jury's still out on this one.

The Questionable
While the movie brought up a number of reasonable problems, it also based many of its conclusions on flawed information. The most prevalent flaw involved the classification of "successful" schools, that seemed to rely on only two pieces of information: test scores and graduation rates.

The easiest strike is thrown by relying on standardized test results. There's a slew of research that shows how worthless standardized tests are at measuring student learning. Yet schools are still being classified as good/bad (or passing/failing) based on the results. There's a reason why NCLB was a flop!

The next strike is a bit of a screwball, and I had to think about it a bit before I realized what was happening. In the video, they show lots of fancy graphics that compare the graduation rates of "failing" schools (in some cases as low as 40%) to the graduation rates in the desired "high-performing" charter schools (all above 90%). But here's the rub - the movie was played up the dramatics of the lottery system these charter schools use (which is the basis of another ed movie, The Lottery), showing how desperately the kids and their families want them to get in. When they do, the families are overjoyed at the idea that their student will be successful - and why shouldn't they be? But with a student who recognizes the importance of the school and a family who will do virtually anything to get them to succeed, is it any wonder that these motivated students are graduating at a higher rate?? Of course not! I don't mean to say that the school has nothing to do with the graduation rates, but merely to point out that the students applying to charter schools with limited spots WANT to be there - and that can make a huge difference.

But there's one big, burning question that I still have - what about the other students? Sure, creating charter schools can provide opportunities for students to succeed (if they want to), but how do we reach everyone else? Let's pretend for a moment that all of the students who wanted to go to successful charter schools were actually able to do so. Almost all of the charters would maintain their "high-performing" status - with students who are trying to make the most of their opportunities going on to be successful. They get to fulfill their potential as a human beings, it's a happy ending, right?  If all of the motivated students leave, who is left in the public schools? All of the students who didn't want to be there in the first place, and who don't care enough (or have enough support) to try to get into a more successful school? The drop-outs, burn-outs, and slackers? Would it be the end of public education as we know it??

Uff-dah. Just thinking about working in a school like that makes my head hurt.

*Update: I found some more info about Geoffrey Canada on another blog, which can be found here.

Feedback

THIS. Above all else, I recognize that giving students feedback is one area of my teaching in which I'm in need of improvement. In fact, I might even go as far as to say that this is the area in which I am in need of the most improvement! Oy vey.
It wouldn't be professional development without an article to read, now would it?

Recommendations

When I first started blogging (sometime early last summer) I came across a number of blogs that have allowed me to reflect and develop my educational "theory" and apply it to make changes in my classroom. Most of them are science related, some are math, and all of them offer great insight into what a classroom can (and in most cases, should) be like. Yesterday, I created a blog roll that lists the main ones that I make a point to read whenever I have the time. Here's a few snippets from that list:

The Math/student-engagement guru:

Dan Meyer is a pretty big name in the math blogosphere, and his blog was the first one that got me searching for others. It was his TED talk that led me to him; if you're interested, start with his "Author's Choice" page. Highly recommended for anyone working with students who are less self-motivated (or anyone in math or science). 

The Puzzlers:

Each of these guys post frequently about science as well as education, and many of their posts leave me questioning and reflecting:

John Burk is a physics teacher who has endless insightful posts. I was particularly intrigued by his recent post about the growth mindset.

Brian Frank is another physics guy who teaches teachers, and constantly has interesting posts about physics as well as teaching.

The SBG-er:

Probably the best resource I have found for SBG guidance has come from Jason Buell. He has an entire page that lists all of the posts about SBG, and they have been an immense help in my transition to SBG this year. It's worth mentioning that he's also a science guy.

****UPDATE
I neglected to include another great SBG (and science) resource: Shawn Cornally, who also has a TED talk that is quite good. He also has a page of SBG stuff, and it's not just for science!


The Newest Addition:

A blog that I just found last week, but has been a great addition to my reading list, belongs to Nick Mitchell - yet another science teacher (surprise surprise). I particularly enjoyed his most recent post about the purpose of using demos in science. Couldn't have been more timely - our district just had a recent incident, and I will be attending a meeting with other science teachers to discuss our district's demo safety policies this week.

Homework; Unanswered Questions

As I was responding to Natasha's comment on my previous post, it was getting a bit long - so I thought it would be better served as a post than a comment.

Natashazen said...

I have often wondered about how much true learning a student can do at home alone. What homework resources, how much homwork, and precisely what kind of homework taska are the best for true learning? It is a question for which I still do not have all the answers

I have many of the same questions about homework - and also a lack of definitive answers. The article I posted presented some interesting conjectures about the amount of homework that is assigned and its relation to student learning - there was not a clear correlation in the research saying more homework = more learning. As you mentioned, I'm sure much of this is also influenced by the tasks as well as the resources available to students; it seems quite difficult to isolate just one of these factors as an individual influence on learning.

Another question that I have is whether or not students NEED homework in order to learn? Yes, it can be used as a form of formative assessment, but do students view it that way? Do they know how to use it that way? Should we teach them?? Should students be punished for not doing it? We know (or at least we think we know) it will help them improve their learning and perform better on assessments, but does that mean they should receive a lower grade for not doing it? So many questions....

I sometimes wonder (and I believe this was also in the article) if we are creating a bigger gap between the "smart" students and the "not-so-smart" students. The students who do the homework usually do better on assessments, but do they need it; would they learn the same amount without doing the homework? And for those students who seem like no amount of harassing will get them to trouble themselves to do homework, will it just keep them thinking (and behaving like) they are "not-so-smart"? Ok, I need to stop... question overload!

On a somewhat related topic, it is interestingly related to the growth vs. static mindset issue, which I have been currently reading about. It's really interesting, and it also reminds me of another book I heard about in grad school this past fall called Choice Words (which is on my list of books to read). I'm excited to learn more...!