Digital Natives they are not

I made a class Ning for my grade six students and it has taken longer to register with e-mails and passwords than I would have thought necessary. Some kids have no e-mail accounts, and the year of their birth seems to be an issue. Not sure if they are too young for Ning's liking or what but they had to say to say they were born in 1980 to get it to work.

The Ning is private, so only invited or accepted members may be privy to everything we do. 

I chose to use the following Ning apps:

• instant chat
• videos
• blogs
• pictures
• my page
• forum

The moment my kids got on, they gravitated to the instant chat and spammed the hell-out-of everyone with emoticons, LOLs and other drivel such as "I like cheesecake."

While some spammed the instant chat, others were busy uploading America's Funniest Home Video clips. Yes, some were funny, but more and more were being uploaded. 

While the spam was frustrating, it was anything but a surprise - I anticipated such an event, so I wrote my first blog post on the Ning about Spam:

After World War II, Britain suffered greatly. Their country, including their farms and economy were in ruins from the war.

An exorbitant amount of canned luncheon meat was imported from Argentina to help with the lack of food, and so the meat soon became infamously known as Spam.

Soon, Spam came to be known as anything of low quality done over and over again. When people send low quality messages such as "LOL" or "I like cheesecake" over and over again as messages, this is called spam.

In order to have a productive online experience that focuses on real learning, how should we deal with spam? 

The next day, we talked briefly about spam. This kind of technology typically is outright banned or ignored by schools (either purposefully or because of a lack of money, equipment or know-how), and so it should be no surprise that the kids have developed little to no real skills in using instant chat kinds of technology; after all, they've had no guidance from anyone but their peers.

To get started, I uploaded and shared this video with my students, and then asked them to use the instant chat to discuss the video:

The moment the video was over... more spam. More emoticons. More drivel.

Did I get mad?

No.

Instead, I saw this as a teachable moment. It's not that these digital natives were given an inch so they took a mile - rather, it's more accurate that these kids are not digital natives. Frankly, I'm not sure there is such a thing but that's an another post.

To model some productive chat, I posted a question: "Does school sometimes turn kids off of school?"

And still I didn't get much more of a response than: "Yes"

So I posted a few more questions. 

Still nothing.

So I waited.... and then it happened. Chase typed something different - something no one had done yet: "this video reminds me of my cousin."

I stopped the class and we talked about how what Chase said was different from spam or one word responses. We talked about how his comment could actually inspire a response from others.

Then it happened again. This time Jayla asked a question: "why is there space in this video?"

We stopped and talked about how Jayla's question could inspire others to answer her question or even ask their own.

Finding and posting interesting content is less than half the challenge. The real challenge is in artfully guiding students to thinking and discussing the content in a productive manner. But you'll notice I didn't instruct them on how to do this. I didn't provide them with a list of rules to follow. Rather, I provided them with an opportunity to make mistakes and construct their own understanding with each other for how they should best use the Ning.

This all takes time, but it's worth it. I can already see kids reasoning with themselves and others how we can use this Ning to support our learning.

Grade Level Achievement

Grade-level of achievement is an infinitely nebulous target that is far too abstract to serve any kind of real purpose in a classroom. We all know that two different teachers can assess the same assignment very differently. We also know that one teacher can assess the same assignment twice in the same day and provide two very different assessments. This kind of inherent subjectivity in grading is unavoidable.

In Alberta, the government tried to impose a Grade Level of Achievement data scheme on teachers, but it has proven to be a total joke. Here's why the Alberta Teachers' Association is right to oppose the whole ordeal.

Redefining Success by Kirsten Hill

It is my pleasure to have Kirsten Hill guest blogging here today. She is the author of her own blog called experiential continuum. Kirsten is an outspoken student of education policy and is an ally to progressive education.

By Kirsten Hill

I voted for Obama in the 2008 election because he was inspiring. Like the majority of the country, I was hopeful and ready for change. When I heard him speak at Tulane University about public school reforms, I was sold: finally a President who truly valued education and would fight for our children.

Unfortunately, as he entered his Presidency I didn’t see the changes I expected. I began to lose hope as the testing regime continued its reign and competition was promoted over collaboration. Despite having a President who vowed to advance 21st century skills, promote good character, and informed citizenship things only got worse. Unless that is, test taking is a 21st century skill, good character is obediently taking tests, and informed citizenship involves the exploitation and degradation of teachers.

While I don’t have faith in the direction of education reform, I do have faith in many of the teachers and progressives who are speaking out and asking for a change. To say that current reform efforts are facing resistance would be an understatement. I think we all support the goals; of course we want all students to have equity and opportunity, to be college and career ready, to attend schools with great teachers and leaders, and certainly raising the bar and rewarding excellence is not a bad thing.

Quite frankly, I believe the problem is the plan to attain these goals. I’m not a teacher, I’m not a parent, and I don’t have an advanced degree in education policy (yet), but in the past four years I’ve spent over 800 hours volunteering with two New Orleans Recovery Schools. I’ve become close with students, teachers, and administrators, and I’ve done extensive reading and research on all things education.

Most importantly, I am a student, and have been for the past 18 years. Not only that, but I’m a good student: work hard, pretty much straight A’s, graduated with honors, you know the type. The thing is, I’m terrible at history, I can barely remember a thing from my biology class, and when it comes to math I constantly need refreshers. Why? I got good grades…I passed all the tests. The indicators would point to the fact that I learned all these things. But, I’ll be the first to admit, I didn’t. I memorized, filled in blanks or bubbles or scribbled down short answers, and when time was up the information exited my brain to make room for the next subject, to prepare for the next test.

The things I remember the best are things I wrote about, projects I did, engaging discussions I had with professors and other students. To me, these ‘hands-on’ experiences represent the things I learned; all the information that I no longer possess is simply stuff I was told, things I temporarily stored in order to pass on to the next task at hand, and ultimately the next grade level. Unfortunately, from what I’ve both seen and heard, these projects and meaningful discussions that taught me the most are quickly being traded in for rote memorization, formulaic writing—statistics. Yes, it’s hard to quantify a project or a discussion, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a valuable measure of learning. But, according to policy it appears that it’s the numbers that matter most. If you can’t quantify the learning, then obviously no learning has occurred. Nobody would agree with that, so why do we insist on using measuring sticks to gauge student performance? Why not take a holistic, qualitative approach?

In society, one might argue, the things that matter most are those that aren’t easily quantified. It’s innovation, creativity, and critical thinking skills that our children need the most to succeed; that society needs the most to advance. These crucial skills are stifled in the current educational environment that is driven by data. Undoubtedly, it is nobody’s intent to trample such vital skills; however, we ought to be wary of how the continued crusade for testing and accountability affect such areas.

To think that teachers will be fired, that students will be held back, that schools will be closed or ‘transformed’ largely because of test scores is a disturbing thought. It’s clear that high-stakes testing has fostered an environment of cheating, teaching to the test, and a narrowing of curricular goals. I understand why teachers, students, and administrators are upset, because they know our current approach is counter-productive and it doesn’t really measure anything that can be called “learning”. I’ve had great teachers; some kids still failed those tests. I’ve had terrible teachers; lot’s of people still passed. And in the end, after all that teaching and testing many of us retained very little knowledge. There must be another way. That’s what we should be spending time, effort, and money on: developing a new and improved way to assess student, teacher, and school progress; developing innovative ways to get students engaged with learning. Sure, the Race to the Top Fund and i3 grants provide the opportunity to do just that, but improving student learning isn’t a competition—it is a collaborative mission to save our children and the future of our society.

In defense of current initiatives, it’s been said that ‘we just need better tests’, but until we have those better tests ought we stop putting so much stock in the tests we have? Ought we limit the damage that can be done by relying on imperfect measures of achievement? It seems as though rather than racing to the top, we ought to be working together to create a better way to measure student progress. We ought to be putting more resources towards researching best practices, towards sharing and expanding these best practices.

We need to redefine results—Stop looking at education as if it’s just a bunch of statistics and see it for what it really is: individuals struggling to acquire knowledge, working to find their way in the world—individuals growing as students, as people, and as citizens.

We all want what is best for our children; they are our future. Yet the power to do what is best is not in the right hands. I can only hope that those who have been honored with the power to reform our education system take that power and give it to the people who matter most—who know best. Empower the citizens and let teachers, students, and administrators, lead the way in education reform.

Disengaged kids are inconvenient

If you are a teacher, it should be fairly easy to picture a student who learned a lot in your class. They were thoughtful and attentive. They showed creativity and an intrinsic desire to participate in class discussions. They asked follow-up questions on their own time, and said 'hi' with a smile when they saw you in the hallway.

Then you go to a staff meeting with your teaching colleagues and you hear how this same student does not learn much in other classes. They are thoughtless and inattentive. They show little creativity and no desire to participate in class discussions. They never ask questions, and are generally disengaged, bordering on rude.

But this is the same kid.

It's easy to blame the kids, but we have to acknowledge that there has to be some other variable that is influencing such a difference in behaviour. 

The misbehaviour is not the problem - rather it is a symptom of a far larger problem that has more to do with forces external of the student. But if this is true, teachers, parents, schools and whole systems might have to look at their own practices and that, for the most part, is more than a little inconvenient.

The Case Against Standardized Testing

Here is the introduction to Alfie Kohn's book The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools.

Standardized testing has swelled and mutated, like a creature in one of those old horror movies, to the point that it now threatens to swallow our schools whole. Of course, on the late, late show no one ever insists that the monster is really doing us a favor by making its victims more "accountable". In real life, plenty of people need to be convinced that these tests do not provide an objective measure of learning or a useful inducement to improve teaching, that they are not only unnecessary but highly dangerous. This book was written to challenge those who defend the tests.

Other readers are already well aware of what is being sacrificed in the drive to raise scores, but they may find it helpful to have a few facts or research results at their fingertips, a quotable phrase or a set of answers to commonly asked questions. This book was written to assist those who oppose the tests.

Still others want for neither reasons nor rhetoric; what they lack is the requisite sense of urgency or the belief that they can make a difference. This book was written to energize and encourage those who have resigned themselves to the tests.

The more we learn about standardized testing, particularly in its high-stakes incarnation, the more likely we are to be appalled. And the more we are appalled, the more inclined we will be to do what is necessary to protect our children from this monster in the schools.