#MustRead Shares (weekly)

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

Are traditional report cards “vanity metrics?”

Are traditional report cards “vanity metrics?”

In the business world, we talk about the difference between vanity metrics and meaningful metrics. Vanity metrics are like dandelions – they might look pretty, but to most of us, they’re weeds, using up resources, and doing nothing for your property value.

from “Know the Difference Between Your Data and Your Metrics” by Jeff Bladt and Bob Filbin, Harvard Business Review  |  11:00 AM March 4, 2013

English – 92
Math – 89
Science – 91
History – 88
PE – 93
Art – 90

Such a report card might make the refrigerator. But does it really say very much about the student’s growing capacities in writing (ideas, organization, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, voice)? And did you assume from that last sentence that I was referring to English, or did you assume that such metrics could cut across the departmentalized curricular landscape and comprise parts of all the subject grades? Do we know if the student asks probing questions and demonstrates curiosity for understanding more deeply? What do those dandelions tell us about the student’s application of such thinking skills as divergent, emergent, and convergent explorations? What do we know of the student’s perseverance, resilience, risk taking, and grit? Can we make any deductions about the student’s observation and experimentation capabilities? Do we know how the student has demonstrated integrity and empathy from those pretty flowers on the refrigerator door?

From that data set, the one that will live indefinitely in the fireproof cabinets and ethernets of schools, what do we know about the student’s growth and emergence in the 4, 5, or 7Cs of 21st century skills? What do we see on that report card about mindset?

What are we grading? What are we measuring? What are we commenting on? What are we collecting and recording and archiving data on? What do we say matters most about our children? Do our report cards shed light on what we say we value most?

Is your school asking these questions? Why or why not? Are these questions among more systemic considerations that you are examining?

#QuestionsAreTheWaypointsOnThePathOfWisdom

#PedagogicalMasterPlanning

Schools: Would you score 50% on critical thinking allowance?

As a school, if you declare that you teach “critical thinking,” if you claim to develop this one of the 7 C’s of 21st C learning, then how much time and attention do you devote to divergent thinking? How much space and freedom do you allow for this 50% of meta-cognition? For faculty? For parents? For students? For administration?

Measuring Creativity: We Have the Technology

Or would you likely get a “50” on your report card for creative critical thinking allowance?

#HowDoWeCreateWhatWeFailToCulture?

Multi-disciplinary curiosity: 2 resources and the most important 21C “C”

In about 10-12 minutes, you can explore two intriguing examples of how teachers orchestrate integrated, multi-disciplinary curriculum.

From @SteveG_TLC: “Multi-disciplinary News” on What I Learned Today

Here’s a great example of how a news article we might read in the morning at TLC Middle School can be used as a springboard to learn in a truly multi-disciplinary way.

And from @BIEPBL: “Designing Integrated Curriculum” on YouTube

—

And I might just start putting this @ASCD article at the conclusion of every post:

The Case for Curiosity

The irony is that children are born with an overpowering need to know. They want to know what every object feels and looks like and what will happen when they attempt to do different things with that object. They want to know why people behave the way they do. This voracious appetite for knowledge defines us as a species. And it doesn’t evaporate when babies become toddlers. Every preschool teacher knows that children between the ages of 18 months and 5 years are insatiable for information. Their curiosity drives much of their learning—through asking questions, watching what others do, listening to what adults say, and tinkering with the world around them. But somehow the incessant curiosity that leads to so much knowledge during the first five years of life dwindles as children go to school.

Why place this article here? For me, curiosity is at the heart of both multi-disciplinary examples!

Real-life learning lessons from an article about the Intel Science Talent Contest #WhatIfWeekly

First, a few quotes:

  • “The program, said Valerie Holmes, one of its teachers, encourages students to find a subject with which they have a personal connection.”
  • “At Stuyvesant she continued to explore what she describes as “how interdisciplinary science can be.””
  • “Part of what the research program teaches students, Ms. Holmes said, is tenacity; Dan and his advisers approached 30 to 40 potential mentors before finding one who would take him on.”
  • “From there she taught herself cellphone software coding and electrical engineering techniques, using “breadboards” and a soldering iron. “Engineering is the field that worships impact,” she said of her choice to enter it, “and to have the greatest impact, it has to be in the developing world.””

[All emphasis mine.]

From “A Laboratory Grows Young Scientists,” By ETHAN HAUSER, NYTimes.com, Published: March 11, 2013.

When students are encouraged and empowered to engage in real-life learning, for which they can see the relevance now, strong progress and achievement is made. And not just for the students, but for the larger world of which they are a part.

From the quotes above, one can see five key components of “real-life learning,” something I write about often here. These traits make for some great education. Schooling could be enhanced to facilitate more of this kind of learning.

  • personal connection
  • interdisciplinary
  • tenacity
  • taught herself
  • to have the greatest impact

What if school possessed more of the characteristics of scientific research, investigation, and exploration? And I don’t just mean that school should “do more science.” I mean that the very culture and foundation of school could look more like the culture and foundations of science – observing, questioning, hypothesizing, experimenting, reflecting, repeating with additional insights from testing, etc. Sounds a lot like innovating, too.

I’ve rarely (never) been to a lab where the scientists spent most of their time in rows and columns of desks receiving content for much of the day, day after day.