Contagious…I Can…We Can

Jonathan Martin’s post “Project Based Learning for the 21st Century: A Disappointing Video” has been “haunting” me a bit – in a positively good way. I responded with a comment on his blog, and I “thought out loud” by posting this early reaction – “Wanted: PBL ‘Coffee House.'” Even earlier, during Christmas vacation, I posted a vlog in order to contemplate some elements of PBL (“Vlogging is Thinking – PBL“) inspired by the same BIE video that spurred Martin’s “disappointing video” post.

More recently, Martin has posted “8 High Quality Project Based Learning (PBL) Videos.” Also, my learning and teaching partner, Jill Gough, has gotten into the blog-comment discussion, too. I am hoping for even more ripples in the pond…more learners and teachers entering the coffee house for PBL (see Steve Johnson’s TED talk if you are unfamiliar with the coffee house reference).

Now, I would like to offer another response to Martin’s blog post and provide an additional thread for the coffee house discussion about PBL. I am making an hypothesis that Kiran Bir Sethi’s TED talk comes closer to what Martin was hoping for in the BIE video about project-based learning.

Through the video story of Riverside School and “infecting India,” I believe that Sethi hits at the heart of what Martin says he finds to be missing from the BIE video – a meaningful and tangible connection of the student project to a real-world issue…and through media/experiences that make an impact on the issue (as opposed to just making posters for the viewing of members of the class). Relevancy – first-hand-involvement style relevancy – provides the “rigor” (I prefer “vigor“) that Martin wishes for the BIE video.

In the near future, I hope to publish a series of posts about PBL, what stands in the way of PBL implementation, and how schools can overcome those obstacles and integrate more PBL into their curricula. Engaging in this virtual discussion with Martin and others is invaluable to me as I think through the complexities of PBL. Additionally, I find the “What is 21st Century Education?” post to be particularly enlightening about the discipline of quality PBL. And, of course, Linda Darling-Hammond pubishes outstanding work about PBL. For me, the most revealing has been Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding.

3six5

3six5.

Atlanta Education PLN increases participation in 3six5 project.

Do Schools Match the Tools?

With the creation and proliferation of Web 2.0 technology, I wonder if we have entered the first time in history that primary media and typical school do not match. Could this be a fundamental cause for the urgency that seems to define discussions of educational change for the 21st century?

What do I mean about the match between primary media and typical school? Well, when Socrates was utilizing the method that bears his name, the primary medium was voice, inquiry, and discussion. “School” matched that basic model of media. During historical periods in which mass-produced print media dictated information relay, schools grew to rely on the same – books. As the industrial revolution produced radio and TV, information was broadcast from a sending station to a set of receivers. We learned to “sit and get” our information. School transformed into a comparable system. In fact, in typical factory model, we efficiently organized classrooms in rows and columns of “receivers.”

Today, in my opinion, we incorrectly refer to students in school as “digital natives.” They are not born with innate digital understanding. The world they live in as children, though, is very different than the world we lived in as children. As we all know, they do grow up in a world in which they have never not known cell phones that function more like computers than telephones. Students in high school essentially have no memory of life before Web 2.0. What an effect this must have on growing learners, day in and day out. They live with an Internet to which they could always contribute. The can create, contribute, and connect. They don’t just “sit and get” like couch potatoes watching a screen or listening to the radio. They use services like Pandora and order what they want on the radio – they determine the broadcast. They make playlists with the computer, not a set of CDs and a tape deck. They text, tweet, and facebook.

Until they go to school. Schools, for the most part, are still in the broadcast and receiver phase. Schools are more like those sets of CDs and tape decks. Technology is a faster adapter than schools. Why? Because our professional development largely still exists as “sit and get” – broadcast and receive. When administrators and teachers create conditions for School 2.0, things start to happen.

Through educational innovation driven by 2.0 learners, countless schools are changing for the better. They are working diligently to ensure that student learning is at the core in our 21st century world. Schools are moving from an unintended focus on what’s convenient for the braodcasters, to an intentional refocusing on what’s best for the co-creators. Schools are leveraging Web 2.0 tools, utilizing the last two decades of brain research, and organizing away from the egg-crate culture into cultures of collaboration. Thank goodness! May we continue to strive for improvements and enhancements that will help our students see school as a primary place of learning – not an irrelevant pitstop between periods of more self-engaged exploration and discovery.

Note: Photos acquired from iStockPhoto.

3six5

I am thrilled that I will be writing and posting for the 3six5 project! My day is June 16.

the3six5
http://the3six5.com
http://twitter.com/the3six5

Megan Howard – Feb. 10
Jill Gough – May 29
Laura Deisley – June 12
Bo Adams – June 16
Peyten Dobbs – July 7
John Burk – August 17
Anna Moore – August 22

AP, PBL, EL

As a middle school principal who does not face the direct pressures of the AP debate, I realize that I may possess a “too-simple” understanding of the discussion. However, I admire the dialogues that a few colleagues of mine are precipitating on their blogs: Quantum Progress and Experiments in Learning by Doing. Addtionally, I found the recent New York Times article on AP to be fascinating. I sent the following email to the PLC (professional learning community) facilitators at my school because I think the article illuminates two important discussions about PBL (project-based learning) and EL (essential learnings – the process of deciding “What students need to learn”).

If you have not read the NYT piece on AP, then here is link to it. I have pasted in two quotes from the article that I think are interesting in relation to the discussion about 1) PBL (project-based learning), and 2) ELs (essential learnings).
 

A committee of the National Research Council, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, called attention to these problems in 2002. It criticized A.P. science courses for cramming in too much material and failing to let students design their own lab experiments. It also said the courses had failed to keep pace with research on how people learn: instead of listening to lectures, “more real learning takes place if students spend more time going into greater depth on fewer topics, allowing them to experience problem solving, controversies and the subtleties of scholarly investigation.”

And to the delight of teachers who have gotten an early peek at the plans, the board also makes clear what will not be on the exam. Part or all of at least 20 of the 56 chapters in the A.P. biology book that Mrs. Carlson’s class uses will no longer need to be covered. (One PowerPoint slide explaining the changes notes sardonically that teachers can retire their swift marches through the “Organ of the Day.”)