Do you have 27 minutes to devote to both educational reform and world peace? Do you? Just 27 minutes of your life. Twenty minutes is for watching the TED talk below – John Hunter on the World Peace Game. Two minutes is for reading my words here, which I try to make brief and get out of the way. Five minutes is to share the talk with another person or other people via whatever means you want. I would be willing to guarantee you that you will find value in the 27 minutes you spend doing so. Make it in the video to…
7:20 and you will see a teacher show an artifact of a simple game board that he designed so that he could avoid lecture, avoid dry textbook methods, and engage students in something we all love to do – play games.
8:00 and you will be wanting to build the enhanced prototype yourself…I do!
16:30 and you will see profound learning from a child that cannot be easily tested, but demonstrates self-evident assessment.
18:45 and you will contemplate the power of “spontaneous compassion” and a realistic hope for when these students earn the leadership positions of the world.
John Hunter shows the power of story, the power of dealing in questions rather than answers, the power of project- and problem-based learning, the power of 21st century skills leading the efforts of a classroom, and the power of a teacher who innovates and keeps learning. These are ideas worth spreading.
Many thanks to the colleague who shared this talk with me and our Junior High History PLC.
On rare occasions, I sometimes think it would just be easier to go start another school instead of working on teams of educators trying to innovate curriculum and instruction that has a long history and tradition. However, each and every day (seriously) something or someone brings me back from that relatively irrational cliff face. One of the great hallmarks of my current school – my place of work for the past 16 years – is our regular practice and willingness to analyze and consider ourselves. And I don’t mean admiring ourselves, although all people and institutions can fall into that trap periodically. No, I mean “considering ourselves” in the sense of examining our practices and asking if we can do better for the learners in our care. No matter how frustrating some issues of static inertia or dynamic change may seem, I believe we are genuinely into continuous improvement.
A few weeks ago, the chair of the English department came to see me. He said he had been thinking about what PBL (project-based learning, problem-based learning, passion-based learning, etc.) would look like in a 21st century English classroom. Now this man is a great thinker, so when he said he had been “thinking about,” I knew he had put some serious time, research, reflection, and conversation into the effort. In short, his idea for 21st century PBL in English involves the complexities and integrated nature of publishing. An idea with genius and endless potential!
What to do with the idea? Well, we work in PLCs (professional learning communities) in the Junior High. While not everyone is formally involved – YET! – it is our developing way of working…our ethos of working and learning together. So…the idea was taken to the JH English PLC and, specifically, the Writing Workshop team. Several members of this team had been thinking about potential innovations to the Writing Workshop course and its intersection with Synergy and Economics, which are two more courses in a triad of classes for our eighth graders. Now a confluence of thinking and thinkers used Steven Johnson’s “coffee house” to swirl and rift on some possible manifestations of publishing in the Writing Workshop course. What a blessing that we have four hours a week built into our work days in order to collaborate in this way. May we never take for granted that we have a developing infrastructure to get us anywhere we want to go!
Largely because we could collaborate in PLC meetings, a proposal was quickly drafted and presented to a few administrators. Largely because we have a dynamic vision statement for our work as a school, a foundation existed that practically inspired this type of curricular and instructional innovation and improvement. This week, we were able to send a letter to parents of rising eighth graders explaining that Writing Workshop would be innovating for 2011-12 in order to utilize topical or thematic electives. Here is the letter that was sent:
Today, rising eight-grade students will hear about the innovations in group homeroom, and they will be able to respond to a survey which requests their desired topic of elective focus. Now, they have a choice much greater than that which existed before in this course. Now, they will be able to develop an authentic audience through publishing work. Oh the places we could go!
Possibilities and realities enacted through the passions and determinations of a team of educators. How fortunate I am to work with these teachers! How fortunate I am to work with these learners! How fortunate I am to learn with these learners! It’s about learning!
DISCLAIMER: This post is merely a “thinking post.” I am NOT announcing a change to the daily schedule at the Westminster Junior High. [That ought to make a few people read on!]
God did not create the school schedule. Administrators did. So…nothing is carved in stone. – Unknown
During this second semester, we have had some significant schedule changes due to weather. In January we missed an entire week of school, and the Junior High has compensated for the lost instructional time by altering what is typically our exam week in the final days of May. Also, because of the severe winds and rains of April, we have had to cancel or delay school on a couple of days. Throughout these disruptions to the expected and well-planned moments of school, our Junior High teachers have demonstrated remarkable flexibility and adaptability. They have modeled those 21st C skills by adapting and readjusting to the necessary changes in schedule thrown at us by Mother Nature. [Thanks, Junior High!] Students and parents have shown great understanding and flexibility, too. [Thanks, students and parents!]
So, by my reckoning, we have altered at least 7-8 days of school. There has been no real wailing or gnashing of teeth. People have adjusted. Perhaps we have been so flexible because you just cannot mess with Mother Nature. Perhaps we realize that there are a number of ways to schedule school. Throughout a typical year, we do have special days for L.E.A.P. (Leadership Experience Advisement Program). So, people must value that various modes and methods of learning require schedules that fit the myriad models of instruction. When we can plan and anticipate in advance, we can also be flexible with our normal 55-minute-class based schedule.
Well, all of this has me thinking a lot. If we can demonstrate flexibility and adaptability during the forces of Mother Nature, and if we can demonstrate flexibility and adaptability during planned, expected schedule changes for different modes of learning…then couldn’t we run a week-long (or a two-week long) experiment with a different schedule in 2011-12? Just to learn by doing?
Why would I even propose such an idea? Our school recently rolled out a vision statement for learning in the 21st century at Westminster. In the vision, among other things, we call for more integrated studies and project-based learning. These modes require longer blocks of time for activity, exploration, experimentation, discovery, and authentic learning. So, couldn’t we experiment with a schedule not too terribly different with our current schedule? Couldn’t we run an experiment and see what we think about one period a week per course being longer in time and function? Wouldn’t we learn immeasurably from having to walk and work in such a schedule?
We’ve shown we can adapt and exercise flexibility. We have the skills. Imagine what we could learn by using those skills to explore a new setting. Anyone game? I have a file of about 50 different school schedules. Below is but one example as a possible week-long experiment. I think some interesting preparations and possible outcomes could be explored and discovered. What do you think?
FSBL – “Father Son Based Learning.” An actual and experimental/metaphorical journey – time with my son and time to examine place-based inquiry learning.
On Friday, April 22, from 10:30 a.m. until about 4:30 p.m., my four-year-old son and I embarked on an Atlanta adventure. I had just come home from reading and writing at a coffee house, after I had dropped my older son at school around 7:40 a.m. JT, or Jbird (he has two nicknames), and I decided on a whim to go get on a MARTA train and see where we ended up. JT loves trains, so trains seemed a good hook to begin the adventure. Getting on a train was the only real decision I made for Jackson.
I took two packages of Captains Waffers and my iPhone and wallet. Those were our supplies. With my iPhone, I would take notes and pictures/videos and post to “Posterous” – an email-based blog system that is as easy as easy can be. I have my Posterous set up to auto-post to Twitter, too, so I get a “two-fer.” On my first post, I failed to include the # symbol, so it will not show up in a Twitter hashtag search. But here is the post that launched the adventure: http://boadams1.posterous.com/an-adventure-fsbl. The other posts can be found on Twitter, using the #FSBL hashtag, or one could simply browse backwards through my 4-22-11 Posterous posts. [There is a link to my Posterous blog on the right column of this It’s About Learning blog – it’s called “Bo’s Links – Bo’s Observation Journal.”]
First and foremost, JT and I had an AMAZING day! We rarely get time for just the two of us, and the time on Friday was magical. We had a blast! But I also got another two-fer…
Secondly, though, I felt I was continuing my investigation of place-based learning possibilities. At Westminster, we enjoy a 180-acre campus. But I am not at all certain that we maximize our use of this incredible resource – our space around us. What if we mildly guided students to explore campus with a package of Captains Waffers and an iPhone-like device? What images and questions might they capture about Nancy Creek or other features of our campus? As teams explored our surrounds and posted to a Posterous observation journal, the other teams could keep track of other explorers via Twitter. What connections might be discovered? Project possibilities might arise from such a day, or even just a period, of exploration. Someone might get interested in the water quality and biology of Nancy Creek. All of a sudden science and writing and history and math might become integrated as field studies led to persuasive letters to Atlanta City Council about cleaning up Nancy Creek – a battle place during the Civil War. Other explorers might use something like the Wild Lab Birds app to chronicle the species of feathered creatures we have on campus. Other teams might examine our use of space in campus planning…”Why did they put that building there?” Such a question might lead to asking to see the master plans for campus which are stored in our Physical Plant and Business Office. Now students could be interacting with other school staff about “city” planning, architecture, and landscaping/environmental issues. Perhaps a team might decide to tap parent resources – people who serve as city planners, architects, etc. Perhaps students might design presentations for improvements and enhancements to their own school or city of Atlanta.
Oh the places we could go! Oh the projects we could explore! Oh the difference we could make! If we would just rethink what it means to be in school. If we would just innovate and leverage the potential of combining our community space with 21st century technologies. Endless learning possibilities. Real learning possibilities.
Wanna go explore? Get a pack of crackers – just in case. And take a 21st century field notebook. Then remember that joyful word that begins many a toddlers vocabulary – “LOOK!”
What are the similarities and differences in “demo-ing” and “tinkering” in science? Or in any discipline? When do we, as teachers, demonstrate a concept to students, and when do we encourage play, experimentation, and discovery on one’s own? I imagine that both demo-ing and tinkering are important – I mean to spur discussion of the both/and possibilities, NOT argue for an either/or decision. In the past year, in particular, I have read and observed a great deal about the uses of demo-ing and tinkering…such understanding seems critical to me amidst the important conversations encircling 21st century teaching and learning.
On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, I enjoyed an amazing school visit at St. Gregory School in Tucson, AZ. Below you can view 4 minutes and 17 seconds of video showing a mere snapshot of what I observed in science at St. Gregory. [I have a lot of video still to produce from my school visits…but this is a start!] Dr. Scott Morris, chair of the science department, took a lot of time with me explaining the changes and transitions in science instruction that St. Gregory is experiencing and precipitating. There is a concerted effort – with much evidence of success – for the student learners to decrease their time in “sit-n-get” and increase their time “doing science.” From my brief exposure to science at St. Gregory, I would say that they are building a tinkering paradise.
As I strolled to the science wing of the high school, two boys were burning leaves with a magnifying glass. I did just this thing two weeks ago with my older son PJ. In this case, however, the StG students were fogging the space between the leaf pile and the lens. With an iPhone, the boys were recording the light cone whose finest tip was causing the burn of the foliation. As far as I could tell, they had designed this experiment. They ran into all kinds of interesting issues, and I heard them prototype their next attempt with the rest of their classmates. Those classmates were tinkering with transistors and receivers…soldering circuits that they had discovered directions for on the Internet. Another group was dismantling a radio and attempting to discover “what does this part do?” And there was evidence of the invention of a musical instrument that used electric charge and bar bending to create amplified sound.
Oh…did I mention that this is an AP class, and the students are reviewing for the AP exam. What a way to review! Of course, I realize that my limited view and time may not have revealed the full scope and measure of the class structure. However, from years of observation, I sensed that these students were in a routine…developing habits of mind…about hypothesizing, designing tests, and experimenting. They were practicing the scientific method, not just repeating or parroting it. They were being scientists.
In the middle school chemistry class, a different type of experimentation was occurring. The teacher was demonstrating a carbide cannon. But he explained there would be no boom until the reaction was recorded in writing and the equation was balanced. Watch the video below and see if they got to experience the boom. Certainly some seeds were planted and excitement generated. Those middle schoolers were tinkering with chemistry and catching the science bug – a bug that catches most all of us around age three. I believe their science teacher helped them sustain that natural curiosity and interest in their natural world. I wonder what type of experiments they might create when they get to the upper level science classes. Or even earlier…
I think the video provides an interesting look at the use of free-form tinkering and teacher-led demo-ing. Again, I maintain that both are important. Are both present in your facilitated learning? Your classroom? How do you utilize demo-ing, and how do you utilize tinkering? What is the balance of the methods for your student learners? Are they mostly sitting-n-getting, observing demos, tinkering? What recipes may result in the best tasting learning? Could the recipes be different for different types of learners? Different types of teachers? And how might those terms – students, learners, teachers – be blurred in distinction when we try different recipes and methods and pedagogies?
NOTE: If I understood correctly, St. Gregory uses a block schedule. Classes are 70 minutes in length and meet every other day. However, the AP science classes meet everyday for 70 minutes for an extended time in which to experiment and learn. I may have misunderstood however.
it's about learning 