3 R's...or 21st Century Skills?

Since my last post on 21st Century Skills, I've really been thinking about the current state of American school culture. Pardon the history lesson that's coming, but I recently had an epiphany I want to share, and I hope that thinking through the history will help me make my point.

Back in the 1800's, school was pretty much dominated by the 3 R's: readin', 'ritin', and 'rithmetic. If you could read, write, and compute, you were considered educated.

By the early 1900's, John Dewey at the University of Chicago was advocating for a more holistic view of education. Dewey (among others) argued for experiential education--that students should experience a great many things first hand, and this would provide a more well-rounded and comprehensive education. (Side note: Dewey is also usually cited as one of the forebears of Progressivism...maybe another history and philosophy lesson there sometime.) This was the beginnings of more student-centered educational practices as well as arts education, experiential science education, inclusion of social sciences, etc. Probably not very similar to our view of these subjects today, but it helps to illustrate.

Enter Sputnik in 1957. The beginning of the Space Race also sparked a shift back toward an emphasis on basic skills--math and science, especially--lest the American Dream fall prey to the communists.

Along came the hippy-dippy 1970's. Here we see another swing towards the experiential, culminating in the far-out idea of Open Schooling. Imagine a school without interior walls and you get the basic idea: a whole passel of kids with a group of teachers, all in one large room. "Who wants to learn some math? Come this way? Want to work on writing stories today? Right over there..." (I'm picturing some of my former students with a diagnosis of ADHD in this setting...whoa...)

In 1983, an extremely influential report was issued by the National Commission on Educational Excellence. The report was entitled, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform. It outlined  the likely failure of the American educational system--unless dramatic reforms were enacted. This prompted a turn back towards the basics. By the early 1990's, the Standards-based Education movement was underway, with national education standards being set forth by different educational groups: the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics produced Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, the American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences generated Benchmarks for Science Literacy, the National Council of Teachers of English created the Standards for the English Language Arts, etc.

In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was signed into law (this was actually a reauthorization of the earlier Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but with new requirements for schools.) This solidified the Standards-Based Education movement and tied it to high-stakes testing as the primary means for assessment of students' mastery of the standards.

And now, my epiphany: with the Common Core State Standards (not a national standards document, by the way) adopted in principal at least by 45 states as I write this, it seems we have come back to whence we began. The Common Core State Standards really only emphasize two subject areas: language arts and mathematics. So...our focus once again is on...the 3 R's.

Sort of like it was in the 1800's.

Seriously.

The pendulum-swing of American education between these two poles (3-R's-back-to-basics and wide-open-experiential-education) has continued its back and forth for at least the past 100 years. I'm not advocating that we need to swing the pendulum all the way back to the experiential side of things, but I do think we're pretty far to the 3 R's side currently. Certainly we need students to know how to read, write, and compute. The trouble is that there seems to be a growing over-emphasis on these elements of education in contemporary school culture. I predict that we'll swing even further toward the "just the basics" side before a cultural shift back towards a more balanced, central position might take hold.

Not that there aren't already advocates for such a shift in our school culture. The 21st Century Skills movement represents one of these. I'm not a member of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, but the more I read their stuff, the more I think I agree with it. (My biggest hang-up is the corporate sponsorship of this group--not a huge fan of having the major textbook publishers behind this... You can see the list of "strategic council members" here.)

The more I think about what have been dubbed "21st Century Skills"--things like teamwork, critical thinking, creativity, global perspective, initiative, integrity, risk-taking, and personal accountability--the more I think this is what I want my own kids to learn and practice. Of course I want them to be able to read and write and compute...but I don't want their education to be reduced to these things. And I fear, in our assessment-crazy culture, that this might be just what will happen. Because if this is what is deemed important, this is what will be tested; and if this is what is going to be tested, this is what will be taught.

What do you think? Is this an either-or proposition? Or is there some room in the middle for both "the basics" as well as the higher-order thinking present in 21st Century Skills?

21st Century Skills...Now!

Back in 2008 or so, I was asked to serve on my schools' Iowa Core Curriculum implementation team. It was a really interesting team to be a part of, and as I worked to become more familiar with the Iowa Core, I found nothing objectionable in it, and much to celebrate.

As you might expect, the standards include information about teaching math, and language arts, and even science and social studies (which are notably absent from the Common Core State Standards), but the part that I found most interesting--and still find interesting--is the part about 21st Century Skills.

What skills are critical for students at the beginning of the 21st Century? The State of Iowa would say:

• Civic Literacy
• Employability Skills
• Financial Literacy
• Health Literacy
• Technology Literacy

I'm in favor of these! And I think they should be woven into the rest of the curriculum.

As a former Technology Coordinator, I'm especially interested in technology literacy. I'd love to see more schools embrace technology literacy not as a subject unto itself, but as a tool to enhance learning in all the disciplines. I've blogged some about this before here and here.

At the teachers' convention I attended last week, I was part of several sessions that were about teaching technology skills--developing technology literacy--in ways that embed the learning within the "regular" disciplines.

Best quote of the convention:

"It's 2012, people. We need to stop talking about 'planning for teaching 21st Century Skills' and start teaching them! That's like saying, 'It's October 1...what am I going to teach this year?'"

(Thanks to my friend, Mr. Glenn Vos, Superintendent of Holland Christian Schools for this gem.)

So, teachers, how are you teaching 21st Century Skills, right now? Specifically, where are you incorporating technology literacy into your classroom practice?

Students, how could your teachers do a better job of this?

A Distinctively Christian Approach to Teaching Science?

I'm thinking a lot lately about how we teach science in Christian schools.

I teach a Science Methods course ("how do we teach science?") for elementary education majors. Being a Christian institution, we talk about being "distinctively Christian" in our approach to teaching...everything! In our department, "distinctively Christian" means more than slapping on Scripture to Christianize a lesson, and more than teaching Bible classes or holding chapel services in school. We want students to think deeply about their faith and how it intersects with lesson planning, with assessment, with classroom management, with school culture, with how they interact with students and colleagues...basically with every part of their teaching practice. As I've said it to my students: "Where do you want your students to end up? That's the point you should start teaching from."

So it's fundamentally a question of religious orientation: Who owns your heart? And how does that influence your "moves" in the classroom?

The problem with this: my students hear about "distinctively Christian teaching"--in general, at least--in practically every education course they take.

I've done this too--speak about teaching Christianly in very general terms. My friend John Van Dyk has developed a pretty useful organizing methodology for thinking about teaching Christianly, which has informed my own teaching practice. I, in turn, share this with my students as a means of getting them to think about a distinctively Christian approach to teaching. In his way of thinking (I'm paraphrasing here) the teacher has three roles to play:

• Guiding - The teacher is an experienced fellow-traveler on the road. Just as a guide on the hiking trail is able to draw attention to both points of interest and possible pitfalls, the teacher seeks to point way on the trail to understanding.
• Unfolding - The teacher is charged with making choices about what parts of the curriculum to "uncover" along the way. Just as unfolding the whole map all at once might prove overwhelming--and not always useful--the teacher may decide to "uncover" just small sections of the terrain at a given time.
• Enabling - The teacher provides opportunities for students to use what they have learned to love God and serve others on the journey. Students aren't just learning for learning's sake, but to make them more faithful disciples.

(Side note: if you like the sound of this and would like to find out more, I'd heartily recommend Dr. Van Dyk's book The Craft of Christian Teaching: A Classroom Journey. You can find out more information here.)

How does this apply to teaching science? As we think about teaching science Christianly, I've made the argument with my students that this might mean:

• Guiding students into inquiry-infused learning situations. You aren't going to just tell them...but you also are going to ensure that the things they are trying are safe, and wise, and will result in understanding science content. As an experienced fellow traveler, you can both give suggestions, and prevent disasters before they happen.
• Making curriculum decisions about what you choose to unfold at a given time. Maybe 3rd graders aren't ready to learn about particle physics just yet. Maybe middle schoolers really should spend some time examining Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Maybe Kindergartners need time to just play with magnets to get some working understanding of how magnetic force works. Maybe senior Anatomy and Physiology students should dissect fetal pigs to help them see the interrelatedness of mammalian body systems. 
• Enabling students to think about how their faith affects the way they think about the world around them. This allows for conversations about ethics and stewardship and wisdom (not just knowledge.)

But here's the thing...my students see where I'm coming from...and they basically agree that this all sounds good, and they would like to do this sort of teaching. But...there's usually some level of dissatisfaction, a feeling of "This isn't enough, Mr. Mulder! I mean, you're describing good teaching in general! Of course we're going to do this stuff. What makes this a distinctively Christian approach to teaching science?"

They've got me there. I can't argue with that--I would hope that all science teachers are going to use inquiry-infused approaches, and wisely ensure that the curriculum topics they teach are developmentally appropriate, and that they would engage their students in discussing ethical situations and stewardship of the world's resources. Does Van Dyk's methodology fall short then?

This has been bothering me for a while, because Van Dyk's methodology makes so much sense to me as an organizing framework for applying my worldview--my "ground rules"--for how I approach my classroom practice, my interactions with students, my thinking about assessment and curriculum and marking papers and the rest. So why doesn't it feel like enough for my students when we talk applying this methodology to teaching science in particular?

I've started thinking about how I can better articulate my perspective for what a distinctively Christian approach to teaching science might look like. I'm still working out all the details of what this might look like, but here I'll share my thinking so far. I'd love to hear your feedback about this.


A Distinctively Christian Approach to Teaching Science

1. Distinctively Christian teachers will begin with a biblical worldview comprised of Scripture-based convictions about the nature of creation. For example, I believe:

• "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
• "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it; the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1)
• "For in him [that is, Christ,] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17)

The way in which we teach our students about the creation should point them toward the Creator!

2. Distinctively Christian science teachers will allow for--and even plan for--opportunities for their students to simply stand in awe at the way the Lord has created the cosmos. I believe that God has revealed aspects of himself to all people through the creation. (This idea is clearly expressed in the Belgic Confession. Also, I love Psalm 19:1-4 as a poetic description of this reality.) While we won't come to saving faith in Christ simply through studying the creation, we can clearly stand in amazement when we consider the way God has designed things to work together, and we can see his providential hand sustaining the order of the world he has made.

3. Distinctively Christian teachers will embrace questions. While our knowledge is imperfect and our understanding incomplete, questions are good! We should wonder about the world we live in--I believe God has created us with a curiosity planted in us--and we should give students the freedom and latitude to pursue their own inquiries, and support them in looking for answers to their questions. We should help our students to understand that some questions are "scientific" questions, that can be answered by scientific methods--observation, measurement, experimentation, data collection, inference, and the like.

4. At the same time, distinctively Christian teachers will recognize that not all questions are "scientific" in nature--they can't all be answered via scientific inquiry. Some questions are fundamentally religious in nature, and while they should be asked and wrestled through (even in science class), we should recognize them as questions that are not fundamentally "scientific." An example might include: "How old is the Earth?" This question has a scientific flavor to it, and scientifically-derived data might help us answer this question, but the way we interpret the data will be influenced by our "ground-rules," our faith commitments. [I picked this question deliberately, as there are a range of perspectives on this topic, even within the realm of Christendom.] Challenging as controversial topics like these can be, distinctively Christian teachers should embrace controversy as a means of engaging with students in faith development.

5. Much of the current literature about science education seems to indicate that students best learn science when it is taught in "Hands-on and Minds-on." Hands-on implies that students should be actively manipulating materials and conducting investigations, and minds-on implies that they should be engaged in thinking their investigations, making connections, and developing understanding. This comes largely from a Constructivist educational philosophy. While I don't wholly embrace Constructivism--carried out to it's conclusion, Constructivism reduces the Truth to each student's own experiences and the knowledge they build for themselves--I do think there is some merit to this sort of approach to teaching science. So I would advocate that distinctively Christian science teachers should also teach science in a way that is "Hearts-on": that we should evaluate the ideas we encounter about the way the world works in light of the truth of Scripture. "Hearts-on" science would acknowledge that God has called us to understand the world around us, not simply for the sake of having that knowledge, but rather so we can better take care of the world. (See Genesis 1:26-28, which is sometimes called the Creation Mandate--God's command to humankind to "rule" over the creation by learning to take care of it.)

--

So that's where my thinking is at this point. What did I leave out? What needs firming up? Where am I way out in left field? Could a Christian teacher in a public school still use this framework?

Demand Great Teachers!

I spent a couple days last week at a convention with several hundred Christian teachers. It was, as these things tend to be, a great time of renewal, worship, and interacting with colleagues in Kingdom work. I had the opportunity to reconnect with friends in Christian Education that I hadn't talked with in a year or more, and the chance to make some new friends. (There's another whole post in there--started some great conversations with colleagues from Michigan, and my wheels are really turning right now.)

Anyway.

One speaker in particular though has prompted a lot of reflection. I'm actually a little troubled by his presentation, because it hits really close to home. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but here is the gist of what he said that has been working on my heart and mind:

• "How many of you are 'good' teachers? How many of you are 'godly' teachers? You can be 'good' without being 'godly,' but you can't be a 'godly' teacher without being 'good.'"
• "Imagine a parent praying for his or her child just before the beginning of a new school year: 'God, please let my child have an average teacher this year!' No one says that. That would be crazy."
• "The fact is, most teachers are average...to awful."
• "Over the course of your schooling, from Kindergarten through college, you have about 100 teachers. How many of you had 100 great teachers?" <crickets> "How many of you had 50?" <No response.> "25?" <Uncomfortable shifting in the room...> "10?" <Finally a smattering of hands go up in a room full of hundreds of teachers.> "5? 4? 3? 2? 1?" <Lots of hands.> "So...maybe 5% of teachers are GREAT teachers?"

This was very challenging to me! I think of myself as a good teacher. I hope I am a "godly" teacher too. And I hope I'm on my way to becoming a great teacher. But this was pretty sobering!

He went on with this challenging thought:

There are three categories of teachers:

1. Some teachers are "on fire." (The ones who are genuinely sad when school is out for summer...)
2. Some teachers are "losing the fire." (The ones who work hard through the heartache of the job...)
3. Some teachers need to be fired. (Whoa...did he actually just say that?)

No pulling punches--he laid it right out there, that some of the teachers in the room need to go.

Wow.

Truth is, I agree with him: some teachers, even in Christian schools, are simply bad teachers. But what would this look like in practice? 

My friend Brenda (a former Christian school teacher who is perhaps a little cynical) once quipped, "Fire a bad teacher in a Christian school? It's easier to hire a hitman."

She's joking, you know. But is there some truth there? I'm really wondering about what would happen if tuition-paying parents would start to hold school boards accountable for retaining poor teachers. 

What if Christian schools and school boards were bold enough to actually demand that their teachers are good...or even great! 

What would schools look like if teachers who just aren't doing their job fully were encouraged to find another line of work?

What if bad teachers--even in Christian schools--were fired?

What if school boards would only hire great teachers to replace the poor teachers?

Okay, I'm also realistic...where are all these "great" teachers hiding? Because I'm pretty sure there aren't a surplus of fantastic Christian teachers in hiding someplace, just waiting for someone to swoop in, liberate them, and put them to work in schools. So I think we need to think about this in terms of expecting teachers to become great teachers, and provide them with the professional development to become really great. 

And then expect them to be great.

And...after a reasonable amount of time (maybe two years or so?), if they aren't on their way to becoming great...maybe it really is time to fire them. 

So here is my threefold challenge: 

• Parents, demand great teachers! Hold your children's teachers accountable.
• Teachers, be great! Expect a culture of continuous improvement and professional development in schools.
• Christian school boards, hire good, godly teachers! And then support them and encourage them and expect them to become great!

Teaching Digital Citizenship

Just came across this gem, and I had to share...

This is very much on my heart, and I think we (all of us) need to do a better job of teaching kids to be good digital citizens. In my most recent school position, I served as Technology Coordinator for a PreK-8th grade Christian school. We used to teach a formal Online Safety program in 7th grade. Three years ago, we realized 7th grade is too late, and we moved it to 5th grade. Now I'm thinking that 2nd grade might be the right place to start. Or Kindergarten.

Is it ever too early to start teaching kids to be safe, play nice, keep their personal information private, etc? What grade level do you think it should begin?

The Best Assignment I've Ever Given

I might have just given the best assignment ever in my teaching career.

We've been talking about Education Reform in ED101 lately. We've been discussing things like merit pay for teachers, Standards-based education, No Child Left Behind, full-service schools, charter schools, open-enrollment, and vouchers. There's a lot in there, so today I wanted to get a sense of their thinking so far.

Hence the in-class assignment today:

You are a band. You are working on a new album celebrating school reform movements of the last 15 years or so.
- Decide on what style of music your band plays (polka? hip hop? death metal?) and come up with a name for your band.
- Create a track list for your album of at least 10 songs. Give them creative, descriptive titles that get at what these ideas in school reform are all about.
- Create an album cover that conveys the style of music your band plays. It should include the album name, the name of your band, and appropriate artwork for the content of the album.

I'll admit, there was some trepidation as they came to pick up big sheets of paper and markers and crayons, but after an initial couple of minutes of head-scratching and making tentative suggestions to their group members, there was a busy hum of energy in the room, and even laughter. After giving them a good bit of time to work on their albums, we shared them. Pretty hilarious results:

Band names included:
- Innovation (power pop)
- Better than Ezracation (cheesy 90's pop-rock)
- Kenny Montana & the Iowa Boys (bluegrass twang)
- Teacherland (mainstream country)
- Skeweled (hard rock)

Some of the best album titles included:
- "Reform for the Broken"
- "Nothin's the Same Anymore"
- "Giving Back to America"
- "Snow Day"
- "Disney's School Reform Hits" [This was amazing--including songs like "I'll Make a Teacher Out of You" and "Can you Feel the Change Tonight?" and "Be Our Guest (In Full Service Schools)"]

My favorite song titles:
- "Strictly District"
- "What School Has Done to Me Lately" [Janet Jackson, anyone?]
- "Voucher Style"
- "A Nation at Risk"
- "CSRD (Yeah You Know Me!)"
- "Kiss My Ass(essment)"
- "Left Behind (It Ain't Gonna Be Me!)"

They hung their albums up on the walls and we took a walk around the room to see what everyone else had come up with. Lots of laughter and knowing nods. Best comment I overheard as they were leaving class: "I knew it was going to be good when I saw markers and crayons coming in, but this was really fun!"

Okay, so having a "fun" class doesn't automatically make it a good lesson, right? But what I noticed as the groups were working was a lot of pulling out their textbooks to make sure they were thinking straight, making arguments, looking things up online with smartphones and laptops to extend their learning, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and--yes--laughter. They were internalizing the ideas we had read and discussed, and making connections, both with each other and between the ideas.

I'm going to refine this lesson (of course it wasn't perfect...they never are), but this one is definitely going to be used again!

A Way to Annotate a Webpage

One of the most frustrating things for me about conducting research online is that there's so much copying and pasting--or jotting things down in a notebook long-hand. I'd love to have some way to annotate my thoughts right on the website I'm reading--highlight things that stand out, stick "post-its" with notes, etc.

And now I've found a way to do just that.

You must go and check out Scrible.com. Note that it's just one "b" in there--not "scribble."

This is a free online tool (okay, you have to create an account, if you want to save your work...) that does just what I described earlier. I can highlight text on the web, create digital notes, and--most importantly--save my work in a cloud-based storage locker. You can tag pages you annotate so you can search for things that are related. (I'm picturing middle school students using this, and tagging things "science fair project" or "history paper" or "this is kewl!") I showed this to my college students last week and they sat there with their mouths hanging open for a few seconds...before half of them quickly pulled it up on their laptops themselves.

When you visit scrible.com, there's a bookmarklet you can drag to your bookmarks bar. (Kinda like the "Pin it!" button you might have added if you are a pinter-addict.) Then, anytime you are browsing a page that you want to annotate, just click the Scrible button, and a toolbar loads up so you can start highlighting with wild abandon.

For those of you using iPads, it works just fine there too. The folks at Scrible have created a how-to document to help you get started.

A couple general caveats I should bring up:

• This tool is currently in beta. (That means it's a stable release of the software, but probably not the final version.) When I used Scrible to jot some notes on a blog post I was reading, it all worked slick, and I was able to save it no problem. BUT...when I went back the next day to read it again, the formatting for the page wasn't saved exactly right. My notes and highlighting were all there, but the paragraph structure, the page colors, etc. weren't quite right. This was a one-time thing for me; all the other pages I've annotated have saved just fine. No biggie for me--I was more interested in the content--but I feel like I should warn you of this. 
• Scrible is free...for now. A tool this great is going generate revenue for the company somehow...but at this point I don't see any mechanism for that. So, it might be ad-based (somehow?) in the future, or there may be a pricing structure released at a future date. Just want you to think about that before you get hooked...and find out you have to pay $10/month later or something.

Keeping these in mind, give it a try! Good solution to a 21st Century problem.

--
Kudos to my twitter-friend Terie Englebrecht (@mrsebiology) for sharing this one.