The WISE model - A quick and nasty guide to evaluating classroom ICT use.

I’m fortunate to be able to visit every classroom in our school. Like most schools, we have invested heavily in ICT. Are we getting value for money? Is the investment really improving educational outcomes? In some classrooms I could answer “Yes” - but in some the answer would have to be a disappointing “No”.

It is not necessary to have an in-depth formal instrument or formal testing to get a sense of how well ICT is being used in classrooms.     

The first “rule of thumb” indicator I have is a simple one - are the students CREATING product ...or CONSUMING product... or both?  If the students are simply consuming product, i.e. using “drill and practice” programs or merely absorbing content from the ‘net, then ICT use in the classroom is likely to be making only a limited contribution to student learning. However, if students are CREATING product then there is a good chance that ICT is being put to good use.

If students are creating learning artefacts then a simple acronym provides another lens through which I can quickly evaluate the significance of the classroom program. That acronym is  WISE.

WISE stands for...

W hy? (or WHAT). Why is ICT being used? Could similar artifacts be produced via traditional means? A hand drawn poster is as valid as a Publisher document for example.   What are the teacher’s  SPECIFIC objectives, what are the SPECIFIC curriculum links? What can students achieve  using computers in this context that could not be achieved otherwise?   

I mportant (or interesting) Is the project / experience both IMPORTANT and INTERESTING to the student? (Tasks need to be important or interesting to the student - not just ”fun”.)  If not, then the chances are that the task is electronic “busy work”.

S haring.   How are the students sharing both their end product and the process of creation?  How are they sharing their artifact with the educational community beyond the classroom? If they are not sharing the artifact...why are they producing it in the first place?  If it only has worth inside the context of the classroom then why would students value it? If it has wider significance why is it not being shared?

E valuation.  How do the students demonstrate their learning? Is the artifact itself significant outside of the classroom environment?  What skills need students display / include? Do they know this? How can a development of skills be demonstrated?

This acronym is hardly cutting edge. (I could dignify it beyond it’s worth and call it “The WISE model”.) However, it does provide me with a lens through which to quickly get a sense of how well ICT is being used in a classroom.   As with all technology, classroom ICT is neutral - it is how well it is being used that is important. And to assist with that we all need to be a little WISE when it comes to classroom use of ICT.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Credits:
Image = Google images
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/tel/blog/Computers-TwoKdgStudents.jpg

TARGETS - School reform in three minutes

My marathon is over....
I have been privileged of late to have time to read; to read, to watch, to listen – and to think. Much of this precious time has been has been spent devouring material relating to school reform and exploring one simple question - how do we respond to the challenges and opportunities provided by the digital revolution to improve our schools? The concept of “school” as we know it is well over a century old – and was obviously developed before the digital revolution. The model of teacher / text book as the sole source of knowledge available to students is clearly no longer applicable – at any grade level. So how can schools respond appropriately to the new realities?
There is an abundance of material in the field – much of it very good; some based on research, some based on values, some based on bias ... and some seemingly not based on anything other than opinion or tradition. Sorting the “fact from the fiction” has taken time and the result, on one level at least, is disappointing. Predictably, there are no easy answers, there are no “silver bullets” – the area is simply too complex. However, there are significant and realistic principles for school reform that have been found to engage students, which are relevant to them and which also enable schools to meet the requirements and expectations of society in general. The problem is not that there are no worthy approaches, the problem is just the opposite – there are so many worthy ideas that will improve our schools.
How can the sheer volume of material relating to school reform be distilled into a “bite sized” chunk that educators can remember – and then apply? That was the task I set myself – to condense the research into a simple, easily remembered model that encapsulates progressive approaches to schooling. The result is TARGETS – presented here in a video of just under three minutes. It may take three minutes to view – but will take the rest of my career to implement. The hope is that educators can remember the mnemonic model, implement the principles contained – and reform education in the process.


TARGETS is a mnemonic that highlights important overarching principles that can guide school reform. The model is mine – but the research, reflection, wisdom and insight upon which it is based comes from the global community of educators. The tail end of the TARGETS video acknowledges some of the major influences on the development of the TARGETS model. All are easily accessible on the internet (indeed, that was one of the criteria for my research). Those wishing to develop their own understandings further (or perhaps see why the nominated initiatives are included) would be well advised to consult  "The MILE guide" – Parnership for 21st Century Skills and Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Today – but all the identified influencers are worthy of genuine study.
So, the TARGETS model has been developed. Now comes the task of applying the model in “the real world”.
My marathon has just begun...

Source material:
MILE guide: http://www.p21.org/documents/MILE_Guide_091101.pdf
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow – Today: http://ali.apple.com/acot2/global/files/ACOT2_Background.pdf
TARGETS video = original. Those wanting a static or portable version of the TARGETS presentation should click here.

Is 8% a big number?

Is 8% a big number? To some extent it depends on context but most of us would agree that it is usually a significant number. Who would turn down a pay increase of 8%?
A major study (cost = $12 000 000 USD) of twins in Australia and the United States has found that variations in student performance that is attributable to classroom factors such as teacher behaviours is of the order of 8% in literacy performance in the first three years of schooling (“Teacher Effects” in Early Literacy Development:Evidence from a Study of Twins, Byrne, B., Coventry, W., et al, 2010).
You may want to read that last paragraph again – yes, that’s right – “they” spent twelve million dollars to determine that different teachers produce different results – and that difference in results is around eight per cent.
Eight per cent.
Is that all? Other studies have put the figure as being in the order of 30% - 40% (Teacher – September 2009, p. 20). What might account for the difference? Apart from the staggering cost of the study, what makes the new figure interesting is that it was conducted using twins in different classes. As identical twins have virtually the same biology and essentially the same home environment it was felt that they provided a good indication about the impact of different teachers. We know that we are all unique – but twins, especially ones raised together, have a lot in common. Any difference in school performance is likely to be due to different experiences in the different classrooms. The study goes to some lengths to acknowledge that the experience in a classroom may not be entirely due to the teacher – but in broad terms, much of what goes on in a classroom is under the control of the teacher. In simple terms, twins taught by the same teacher showed minimal variation in performance, but twins taught by different teachers did – and after the statistical contortions were performed this figure was revealed to be a difference of eight per cent.
Now – it doesn’t take a mathematician to spot that 8% is a significantly less than 30% - and much less than 40%. How to explain the differences? It appears that the “twin study” is as statistically robust as can be realistically achieved – does that mean that it is right? Were there errors in the previous studies – or is the difference in the sample populations so significant as to make comparison difficult? But does it really matter – except to the people who provided the $12 000 000 of course? What matters, and what is confirmed by both studies, is that differences in teachers lead to a difference in student outcomes. Interestingly, even a $12 000 000 study does not actually identify the exact behaviours that make the difference. (An online report of the study can be accessed here. )
So, what does this study really tell us? Surely “they” did not need to spend all that money to discover that teachers are not all the same and that some achieve better results than others – as measured by the performance of their pupils? Surely, even relatively casual acquaintance with the realities of school would indicate this. Or does it simply reveal the pernicious growth of the measurement myth – the notion that everything can be measured and given a distinct number?
Does 8% tell us anything of genuine significance? No. Would a confirmation of the 30 or 40% figure tell us more? No. In a sense the numbers are irrelevant. What the numbers tell us is simply this – that some teachers are more effective than others. I doubt we needed this study to tell us that. Teachers, all teachers, have an obligation to their students to be the best teacher that they can – to give 100% to every lesson every day. We owe it to our charges to continually improve – to be a better teacher at the end of the year than we were at the start. In short, teachers need to learners – not necessarily students, but definitely learners.

Sources:
Teacher, September, 2009, “Study questions “teacher effects”.
“Teacher Effects” in Early Literacy Development: evidence from a Study of Twins, Byrne, B., Coventry, W., et al, in J Educational Psychol. 2010 February 1; 102(1): 32-42.
Teacher image:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBs2XrYV8naXQElVKWUK2DH_SnFZvQa4PaBoGjsdz3CEadquh6JC8CB7ywAq75zVB_6ZUHn3fxN5CCOjKjPCRfOyU56CDi87UqwRMmvUZ2275OTHrhTNw3xpfxJ5uAfje6Aoo0q8DUvAk/s1600/teacher.jpg

"Visions of Students Today" - Whose Education is it anyway?

If a picture is worth a thousand words ...how much is a video worth? These ones are priceless – for educators of post-compulsory students. To call the two videos featured in this post “thought provoking” is an understatement.
Both videos are created by Michael Wesch – with a lot of help from students at Kansas State University. The first, “A vision of students today”,is widely known and has been circulating around the internet since October of 2007 while the sequel, “Visions of Students Today”, was released in June, 2011. Both give a sense of what it is like to be a university level student today. I won’t elaborate specifically on the content of the videos – except to suggest that they should be compulsory viewing for all teachers, lecturers and professors.
Expressing concern about the “irrelevance” of education is nothing new. It was already an established theme back when I was a student – not long after the ark found dry land. However, even if we put aside the issue of the appropriateness or otherwise of the curriculum itself and just contemplate the educational experience itself, educators should be asking some serious questions. We know what modern life is like for our students. Why have our schools and universities not kept up? Why do we not use the technology and the equally important associated attitudes available to us? To some extent there will always be a lag period between technological innovation and educational practice – technology evolves faster than institutions do. But, as these videos show, when we use new approaches, or rather when we allow our students to use the technology that is already available to them, significant learning can occur.
So we have the situation where often the curriculum itself can be of little relevance or significance and the process by which students interact with their “education” is disconnected from their daily life with its heavy emphasis on modern technology. Is this really good enough? It begs the question – whose education is it anyway, the student’s or “the system’s”?

Anyone interested in more background in the creation of “Visions of Students Today” can follow this link to the associated blog pages.
Associated background story http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/?p=303
http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/

Visions of Students today link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrXpitAlva0

A vision of students today link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o
Michae Wesch photo:
http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/mike.jpg

The networked student

I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of education and the process of schooling of late. The connectivism theory resonates for me, the impact of the internet, cloud computing, on-line material, instant access to everything all the time... what are the implications for schools? Can we incorporate these ideas or do we need a radical overhaul of the whole process? (Short answer here – yes!)
This brilliant video gives an insight into what is already possible today – are schools brave enough to embrace the technology?
Enjoy this brilliant video – very “simple” format that is extremely effective.