The curse of Max Headroom in the classroom...and everywhere?

Many years ago there was a short lived T.V. program called “Max Headroom”. It was a spoof on egotistical T.V presenters and supposedly hosted by the worlds first “computer generated host”. It wasn’t -  it was a heavily “made up” actor.  Part of the scenario was that the world had evolved into a place where there was a TV everywhere - in every private room, in every public place - everywhere. Everywhere you went in this future world Max was there with you, babbling away in the annoying smarmy language that is the domain of television hosts. There was no way to escape this for the TVs came with no “off” switch. The television could never be turned off, never be silenced - it was a constant aspect of people’s lives.

What was once a parody is now almost reality. Screens are with us now far more than even in the Max Headroom scenario - screens are not only everywhere but they are mobile; computers, tablets and smart phones mean that we now have screens with us everywhere all the time.  Children in cars now don’t have to ask “Are we there yet?” They may have DVDs to watch or PSPs (or equivalents) to keep them occupied.The social impact of this is debated frequently in social media and serious literature.   

I’m far from a luddite. In fact, I am a huge fan of technology. I enjoy being online and consider the web as much a part of my recreation as of my employment.  

But it occurs to me that, in an age of “screenagers”, we are actually missing something. Our students are conditioned to rapidly respond and react to stimuli via the screens. They can find out what other people think in an instant.  But what do they think? When do we teach them how to reflect?

I’m not simply speaking here of using the powerful  “wait time” approach when asking questions in the classroom. When do we teach students that there are some things that Google can’t answer, that merely “liking” something on Facebook is not really making a social contribution or a sign of involvement?

I’m talking about giving students time in which to think about matters of substance to them.  But what are these significant questions? What is important to our students?

Perhaps we should ask them.  
In person.
Face to face. 

As Miles Kington said, "Knowledge is knowing the tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in your fruit salad."  

Since knowledge is now effectively available at the press of a button we need to develop wisdom and understanding - and that means giving students time to think for themselves.

Unless of course there’s an app for that.

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

Credits:
Active links go to original sources.
Image via Google images:

How an apple changed my world...

I’m a little uneasy writing this post.  It takes me so far outside my professional comfort zone that actually committing my thoughts to screen is challenging.  But, if there is even a grain of truth in what follows, the implications are significant...

I was intrigued when shown some isolated images from Masuro Emoto’s book “The Hidden Messages in Water”.    In essence the claims are simple - that our thoughts and words can impact upon water. When water exposed to various influences is frozen and photographed under certain conditions crystals are often visible - and there can be significant differences in the shape of these crystals. Emoto claims that positive thoughts, words and music result in well formed, balanced “snow flake” like crystals whereas negative thoughts and words produce malformed murky crystals that are not pleasing to the eye.  
The clip below provides a clever introduction to Emoto’s work.

Those who would like to see more might enjoy this slideshow via Youtube.

My reaction was one of scepticism; I dismissed it as new-age pseudo-science.  Even a layman such as myself could see flaws in Emoto’s work.  The information about how the images were captured is superficial - meaning it would be hard to replicate the work.  Only one image of each stimulus is provided.  Were all samples identical - or even similar? Were there “failures”? If so what did they look like?  How many “successful” images followed each stimulus?    These and a host of other questions flowed readily. Reading Emoto’s book did not answer these questions.  The fact that the answers to such obvious questions were not provided was, to my mind,  daming.  However, it haunted me.  What if there was some truth to it?

I soon discovered this clip which suggests that Emoto’s work may not be as obscure and off-beat as I had first thought. 

This would suggest that something odd is actually going on - unless this is an elaborate hoax, there is support for the notion that water is influenced by the people who come in contact with it.

While researching further I came across a balanced critique of Emoto’s work which asks many of the same questions that I had and is well worth reading. As worthy as the article is, the comments following  are also worth exploring. Hidden amongst the range of sceptical responses and uncritical acceptance was a link to a personal blog which showed both initiative and religious belief - in equal parts.  In a variation on a process mentioned in Emoto’s book an apple was substituted for water. Given that living things are mostly water, the theory goes, if you subject any living thing to the stimuli mentioned by Emoto then you might be able to produce an observable effect.  Quanita Rizy’s blog contains photos where the apple does in fact show such effects.  Rizy had replaced the generic positive messages with quotations from the Quran but the photos seemed to indicate that something odd was certainly occurring.  Two sides of the apple were clearly aging differently. Moreover, they provided an easily replicated procedure to test the hypothesis.
So I did just that.  I cut an apple in half and placed each half in a sealed “sandwich” bag. Then I spoke to each half - using the terminology used by Emoto himself. The positive message was “Love and gratitude” whilst the negative message was “You fool”.  (The irony of the situation did not escape me - here was me calling half an apple a fool yet I was the one talking to a piece of fruit.) The apple halves were then placed side by side in a disused room with conditions which, to all intents and purposes, were identical.Twice a day, in the morning and in the evening, I spoke the words to the fruit. After six days I asked an interested observer (you might not be surprised to see how much interest is generated when you start talking to fruit!) was asked to identify which half was in the better condition - the “Love and gratitude” half was correctly identified easily.  

This experiment now leaves me with a challenge. My small scale experiment tends to support Emoto.  I find this fascinating … and the implications are significant.  If a piece of fruit really does respond to language then how much more so is a human being affected by harsh words?  

We do not need to adopt “new age” philosophies to know that feedback that we give to students is significant. (If you need a refresher on why this is so click here.)

Regardless of the “truth” or otherwise of the water crystal belief perhaps it is timely to remind ourselves that the youngsters in our classes are more than students - they are people. Each person on the planet deserves to be valued and respected - not because it improves student outcomes, but simply because people are so much more significant than apples - or even a pretty water crystal.

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

Challenge:  I will continue to “test” the hypothesis using the methods outlined above. I will also be trying a variation involving cooked rice mentioned in Emoto's book. There are examples of this on Youtube as well. I'd if I’d be REALLY interested in hearing from anyone else of a similar mind who also conducted their own investigations. “Failures” would be just as interesting as “success stories”.

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

Credits.
All embedded links go to original sources.
Cover to Emoto’s book “The hidden messages of water” via Google images.
"Subway" clip via Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWn4QF6dCwM Slide show of images from Emoto's book via youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAvzsjcBtx8 
Is emoto for real - critique:
http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/
Quanita Rizy’s blog:
http://javeria.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/effects-of-quran-vs-effects-of-music-on-an-apple/
"Water has memory" clip via Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILSyt_Hhbjg&feature=related

Be kind to your mind

Rick Hanson, author of “Buddha’s brain”, has some fascinating things to say about brain neuroplasticity.

In this post on dailygood.org Hanson discusses neural plasticity - the concept that, contrary to the views of earlier generations, the brain is not permanently “hard wired” and that it changes with experience.  In brief - change the experiences and you change the brain. Few would find this a revelation.  But Hanson also suggests that changes in attitude can also change the brain / mind. It is fascinating work - and work with great significance for educators.



The post is structured around three key points:
Fact 1. As the brain changes, the mind changes, for better or for worse.
Fact 2. As the mind changes the brain changes.
Fact 3. You can use the mind to change the brain to change the mind for the better.

I’ll keep this post brief and simply encourage readers to follow this link to a more extensive discussion (which is still easily accessible and “blog” sized) of Hanson’s ideas. Both the text and the embedded video are well worth reflecting on over a cup of coffee.

Hanson suggests that we should be more mindful of our brain - and vice versa.  This may seem a little “on the fringe” for mainstream educators - but really it is our core function. We all know that the state of mind of our students impacts upon their learning.  If we can impact on their mental health in general terms we can help them become people with a positive outlook on life and their place in the world.  There is much of benefit here for students - and teachers;  some deliberate positive reflection would do much for the emotional and mental health of many teachers.

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

Rick Hanson offers a daily email of practices designed to assist using the mind to change the brain.  Subscription is via his website.

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

Credits:
Buddha’s Brain cover via Google images: http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiV3nxNEk0YYtEbHFsk_TUkLhCJ94AJf1fhWYXQXazcCAzcR1l8WM3E8zeZw
Original source = Dailygood.org

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

Optimism from a half empty glass

I initially uploaded this image to my facebook page to share the humour with my friends. It’s a joke, a somewhat “down market” spin on an old adage.  But then I started thinking...

There is actually some wisdom hidden behind the humour. We know the adage, dare I say it, the cliche, about the glass being half full or half empty.  The  optimist sees the glass as half full, the pessimist sees the glass as being half empty. But it is the same glass - it is the perception of the user that is the variable.  Optimism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (or, I am tempted to say in view of the visual, in the hands of the beer holder).

When we see something individually we interpret it through the lens of our own prejudices and biases, we see the glass “our way”.  However, when we join with others in a group we learn from the wisdom of the group.  Thus the pessimist is exposed to those with more positive outlooks, the enthusiast is tempered by those with a more cautious views.

It is yet another example of the power of the group - the wisdom of the collective.  

Most schools are hierarchical - which may have some administrative advantages but tends to assume that the view from behind the desk is the same as the view from the classrooms.  Sometimes it isn’t.  By genuinely consulting with staff, leaders avoid seeing the issues of the day through the lens of their only their own glass - and allows for the collective wisdom of the group to come into play.

Something to think ( or should that be “drink”?) about...

They don't build monuments to teachers

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Percy Bysshe Shelley


They don’t build monuments to good teachers.  They don’t need to.  Their legacy is reflected in every successful person.  Every person who is able to achieve their dreams can thank, in some part at least, their teachers.  And the wonderful thing is, unlike fame and power, that legacy continues on and on...

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

Credits:
Image: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/F4OIO5c8AYKvVy4SleAkQ_0usUgdFMmpKdnsnzydBX2TMNleklL2mQiVydkvTQ5vj_GopbPRlvikrWpkXt4zJAdVYlK3SPT9S1XBES33ZQEDk2GZ8iE
Poem = Ozymandias, Percy Bysshe Shelley

A modern problem meets ancient wisdom?

I’ve been puzzling on reconciling what the research says about motivation and how to enact it at my workplace.  For this I am indebted to the work of Dan Pink and his book “Drive”.  For those not familiar with the book I’d suggest you can get a more than adequate overview from this RSA animation of his TED talk.




Pink identifies three prime motivators - autonomy, mastery and purpose.  
Purpose.
Teachers should have little trouble with a sense of purpose; surely the profession is one of the most noble and worthy of all?  If a teacher doesn’t feel a sense of purpose then perhaps he or she is in the wrong job.
Mastery
The desire to master a task is also easily embedded within teaching.  Who can honestly say that they can not improve their practice? Who can not improve their ICT skills, or their questioning ability, or the inclusiveness of their lessons? Teachers have almost limitless opportunities to improve their practice - and the day when they believe otherwise is the day they are in the wrong job.
Autonomy?
Autonomy, however, creates some issues for schools. How do we grant teachers genuine autonomy in an environment of regulation, mandated assessment, school wide procedures and protocols that dictate the shape of lessons and learning experiences?   A common response is to say that staff are consulted and included in new school initiatives but then adherence and a common response is required. This is often seen as acceptable since the staff had the input into the decision making process.  But is this “input” enough - or even real?

The economic realities of life are such that most teachers need a job - and disagreeing with the administration of a school can require real strength of character - and perhaps tenure. I recall being at meetings where principals have discussed using “guided democracy” to get the staff to make the decision that they wanted. I recall countless planning meetings designed to shift teacher understanding to where school management believed teachers needed to be.  In short, staff meetings can be subtly directed to arrive at the destination that the leadership wants. However, such processes only produce superficial compliance; genuine commitment to the concepts being discussed is often lacking.

All of this leads us to a situation where the scope for teachers having significant autonomy is limited.  Increasingly teachers have little control over the content of what they teach - and the process by which they teach can also be either “guided” or mandated.  Which means that teachers end up with minimal genuine autonomy.

Yet how can it be otherwise? Effective schools are more than a series of classrooms sharing the same building. A common framework allows  schools to operate in a coordinated manner, to structure activities in a way that allows efficient teaching.  A common approach in many areas is not only sensible but essential. So, schools with clear direction regarding curriculum content and a commitment to “best practice” methods are understandable - in fact, desirable.  Where does this leave teacher autonomy?

Good schools need structure...but passionate teachers need a degree of autonomy.

This is where shared vision becomes essential - not a veneer, not an engineered process with a pre-determined outcome, not merely a collection of protocols..  Teachers who share the vision of the school will feel more control over their efforts. In schools with a shared vision and mindset teachers will have a sense of autonomy - they will feel as if they are working towards goals and objectives that they themselves value.  The fact that the teacher in the next classroom is making the same decisions will be insignificant, for each will be working towards achieving their goals.

When schools do not really listen we end up with a mismatch in vision between the school and at least some of the teachers who teach there. If Daniel Pink is right, this will lead to teachers not feeling in control of their actions, to teachers who lack a sense of autonomy.  And a lack of autonomy leads to a decrease in “drive”.  In the school context this manifests as mediocrity, of minimum standards rather than striving for excellence.Surely this leads school management with a paradox? To create group consensus  we need to genuinely listen to the voices of the individuals within that group. We need to establish our shared values, we need to be clear about our shared vision - for these things guide the fundamental direction and actions of the school.  It is the values and aspirations of the teachers who drive classrooms.  If we want teachers with drive we need teachers with vision - a vision they truly share with other teachers in the school.

Creating a situation where teachers can drive their own classroom in the direction that the system dictates is a challenging task for educational administrators. It reminds me of the adage taken from ancient spiritual leader Lao Tzu; “A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”

Then we will have teachers with "drive".

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

Credits:
RSA Animate version of Pink's TED talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded
Lao Tzu image: Google Graphics