by Andrew K. Miller | Feb 16, 2011 | Blog, edReformer
This post originally appeared on edReformer, a community of advocates, entrepreneurs, educators, policy makers, philanthropists and investors seeking to promote excellence and equity in education through innovatation. edRefomer serves as a catalyst for innovation in education by encouraging and promoting public and private investment in new learning tools, schools, and platforms. View Original >
Online education can help solve the issues of equity and access for students across the United States. We have heard fantastic stories of student success in graduating from high school due to access to online courses.
Last year, Susan Sawyers wrote an article for USAToday showcasing how some students are using online courses to graduate on time. It’s a great window into the potential and echoes many stories we hear from students, families, and community members who are experiencing online education. A diverse population of students was able to take classes to retrieve credit for classes they may have failed in the past.
Distance learning environments are by no means immune to the problems arising from cultural differences. In fact, these environments may even be more prone to cultural conflicts than traditional classrooms as instructors in these settings not only interact with students who have removed themselves from their native culture, but they also interact with students who remain “physically and socially within the different culture, a culture that is foreign to, and mostly unknown, to the teacher.”
—Sedef Uzuner in Questions of Culture in Distance Learning: A Research Review
Geneva Gay recently printed a new edition of her book, Culturally Responsive Teaching: Research, Theory and Practice, and it explains the many of the dispositions and practices teachers need to have. The next step is to ensure this sort of practice occurs consistent in online course instruction. We need to remember that simply having access to great online courses does not mean they will be culturally responsive, nor does it mean the teachers themselves will be. We need to ensure we train our online educators with the tools and skills it takes to interact with students of diverse populations, especially as more students begin taking more courses online. Culture of course includes a variety of identifies and aspects, from race, ethnicity and gender; to religion, socio-economic status and place. I would also propose that teachers need to utilize the online culture that we know exists with these students. All students have cultural strengths and resiliencies; we need to ensure we are using all these strengths, including the culture of online learning.
Related articles
by Andrew K. Miller | Feb 2, 2011 | Blog
In this Voices of the Dropout Nation, Andrew Miller of the Buck Institute for Education offers his own perspective on what online learning can be — and why it shouldn’t resemble traditional public education. Read, consider and offer your own thoughts.
In this Voices of the Dropout Nation, Andrew Miller of the Buck Institute for Education looks at another aspect of improving online instruction: Dealing with cultural relevance. While your editor has some skeptical thoughts on this matter, Miller offers a compelling argument for being concerned about its role in spurring the nation’s education crisis. Read, consider and offer your own thoughts.
by Andrew K. Miller | Jan 31, 2011 | Blog, Dropout Nation
This post originally appeared on Dropout Nation, a site focusing on America’s dropout crisis and education reform. This is an expansion of a commentary on education that began four years ago for the Indianapolis Star with Left Behind, a series of editorials editorialist RiShawn Biddle co-wrote detailing Indiana’s — and the nation’s — dropout crisis. View Original >
When Susan Sawyers wrote an article for USA Today showcasing how some students are using online course to graduate on time and avoid dropping out, it highlighted one of the important benefits of online education: Providing equity in and access to high quality education. A diverse population of students can take classes in order to retrieve credit for classes they may have failed in the past without dealing with the barriers that led them astray in the first place.
At the same time, there are potential pitfalls. As Sedef Uzuner wrote recently, online and distance learning environments as as prone to aggravating cultural differences as traditional classrooms because students are removed from native cultures and interacting with students from different ones. So teachers in the online space need to be as thoughtful about race, ethnicity, gender, religion and even socioeconomic status and land of birth as those in their counterparts in old-school classrooms.
So we need teachers in the online space to be culturally responsive in their instruction. What do I mean by that? Culturally Responsive Online Teachers identify and utilize cultural strengths and resiliencies through aligned online teaching best practices, while utilizing diverse discourse structures and curriculum. These resiliencies vary across culture and experience.
As an example, many of our students have the resiliency to be highly adaptive and agile. They can look at a subway system many and easily navigate from place to place in a variety of ways. Many of our students have the resiliency to communicate across cultures. The common language at school might be English, while Tagalog is spoken at home. Even online students have a culture that they live in. They access a different language. They navigate and evaluate data constantly. Why shouldn’t we utilize these resiliencies?
Geneva Gay recently printed a new edition of her book, Culturally Responsive Teaching: Research, Theory and Practice, and it explains the many of the dispositions and practices teachers need to have. The next step is to ensure this sort of practice occurs consistent in online course instruction. Learning Management systems and the online structures need to be just as diverse as the cultures they serve. The typical paradigm of “reading and doing” that many online courses have needs to change. We are in danger of replicating a system for the online world that has not served all students in the brick and mortar world. Structures need to be examined and built to allow for diverse discourses that align with online teaching best practices.
We need to ensure we train our online educators with the tools and skills it takes to interact with students of diverse populations, especially as more students begin taking more courses online. All students have cultural strengths and resiliencies; we need to ensure we are using all these strengths, including the culture of online learners.
by Andrew K. Miller | Jan 28, 2011 | Blog, edReformer
I have been blogging for Edreformer for quite some time now in a variety of topics from online learning, to standards based grade books, to project based learning. Edreformer describes itself as:
“A community of advocates, entrepreneurs, educators, policy makers, philanthropists and investors seeking to promote excellence and equity in education through innovation. EdRefomer serves as a catalyst for innovation in education by encouraging and promoting public and private investment in new learning tools, schools, and platforms.”
Here is a link all the my blogs, as well as the topics.
- Culturally Responsive Online Teaching: A Call to Action
- Supporting Student Voice and Choice Leads to Equity
- From Drop Out to Push Out in Online Learning
- Rethinking Time in Online Learning
- Why Standards-Based Gradebooks & What Next?
- Project-Based Online Learning-Natural Fit and Next Step
by Andrew K. Miller | Jan 8, 2011 | Blog, edReformer
This post originally appeared on edReformer, a community of advocates, entrepreneurs, educators, policy makers, philanthropists and investors seeking to promote excellence and equity in education through innovatation. edRefomer serves as a catalyst for innovation in education by encouraging and promoting public and private investment in new learning tools, schools, and platforms. View Original >
With the rise of standards-based instruction, districts and schools have been seeking out the best tools to foster it. Standards-Based grade books have been created is response to this need. As with educational changes, there are exciting potentials and pitfalls. First of all, here is what works when using the standards-based grade book:
1) Ensures targeted Assessment and Rubrics – When the standards are presented and transparent to the teachers on a continuous basis, teachers are bound to be thinking about their assessments and whether or not there are standards based. As a teacher inputting grades, one can be reflective in practice, thinking– “Is this assessment/ assignment really targeted toward the standard?”
2) Continuity across Classes and Teachers – When the same content grade book is being used by all the teachers, then the inconsistencies will fade. Conversations will no longer have to happen about why a certain teacher leverages a certain standard or target more than others. Conversations can instead occur about the targeted instruction and assessment in the classroom.
3) Leverage Summative Assessment – This is the big one, and the idea that may “upset the apple cart.” When teachers start putting in assignments in the standards-based grade book, teachers will encounter issues in weighting their assignments. All assignments, whether formative or summative may weighted the same, based on the programming of the grade book itself. Teachers will of course bring this concern to life. The response will be, “put in only Summative Assessment,” as that is what the grade should be. Formative assessment is practice, and Summative is the performance. Teachers will then protest “If I don’t count the worksheets and assignments I give out, then they won’t do it.” If I were there, I would answer, “You trying to ‘cattle-prod’ your students into doing work by giving leverage in the grade book instead of focusing on the real problem – Your students aren’t engaged.” The focus should be on creating relevance, inquiry and engagement in the Summative Assessments.
While the Standards-based grade book is helping to ensure better teaching and instruction, we need to make sure that fosters innovation in education. In general. there needs to be some flexibility in the creation and utilization of the grade book between the school and provider. In order to do that, here are some tips for not only those constructing the grade book, but also for the teachers using it.
1) Make sure the Grade book allows for 21st Century Skills – If we value 21st century skills, then we need to teach and assess them. In order to leverage them as much as content standards, they need to be included in the grade. Collaboration, Technology Literacy and even Presentation Skill should be taught and assessed in a grade just as much as the content standards. They are learning targets and standards.
2) Make sure there is place for Formative Assessments – In order to be transparent to parents and students, you need to be able to track and monitor ongoing formative assessments, that show work toward that standard. It can be worth nothing, as it should be, but there must be a place to have this data so that effective conversations can be had for all partners in the learning of the student.
3) Keep Assessments rigorous – One of the pitfalls of standards-based instruction and assessment is that some of the assessments can only be geared toward standards that are lower on Bloom’s taxonomy. Carol Jago, current NCTE president talks about this in terms of the English class in her book Beyond Standards: Excellence in the High School English Classroom. Make sure you are targeting standards that have higher order thinking skills. Be targeted, but also aim “beyond standards” in the assessments
Standards-Based grade books can help ensure quality instruction and assessments for our students as long as there is a level of flexibility and rigor. Providers need to listen to their clients and clients need to provide good feedback to their providers. Teachers need to make sure they are not only aiming at a target standard in their assessment, but also aiming for rigor. They need to use the grade book to leverage their content as well as 21st century skills, and teachers need to be transparent with the work being done in the classroom.
by Andrew K. Miller | Dec 30, 2010 | Blog, Dropout Nation
This post originally appeared on Dropout Nation, a site focusing on America’s dropout crisis and education reform. This is an expansion of a commentary on education that began four years ago for the Indianapolis Star with Left Behind, a series of editorials editorialist RiShawn Biddle co-wrote detailing Indiana’s — and the nation’s — dropout crisis. View Original >
“Online classes are not for all students.” This comment quickly incites debate in the online education community and it’s all based in real life situations. It’s true, not all students have been successful in the online classroom. Some of them lack the time management skills or the independent motivation to get work done efficiently. Some have technology skills that need improvement. However, these are all excuses. Yes, excuses consistently used to create a push-out culture for online education.
David R. Dupper has many publications that reframe issues in school in terms of push-out instead of drop-out. Drop-out implies fault of the student, instead of push-out. By adopting the term “push-out” the onus is the many factors that contribute to student success – everything from teachers to curriculum. A recently published article shows many views on why online classes are not for everyone. In fact one interviewer claims “If a student is independent, disciplined or just busy with school, work, or both, an online course might be the best option for that individual.” Another claims “Read the assignment, do what you have to do and get it done. I recommend it if that’s the way you like to learn” These statements bother me.
These are examples of statements that foster a “drop-out” framework rather than a “push-out” framework. I ask these interviewees, “Why are you creating so many requirements and restrictions for students to be successful online?” The first interviewee is creating a list of traits that a student must have. Instead we should train out students to have these skills. The second interviewee makes a large assumption – that all courses are structured in one a specific way.
Innovators are trying new ways of structuring courses, from gaming-based to project based. They are not simply the “read and do that assignment” stereotype. It is true that many courses are structure this way, and so should serve as a warning. In fact, this assumption no doubt came out of real experience of being exposed to the same type of course framework and pedagogical model. We need to make sure not to structure all online courses in the same pedagogical models. Game based courses are starting to be created, as done by Florida Virtual Schools in their Conspiracy Code American History Course. Many courses are trying PBL models for their learning, as well as focus on 21st century skills such as collaboration and presentation. Innovative course design needs to continue, and the assumption that all online courses are the same should be mitigated.
We have the opportunity to avoid the replication of a broken system where the culture of “read and do” exist. We must take ownership of the walls that exist for students and seek to find ways to climb. Students should not adjust to the educational system. Instead the online education system should adjust to its students.
by Andrew K. Miller | Dec 22, 2010 | Blog, Whole Child Blog
This post originally appeared on The Whole Child blog, an ASCD initiative to call on educators, policymakers, business leaders, families, and community members to work together on a whole child approach to education. View Original >
Physical education (PE) can be a place where relevant and authentic learning can occur. I think project-based learning (PBL) is one way to not only create this, but to also show others how valuable PE can be. When done well, PBL gives students a relevant and authentic task—a problem or challenge—that they, as a team and as individuals, must explore and solve. Instead of a project that is a curriculum add-on or completed at the end, the standards-based instruction is filtered through this authentic task, which creates a need to know in students. They see why they are learning what they are learning. The students learn and complete the project concurrently, continually revising and producing a product that they will present publicly.
In my visits to classrooms across the country, I have seen some great projects that teachers have created and implemented. I am continually inspired and amazed by what they create. We “steal” from each other and use each other’s ideas in our own classrooms. In this spirit of stealing, here is an example of a PE PBL project filtered through the “Seven Essential Elements of Project-Based Learning,” a framework for inquiry shared by my Buck Institute for Education colleagues John Larner and John R. Mergendoller in a recent Educational Leadership article. Steal this project and use it in your classroom!
1. Need to Know
A group of high school students were presented with a letter from the local middle school principal. The letter asked them to create the best exercise program for the middle school students. They were asked to create sample PE units for the teachers and students and present their ideas to a panel of teachers, administrators, and other experts. They were also required to create, through their own participation and physical activity, data that proved physical exercise was occurring.
What a task to ask of high school students, and they had a lot of questions! What is a good PE unit? What do middle students like to do in PE? What are the goals of PE? These were all questions generated by the students. They had to engage in research, both online and in person, in order to accomplish this authentic task and present it to a real audience.
2. A Driving Question
For this project, students were trying to answer the question, How can we create the best exercise program for middle school students? All the work was geared toward this question. Students were reminded of the question in their daily lessons. It helped them answer the question, Why are you doing this today? when administrators, teachers, and other stakeholders visited the classroom.
3. Student Voice and Choice
Students were allowed a variety of opportunities to choose how they wanted to show their learning, but they were still graded on the same standards and learning objectives. Traditionally, teachers dictate all parts of the assessment, rather than give students power of how they can show their learning. If students are given voice and choice, they are engaged and empowered to perform the task.
For this project, each group was allowed to choose its PE unit, whether it was focused on a racket sport, conditioning, or a combination. However, they had to prove that this unit would meet the needs of physical education, whether the needs were created by the PE teacher or to align with specific standards and learning targets. In addition to the group work, each student was required to create another engaging PE unit for middle school students, but showcase it in a format of each student’s choice (for example, podcasts, videos, flyers, or demonstrations). This ensures accountability of the same learning targets for both the group and the individual.
4. 21st Century Skills
Students were engaged in two 21st century skills: collaboration and presentation. Unlike group work, which is activity based, they would work together to create something over a few weeks. Rather than one day, they would engage in collaboration like professionals in the workforce. These skills are valuable across disciplines and in the postgraduate world. Teachers trained students to do these skills well, whether in a team-building activity in PE class or help from the drama teacher in the art of presentation.
5. Inquiry and Innovation
Because the task is authentic and open-ended, students are constantly engaged in the inquiry process. They are finding and being armed by the teacher with the information they need to accomplish the task. Students are also creating something new. It is not simply a regurgitation of knowledge, but instead using that knowledge and newly created data to design an innovative PE unit.
6. Feedback and Revision
The students had to test-drive each other’s units, which meant they were engaged in a variety of physical activities. However, they were also looking for feedback from their peers, from teachers, and from the middle school students. They learned that continuous improvement is possible, and that revision is a great thing to do.
7. A Publicly Presented Product
Students presented to a high-stakes audience, both for the individual and group products. They shared their data, demonstrated their units, engaged in persuasive rhetoric, and shared the stage with each other. After the presentations, there was a sense of relief as well as a sense of accomplishment. They had successfully completed a project that they would remember for the rest of high school. Not only that, but they came to their own understandings of many PE content standards, as well the importance and need for a physical education program.
I encourage physical educators to think about the possibilities with PBL. The project can be geared toward any standard and any audience. Its focus can be narrow or broad, and it can last anywhere from several days to several months. The payoff is engagement. Students will see the relevance for their learning in PE through the authentic task of a PBL project. You must give up power in order to empower your students; empower them in their physical education.
by Andrew K. Miller | Dec 21, 2010 | Blog, edReformer
This post originally appeared on edReformer, a community of advocates, entrepreneurs, educators, policy makers, philanthropists and investors seeking to promote excellence and equity in education through innovatation. edRefomer serves as a catalyst for innovation in education by encouraging and promoting public and private investment in new learning tools, schools, and platforms. View Original >
In online learning, we often tout how one of its best attributes is flexibility. We talk about how online learning will allow students to learn at their own pace, and how we will meet them where they are. A case of this was talked about recently on CNN, an echo of the other report in USA Today. Students were engaged in online class for credit retrieval. Students had to meet standard and complete course work using an online course. It has given students, who previously had felt hopeless, the opportunity to graduate on time. This is one instance where is seems time is truly flexible for the student to achieve.
However, the reality is that most online schools and course operate within strict time constraints. Courses need to account for a certain amount of hours and days, all in order to be considered part of the Carnegie Unit. This leads to some contradictory messages. On the one hand we say that online learning is truly flexible, but we also construct strict pacing guides and completion dates in order to ensure that students are doing work in a timely matter and also to ensure they are doing “enough” work. The effort is not of bad intent, but out of the need to cater to student needs and governmental policies.
A study was put out a few years ago by Kathy Holmes of the University of Newcastle that examined asynchronous discussions, which we know are designed to facilitate conversation just like in the face to face classroom. In in a discussion took place for a course of 48 days for full time students and 18 days for part time students. For anyone who has taught online, this might seem odd. Most of the time discussion boards are used as quick assignments that occur over a few days. However over the course of this larger discussion the students were engaged had higher learning taxonomy. Holmes asserts ” Not only should instructors ensure that online learning tasks are sufficiently open-ended, engaging and unambiguous, but they should also be familiar with the intricacies of managing online discussions and with viable methods of augmenting student learning within this framework.” This example of what we want in online learning runs contradictory to the constraints of time many online instructors face.
In addition, iNACOL published a briefing around Competency Based Pathways, where a discussion is around the reform needed in online education in order to have true student-centered learning.
“Frequently, competency-based policy is described as simply flexibility in awarding credit or defined as an alternative to the Carnegie unit. Yet, this does not capture the depth of the transformation of our education system from a time-based system to a learning-based system.”
Online educators need to rethink how we use time. If we are truly student-centered, and want rigorous discussion, then time needs to become less of an immovable force.
by Andrew K. Miller | Dec 9, 2010 | Blog, edReformer
This post originally appeared on edReformer, a community of advocates, entrepreneurs, educators, policy makers, philanthropists and investors seeking to promote excellence and equity in education through innovatation. edRefomer serves as a catalyst for innovation in education by encouraging and promoting public and private investment in new learning tools, schools, and platforms. View Original >
“Online classes are not for all students.” This comment quickly incites debate in the online education community and it’s all based in real life situations. It’s true, not all students have been successful in the online classroom. Some of them lack the time management skills or the independent motivation to get work done efficiently. Some have technology skills that need improvement. However, these are all excuses consistently used to create a push-out culture for online education.
David R. Dupper has many publications that reframe issues in school in terms of push-out instead of drop-out. Drop-out implies fault of the student, instead of push-out. By adopting the term “push-out” the onus is the many factors that contribute to student success – everything from teachers to curriculum. A recently published articleshows many views on why online classes are not for everyone. In fact, one interviewer claims “If a student is independent, disciplined or just busy with school, work, or both, an online course might be the best option for that individual.” Another claims “Read the assignment, do what you have to do and get it done. I recommend it if that’s the way you like to learn” These statements bother me.
These are examples of statements that foster a “drop-out” framework rather than a “push-out” framework.
Innovators are trying new ways of structuring courses, from gaming-based to project based. They are not simply the “read and do that assignment” stereotype. It is true that many courses are structure this way, and so should serve as a warning. In fact, this assumption no doubt came out of real experience of being exposed to the same type of course framework and pedagogical model. We need to make sure not to structure all online courses in the same pedagogical models. Game based courses are starting to be created, as done by Florida Virtual School in their Conspiracy Code American History Course. Many courses are trying PBL models for their learning, as well as focus on 21st century skills such as collaboration and presentation. Innovative course design needs to continue, and the assumption that all online courses are the same should be mitigated.
We have the opportunity to avoid the replication of a broken system where the culture of “read and do” exist. We must take ownership of the walls that exist for students and seek to find ways to climb. Students should not adjust to the educational system. Instead the online education system should adjust to its students.
Related articles
by Andrew K. Miller | Dec 6, 2010 | Blog, edReformer
This post originally appeared on edReformer, a community of advocates, entrepreneurs, educators, policy makers, philanthropists and investors seeking to promote excellence and equity in education through innovatation. edRefomer serves as a catalyst for innovation in education by encouraging and promoting public and private investment in new learning tools, schools, and platforms. View Original >
Recently, an article in Educational Leadership provided a window into student ownership in the Project Based Learning methodology. In it John Larmer and John R Mergendoller of the Buck Institute for Education point out that there is one essential that moves us towards more student ownership and engagement for all students: Student Voice and Choice. In it a teacher explains what it looks like from her perspective:
“Once her students’ interest was piqued by a challenging question, Ms. McIntyre explained the requirements for the “Don’t Close the Beach” project, which included an individually written paper, an oral presentation of students’ work accompanied by media technology, and a product of students’ choice created by teams. Students chose to develop media kits, public service announcements, web pages, brochures, and letters to government and industry officials, among other products.”
Educators have continually turned to Howard Gardner and his theory on multiple intelligences as means of providing equity for all students. They’ve focused on assessments and curriculum that focuses on the student’s personal tastes and abilities. A teacher might provide an assessment product that would be artistic in nature and at the same time hold students accountable for content standards and learning.
However, these have never quite ensured equity in terms of assessment of student learning. Why? Because ultimately it is teacher-directed. The teacher is still choosing the method in which students display their learning, even though they may have provided an option that will ensure certain students will flourish. If we want true student construction of knowledge then we must allow for more student voice and choice in their learning. Why shouldn’t it be in the assessment?
Giving student’s the autonomy to choose their learning product and the opportunity and means to create that product is just one way Student Voice and Choice in PBL leads to student ownership and engagement. Student Voice and Choice leads to options that foster technology literacy, oral communication and creativity — excellent 21st century skills.
In addition, the teacher had a traditional paper — most likely to ensure individual written construction of knowledge — to fulfill requirements of the traditional education system, which is still in force. There is still control, but there is also student ownership. How can the teacher manage this type of assessment? Because the teacher knows exactly what she is assessing. She can assess the same content standards in a variety of formats produced by the students. Equity is present because students are given a variety of products to choose from that address multiple ways of knowing, and ultimately they are engaged.
Related articles
Recent Comments