Game On
Check out the latest Classroom Tech column in Teacher Magazine, "Game On," by yours truly. It touches on an issue generating quite a bit of interest lately: The power of video games to improve student learning.
« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »
Check out the latest Classroom Tech column in Teacher Magazine, "Game On," by yours truly. It touches on an issue generating quite a bit of interest lately: The power of video games to improve student learning.
Fast Company magazine has a regular feature called Best Blogs. In the March issue, the magazine focuses on education blogs.
I find it heartening that their three picks go against the grain of narrow-minded bloggers who think all blogs have to be characterized by superficially short posts dripping with sarcasm and self involvement. (That's right, I'm feeling a bit of antipathy today toward self involved bloggers.)
So, way to go Fast Company! Thanks for choosing substance over style. The first pick, 2 Cents Worth, is noted for being "pretty meaty; the second, Moving at the Speed of Creativity, is characterized by "long, articulate posts"; and the third, Joanne Jacobs, makes education research "accessible for non-wonks."
All of these blogs touch on issues related to student motivation.
A Feb. 22 post in The Speed of Creativity titled "More than the 3 R's?" is especially worth reading. Of course, it is a long and articulate entry, so if you don't like thoughtful analysis, these blogs aren't for you.
The more I delve into the world of blogs, the more I realize that good blogs come in all shapes and sizes, from long and articulate to superficial and sarcastic.
What's your preference?
The stereotype of the highly motivated, high-achieving Asian student is hard not to buy into because Asian-Americans, as a group, outperfrom all other minorities in virtually all categories, and they beat white students on most measures too.
But Education Week reporter Lesli Maxwell's story this week, "The 'Other' Gap," points out that the picture of this group of students is much more nuanced than most people would expect. There are some important lessons to be learned--about culture, teenagers, schools, and motivation--from reading this story. Here is an excerpt from the piece:
"But what about closing the “top gap,” between the most outstanding Asian-American students and their white classmates? Why aren’t educators and policymakers talking about low-achieving Asian-American students, who they are, and what should be done to help them catch up? And what effect does the widely held assumption that all Asian-Americans do well in school regardless of social class or ethnic background—the “model minority” stereotype—have on students across the achievement spectrum?"
Any thoughts, insights?
In case you missed it, we had a fascinating online chat on edweek.org last week with local leaders from Rockland County, N.Y., which recently published a 72-page report on how the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be changed to better serve the needs of local school districts. A transcript of the chat is available on edweek.org.
Throughout the discussion, concerns were raised about the federal education law's impact on students' motivation to learn and teachers' motivation to teach. Chat guests and participants also expressed serious concerns that the law looks at education too narrowly, discouraging students from becoming well-rounded learners.
Harriet Cornell, a Rockland County political leader who was one of the featured guests for the chat, responded to a question about NCLB requirements for English-language learners by talking about a letter local leaders had written to U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings:
"Your question calls to mind a letter recently written by school administrators in Rockland County, addressed to U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings," Ms. Cornell said. "They wrote: 'Dr. Spellings, we ask you to imagine yourself a 12-year-old girl whose family moves to China. You are placed in a 7th grade class and begin to learn Chinese. In the middle of the second year (8th grade), you are given the same standardized test that Chinese-born 8th graders take to assess their Chinese reading, writing and listening skills. How appropriate will that test be for you? Will you meet standards?'
"We are deeply concerned about the emotional toll placed on children who are now being forced to take these high-stakes exams so soon after arriving in this country," Ms. Cornell continued. "In regard to children with disabilities, we have concluded that the goals of the legislation are diametrically opposed to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in that it fails to recognize the individual strengths and challenges of these special needs children."
To be sure, it would have been better if the chat had also featured a pro-NCLB voice, because the two guests from Rockland County were very critical of the law.
Still, I found their local perspective refreshing. Their answers felt real and urgent, unlike the predictable blather you often hear about the law from Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
Am I a member of the lazy gender? Are three of my four kids also part of that group?
The answer might be yes, suggests a recent study by a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. The researcher examined the different levels of self-discipline between girls and boys, and my gender came up on the losing end.
Education Week published a story this week about this research, and one of the people quoted in the piece simply said "girls just work harder." Some experts say girls put in more time working on homework, and are much more deliberate about making sure they understand academic material, while boys tend to have confidence that they know the material without really making sure that they do.
I must admit that last sentence has a certain ring of truth in my household. Just getting the "stupid homework" done seems to be more important to my boys than truly understanding the concepts the homework is trying to reinforce.
But is it that simple? Are boys lazier than girls? If yes, then how should educators go about changing their mindsets? And if not, then why do they get lower grades and tend to spend less time on homework?
Here's your chance to weigh in on this topic. We have embedded a TalkBack feature in the Education Week story about this research. Go to the TalkBack and give us your opinion, analysis, or unique personal perspective. If the discussion generates a lot of comments, I will report back here what I think can be learned from the responses.
"Why is everything massified in the [education] system, rather than individualized in the system? New technologies make possible customization in a way that the old system--everybody reading the same textbook at the same time--did not offer."
That is the perspective of Alvin Toffler, the well-known chronicler of our nation's social and technological prospects and the author of Future Shock, as expressed in a question and answer session with edutopia magazine.
To be sure, the idea of educational customization has been around for decades in different forms. But Toffler tells edutopia he thinks that technological innovations and the need to educate people to be fast and flexible learners are coalescing more than ever before, creating not just opportunities, but reasons, to customize learning.
Of course, he is not alone. There has been some recent political traction in support of customization. See Customized Learning Plans for ALL?. And there are an uncountable number of educators and parents who believe in this approach to learning.
What is particularly worth noting is that Toffler argues in the Q & A that customization would have a major impact on student motivation. "You need to find out what each student loves," he says. "If you want kids to really learn, they've got to love something."
Toffler says in the Q & A that if he were designing the curriculum for a school, he would put together a sequence of courses on sports that would include the business, culture, and history of sports. Now that is a sequence of courses I undoubtedly would have pursued with unusual passion in high school.
Still, educators should evaluate Toffler's argument with a healthy bit of skepticism. If we created schools that catered primarily to what interested students, we'd have a thousand kids studying the sports sequence (and I would be among that group) and maybe five signed up for chemistry or physics. Science and math are hard for most folks, but once you get beyond the frustrating, difficult parts, they can be very fascinating and rewarding subjects to study.
What do you think? Is Toffler right? Or is there some balanced point we need to reach between where schools are now and what he envisions?
In a Nov. 10 post about a review of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol S. Dweck, I promised that I would read this book. The review was very positive, but I wanted to pass my own judgment.
Well, I can tell you the review was right on target. If you are interested in helping kids see the world through a lens that values hard work and a commitment to improvement, this book is a must read. It includes common sense advice backed up by research, and a host of anecdotes about students, teachers, and parents to illustrate how a person's mindset influences their short-term and long-term performance in school and on the job.
I also found it to be a great resource for sports coaches. In fact, it made me take a hard look at how I coach and what I need to change to bring out the best in my players. There is an excellent section on John Wooden, the most successful college basketball coach of all time. Wooden "admits that in terms of basketball tactics and strategies, he was quite average," Dweck writes. "What he was really good at was analyzing and motivating his players. With these skills he was able to help his players fulfill their potential, not just in basketball, but in life--something he found even more rewarding than winning games."
One of the most fascinating parts of the book is a page with drawings from students in an art class. Most people, including me, see drawing talent as a special ability that you either have or don't have. But the pictures on this page tell a different story. They show the crude drawings of people's faces done before the students took a drawing class. Even I could draw that well. Then they show the revised drawings after they took the class. The transformation in quality is exceptional.
Still, if there is one criticism I have of this book it is that it plays down pure, natural talent too much. To be sure, I believe we can all pick a skill, such as drawing, and learn how to do it better. But the reality is there are people who are born with a special talent for drawing or basketball that puts them way ahead of the rest of us.
Even so, the message in this book is powerful. At the least, it will prompt you to step back a bit and take a hard look at your approach to teaching, coaching, or just living. More likely than not, you will see a need for some adjustments.
