Doth Grin: The Blog

by Cary L. Tyler

It is increasingly obvious that, for some reason or another, while people may be able to read a book, they may not be able to understand what they are reading, or are intentionally oblivious to what they are reading.

The recent controversies and conversations regarding the book and movie Hunger Games have disturbed me, but what also is troubling me is that people are allegedly reading these books, yet are stunned with what they have seen on screen.

Credit: Teen.com

The skin color of the character Rue was never a question in Suzanne Collins’ novel, yet there were people who were stunned that Rue was actually black. But it did not stop there.

Credit Lionsgate Pictures

Apparently some members of the media felt that Jennifer Lawrence’s body did not match their perception of the novel. Here is an excerpt from an ABC News blog. In it, they quote The New York Times as saying: “A few years ago Ms. Lawrence might have looked hungry enough to play Katniss, but now, at 21, her seductive, womanly figure makes a bad fit for a dystopian fantasy about a people starved into submission.”

Really?  While the article is referring to the psychological damage this kind of conversation can have, there is another problem here. Did anyone actually read the book?

Lawrence’s character, Katniss Everdeen, would not be emaciated. She hunts and provides for her family and also for others in District 12 as best as possible. She is routinely in the woods surrounding her home and is healthy enough to be able to contend with the “careers”.

In addition, if one actually read the book, the Capitol makes sure that the 24 contenders are well fed and strong so that the actual event is that much more “fun” to watch. It is safe to say, given the technology the Capitol possesses, that each of the tributes not only are getting plenty of food, but also plenty of nutrients that would quickly get these characters ready for the robust, brutal nature of the Hunger Games.

This is embarrassing. Teachers are expected to be educating students on analyzing literature not only for academic purposes but for recreational ones as well. I suspect my former and current students, if they paid attention for even nine weeks, will be shaking their heads in disbelief as I have at recent events. It has never been in my realm to teach to a test. I want my students to know HOW to read. Words on paper are useless if they are not going to be properly understood.

I sincerely hope that in the rush to standardized testing we have not allowed too many of a generation to only have a cursory understanding of what they read and watch. If this is the case, then the manipulators out there will have received a morbid blessing. Their job will be so much easier in the near future, because they will not have to worry about someone catching subtle yet important nuances in their contrived discourse.

This is especially the case when too many “readers” do not catch important information that is sitting right in front of them.

Additional reading: Check out this post from the New Yorker on the issue of race in the Hunger Games: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/03/hunger-games-and-trayvon-martin.html?mbid=social_mobile_tweet

Are we paying for an institution or an education when we attend college?

This query is growing in light of educational concepts such as TED, Khan Academy, technologies such as the iPad and better online access and instruction, and powerful oratories on change, including Seth Godin’s self-proclaimed manifesto on education called Stop Stealing Dreams.  Almost daily now, the “norm” for education is considered questionable at best, antiquated at the least.

It has been easy to go after K-12 instruction: No Child Left Behind and standardized test failure issues are like shooting into a bucket at point blank range, but thanks to increased and improving online instruction and academic uses of technology plus allegations of grade inflation and rising college costs in the last ten to fifteen years, the post-secondary approach to education is now also falling into increased scrutiny.

MIT and Stanford have not made the criticisms easier: Take Stanford’s latest approach to education, in which Sebastian Thrun collaborated with another professor turned Google director of research (Peter Norvig) and put a course on artificial intelligence online for anyone to take. Although one could only get a certificate for the course, 20,000 students took the midterm and are doing weekly assignments.

For further reading of Stanford’s approach: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/ff_aiclass/all/1

Godin then shifted to the current university system: “Schools are facing the giant crash of education loans and the inability of the typical student to justify a full-fare education. It will be just a few years after most courses are available digitally—maybe not from the school itself, but calculus is calculus. At that point, either schools will be labels, brand names that connote something to a hiring manager, or they will be tribal organizers, institutions that create teams, connections, and guilds.”

I have longed felt that universities have overextended themselves. Too many classes are taken yet most of the important knowledge has been gained via internships, apprenticeships, and other real-world training exercises. Keep in mind that I went straight into teaching from journalism: I did not have one education class when I started at Van Buren Middle School in Albuquerque in the fall of 1991.

The only thing I had was desire and the memory of what worked for my teachers. I was also blessed by a principal who believed I had the talent (Gary Hocevar) and he promptly surrounded me with veteran teachers. I learned on the fly. I still had to take classes, but the classes made more sense while on the job than if I had taken them in isolation. I was quickly able to throw away the useless and the ridiculous.

Thanks to Stanford, MIT, TED, and well developed online classes, it is increasing obvious to people seeking a real and meaningful education that there are too many useless and ridiculous things about the post-secondary environment (for example, most adult learners past 25 really do not care or have time for fraternities and sororities or other social settings the 18-21 year old might yearn for, and also do not have the resource to potential waste on pre-requisites that often are not pre-requisites but fill university belief systems).

In recent courses at Boise State, I have learned about the push toward more real-world instruction in education and how powerful learning comes from practical application. Artificial intelligence and how it can be used in the world is a rapidly growing concept, and those in the field cannot wait for a chance to apply for school and for financial aid or for an opening in the course. They need or want a fresh and/or new approach now, and Stanford provided one.

There are also apparently a large number of people who love to learn simply because of the love of education, but again are willing to exclude the name of an institution, and the costs, and take a class for free.

This will not work across the board (I hope to discuss this later this spring), as we have way too many students who do not possess with the ability and/or the skills to be independent learners and need the structure colleges can provide. However, it is time to rethink what is required to get an undergraduate and graduate degree. Let’s cut the extraneous and focus more on real-time and real-world application.

Again the question: Are four years really needed, or are students simply paying for a system, instead of an education?

by Cary L. Tyler

Just when one thought it could not get worse in education, it appears it already has.

Just as Malcolm Gladwell stated in his book, Outliers, opportunity may well be the one major factor in how a child succeeds. Take away some or all of those opportunities, and no matter how potentially bright that child might be, their chances of success will be limited.

In a recent article in the Atlantic online,  Jordan Weissmann reviews the research of Stanford professor Sean Reardon and his findings that, since the 1960s, the difference in test scores between the rich and the poor (Weissmann was more delicate, calling them “affluent and underprivileged”) has grown 40 percent and is now “twice the gap between black and white students”.

Weismann remarked it may not just be the rich getting richer, and I agree. The Great Recession could not have come at a worse time for everyone, but especially in education: Just as educational technology exploded and schools ramped up their use of tablet and web-based technologies in the classroom, education budgets were slashed, teachers were sent packing, and suddenly schools that may have had students a grade or two behind may have ended up with students two or more years behind.

Just read this recent Chicago Tribune article: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-25/news/ct-x-digital-divide-0125-20120125_1_computers-consortium-for-school-networking-poor-schools . Even with  special opportunities and grants, it is a long hard road for some schools to even catch-up let alone move their students ahead.

(Oh, by the way…if one thinks this gap is a new thing, read this 1985 article in the Chicago Tribune for even more context: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-02-19/news/8501100294_1_computers-center-for-social-organization-schools)

The divide is strongly illustrated where I teach, an urban private Catholic high school in Portland, Oregon where two-thirds of our sophomores tested at a seventh grade reading level or worse this past Fall. Oh, and yes, most of our students are minorities.

Contrast this to the environment of my former students, who are now juniors and seniors at Gilbert High School in Gilbert, Arizona, have for education. They may have been hit by the recession with the loss of teachers and other cutbacks, but there are still pretty nice computers available for them…if not at school, definitely at home.

I know a good bunch of them have smart phones, maybe an iPad or Kindle, and more. The only drawback that will hold some of them back is a careless regard (if at all) for education either personally and/or at home. However, I know the opportunity is there.

Meanwhile, at my current school in Portland, there is one computer lab and one mobile lab, all using Windows XP, and for about 40 percent of the 300 students at the school, that is all the access they will have.

Yet the microcosm carries:  Even in this environment,  the parents who have managed to make a little more have made sure their children have internet at home, a laptop or desktop, and some have the latest smart phones and tablets, which gives them hours more access to my classroom web site and the added curriculum I provide online for my students  than some of their friends.

If not for the weekly work experience our school provides them at local companies, they would far and away be separated from a shrinking number of students having at least a decent educational in place for possible future success.

Direct link to Weissmann’s article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/occupy-kindergarten-the-rich-poor-divide-starts-with-education/252914/

by Cary L. Tyler

In part three of my look at “21 Things That will be Obsolete in 2009”, timing could not be perfect than examining the role of Wikipedia in education, especially as the website goes on blackout for a day (January 18^th) in protest of anti-piracy legislation.

That is an issue for another day, but one of the common comments from educators has been the “do not use Wikipedia” crusade.

Shelly Blake-Plock said this about the online and free encyclopedia: “Wikipedia is the greatest democratizing force in the world right now. If you are afraid of letting your students peruse it, it’s time you get over yourself”.

I used to be on the “Thou shalt not use Wikipedia”. Now, I actually still say it, but for a different reason. Wikipedia may be too much for some students without basic instruction.

Case in point: Our school’s physics teacher, who has a PhD in Physics and is a retired Intel employee, recently told his students to be careful of using Wikipedia, not because it is shallow, but because the depth of how it explained physics terminologies.

To paraphrase him: “It had better information than in their text”.  (For a sample, look at how Wikipedia handles the concept of “absolute zero”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero.)

For the English teacher in me, I looked up “metaphor” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor) and found a pretty solid overview of the concept. Again, it is so technical that I would ask some of my students to take in only a chunk of the information on the page, but for my Advanced Placement students, it would not be a bad resource for them to attempt to deepen their knowledge of the concept of “metaphor”.

Of course Wikipedia cannot serve as a primary source, and should not. However, on well-constructed pages, there are a number of references and links to primary sources. I have taken some of these sources, gone to the university library online or Google Scholar, and found the primary information I need for a viable research paper. It often has been easier for me than wading through an initial Google search.

In light of rising costs of textbooks (and also, especially at the secondary level, textbooks that have been gutted or are too full of graphics instead of viable, at-level or above information), why not steer students in the direction of Wikipedia? With some basic instruction on how to use it, it could prove to be a valuable resource, especially considering that textbooks are not primary sources either.

Educators, students, for a little more on how to use Wikipedia in the classroom, visit this site: http://edudemic.com/2011/12/wikipedia-in-classroom/.

Also, visit this blog post from Macleans: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/12/21/why-smart-profs-want-students-to-use-wikipedia/

Students, I have move all of my classes to Edmodo.com. If you have not signed up as yet (you should have by now), e-mail me at dothgrin.net.  If you need something from earlier in the semester, please go to http://dothgrinenglish10.wordpress.com/ (It is now called Doth Grin: The Archive).

I am moving my education technology blog back to this page permanently beginning January 15th, 2012.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Homework.

For decades the mere word has caused many a student to groan, roll their eyes, or cry out in frustration. However, it has been mostly a necessary evil (except when it is a waste of time and does not advance an educational goal).

Shelly Blake-Plock, in his 2009 article on “21 Things That will be Obsolete in 2009” in education, states that this very concept of homework will disappear…at least in its current setting. In Part II of my discussion over Blake-Plock’s list, I have to say that is already happening, but not fast enough.

First, some teachers are already doing what is called a “Flipped Classroom”, where lectures and concepts are provided outside of the classroom and homework per se is done in the class. Here is a video to explain this concept in more clarity:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_ejZ5OMIDE]

There is plenty of debate around this and one that will be addressed later. However, I concur with Blake-Plock when he states that “we don’t need kids to ‘go to school’ more, we need them to ‘learn’ more.” Homework needs to continue to become simply academic engagement, whether is it at home and/or at school.

I have cut my lecturing back in half in the past couple of years, instead choosing to start assignments earlier but ask probing questions as the students begin their instruction. In the process, not only did my belief that study questions not cover nearly what students need to learn about a subject become even clearer, but I am finding where students are making mistakes much quicker and I am able to address them before they go home and shut down because they are struggling with the material.

One item I would love to see obsolete is the role of standardized tests in college admissions. Yes, I am an Advanced Placement English teacher, but it seems to me there is a growing emphasis on the test and it is stunting the abilities of teachers to provide a more rounded educational experience. Thanks to maturing social media and inexpensive costs of “cloud” storage, more emphasis needs to be placed on a digital portfolio. Colleges should set up admission folders for students to submit their best work. Yes, cheating is prevalent, which is why teachers should have access to those folders and be allowed to submit student work as well, and then admissions offices can compare that work to letters of recommendation, transcripts, community and volunteer service, other extracurricular activities and scores from AP, SAT, or ACT. It does not have to be hefty to be effective.

To make it even easier, establish a secured “Facebook” style site that is dedicated to adding admissions information, so that universities can pick and choose what they need to see from the potential student. I concede that there is some concern about privacy and how much should be made available on such a site, but there is really no need to put much on a secured cloud-based site that has not already been seen by teachers, friends, family, and other community members.

Coming soon: Differentiated Instruction and Wikipedia…why I feel the fear of Wikipedia has gone too far…

Shelly Blake-Plock (a musician/educator who is particularly interested in the expansion of paperless classrooms) came up with a list of twenty-one things that will be obsolete in education in 2020. Since his blog came out in 2009, his ideas have been bouncing around educational cyberspace and raised some interesting conversations.

Some I agree with, some will be interesting to see if it transpires, and a few I hold suspect, even as get deeper and deeper into education technology.

I am going to address a few of these per blog, but for a quick review, here is Blake-Plock’s discourse via Mindshift.

The first three I am focusing on today are desks, language labs, and computers.

Desks would naturally be easy as more and more teachers shift to tables or specialized rows. Yet one thing Blake-Plock does not appear to address is the need, at least at times, for structure within a classroom environment, especially in the beginning or in particularly tough moments.

I vary on group instruction in a classroom:  It has worked wonders for my students who are already reasonably disciplined and also have some focus towards college. However, I have had particular groups of students who have had a particularly hard time with learning in general, and providing an open environment, at least in the early going, can prove more challenges than this teacher is willing to handle after all these years.

Thus, I have a mostly traditional row approach (that is adaptable for my seniors) to keep the theme of organization and order in place. Collaboration is nice, but when even today’s grad students still express frustration at working in group dynamics because there are too many “slackers” in them, it becomes important to not just jump on the collaboration bandwagon without a plan and an alternative.

Language Labs? Easy. They did not work well, at least in my experiences, when they were popular. For my generation, a big headset was only cool if I had my favorite music playing through them. Today, the concept is just as stifling in an era of You Tube and the improved vocal quality of educational audio.

Computers. Blake-Plock means PC’s, and she is half correct, especially with the proliferation of tablets. Quite frankly, computers, at least within the classroom setting, have been a hit or miss proposition ever since the Apple IIe. Teachers either had them or they didn’t, never had enough of them, or had problems knowing how to use them or did not have enough software or quality hardware to make them effective.  However, Blake-Plock is highly exuberant about the next wave of handheld hardware…yet the biggest question is who is going to pay for it and how much will be available. The haves will continue to get all the new stuff, grants will piecemeal them in some settings, while others will be on the outside looking in as long as the current method of providing money for education exists.

It also leaves out one other issue that teachers bring up time and time again: Lack of resource, time, and training…one of the issues things that, based on current situations, will not be obsolete by 2020.

Four classes into my education technology Master’s at Boise State University, I have realized how much is out there yet how much has not truly touched classrooms across America, except maybe at the collegiate level.

There are already two significant positions out there and one that is more important than both. One is to ignore much of the use of technology in the classroom, either because of educational funding issues, simple ignorance or fear, or because some educators believe it will do little to nothing to make a difference.

There are those who want everyone to jump off into the deep end whether or not it is 30 degrees or 110 degrees outside and fully embrace the technology, pump millions into getting the latest tablets and such into the classroom, and then sit with Christmas morning anticipation of what the day (translation educational success) will bring.

Yet the third is the one that is best examined, but it is also the one that requires the most time, patience, and methodical approaches: A well-thought out plan of action to incorporate technology into different environments instead of a “one-size” fits all concept that too many schools have embraced, much to their chagrin and at times epic failure.

To translate, using two cities I have formerly been a teacher: Albuquerque and the East Valley section of the Phoenix metro area. A “one-size” fits all mentality would not work in those areas, especially Albuquerque, which has strongly diverse population and diverse needs. Schools with more special education students need certain approaches. Schools with a large chunk of their population considering education after high school need others, such as more online training and preparation for such endeavors (I will elaborate more on these in the coming months as I write more deeply and intensely about education and educational technology).

In education, we call this differentiation. If it is important to offer different approaches to our students, then the same needs to be done when adding technology to the classroom.

Too many times in the last ten years, I have personally seen computers dumped into classrooms, and they end up just sitting there, collecting dust. Some teachers are not sure what to do with them, and the students who could or would use them look at what is in front of them and scoff at how much they actually can use them for (and I am talking about education…not because they are mad they can’t Facebook or do “mad gaming” on them).

Colleges are not immune to epic leaps before thinking: Portland Community College recently dove into using Google as part of its learning management system. Not a bad idea, except it did not appear they tested it well, resulting in two weeks of chaos at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester as the system was instantly overloaded by the crush of students and instructors getting online at once.

Based on what I have learned and experienced the last few years, incorporating technology is not as easy at it looks.  However, when it is done well (not perfect, just well) and takes an education first approach instead of a “shiny new something” mentality, it can and will make a difference.

An iPad is nice, but simply giving students options to find information outside of the constructed time space can be even more important. Teachers need to know how to feel comfortable with the instruction, because if they feel good with they are using, students tend to feel good with it as well.

There are so many fun and solid educational tools out there (including plenty that are already on campuses across the country), but if the basics of instruction are missing, there is little that a SMART board, iPad, or Google Docs can do for a student.

This is the second major tech plan I have been privy to putting together since I have been teaching, but this one is significantly different than the first.

My first was a one, three and five-year plan. Well, needless to say, even though I am no longer at that school, I am certain that plan is not the same. This is for two reasons: One, the recession, and two, what a change since 2007.

Tablets? Netbooks? Curriculum integration? Google Sites? Word Press? Social networking in the schools?

None of those were taken into consideration when we put the plan together in 2007.  The hardware was definitely purchased, thanks to a major bond issue, but there are several different approaches I would take today to refine that lesson plan than when we were simply happy to get as much on campus as we could and figure out how to use it later.

Those days are over. A specific plan must be called into play so that all stake holders understand what is being purchased and used. This not to say that my previous school’s plans were wrong: Getting wireless on campus and to every teacher and getting hardware was important. Teachers did put it to good use, but mostly on an individual basis, and among chaotic conditions (layoffs, budget cuts, and salary freezes often overshadow the ability to move ahead with integrating technology and curriculum).

I actually plan to present this plan to our school, since we do not have a formal one in place as yet. It is something that will need refinement and needs to be evaluated by a planning committee. But it is a start…and it is something that can be built upon.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9af1wf_7W8]