The education media continues to run stories about schools that have implemented 1:1 laptop or 1:1 iPad programs. This sounds futuristic and dynamic, and I will freely admit that there are times I wish all of my students had a laptop. I also have the advantage of having attended Grove City College as part of the first class to take part in its 1:1 laptop program.

One argument in favor of these programs is the savings in paper. This is both an environmental and financial savings. I question both because laptops are expensive and they're full of scary heavy metals and manufacturing processes. Also, although some schools use only online textbooks, these are actually quite uncommon, and not as much of a savings as they appear, especially over the lifetime of a typical paper textbook. A big advantage of the laptop is its weight: one item in the book bag rather than a stack of books and notebooks.

I haven't been convinced by that argument, but computers are awesome for homework. I love that my Physics and Chemistry students get instant feedback on their homework, sometimes with suggestions. I wish my Algebra 1 students could get this, but as they're a bit younger, I'm uncomfortable requiring computer use. I tried this with Calculus as well, but my software lacked the sophistication needed and another option I tried was quite difficult to use. Computers are also awesome for putting resources in students hands. There is a wealth of information out there. I've also been making videos for some classes so they can get my lecture (condensed) with examples on the screen. Finally, computers are great for composing new material. I would never go back to teaching without a computer!

But, while computers are a great tool, they do not operate in a way that complements the way people think.

How Students Do Homework

Let me introduce you to my eighth graders. They're an intelligent group, and reasonably hardworking and motivated. Now let's visit the best students among them while they work on homework problems. First, they're writing their work down (possibly not in the detail I would like). Immediately, a paper advantage is clear. It's a lot faster for me to handwrite mathematics than it is to type it. I'm reasonably fast with LaTeX, but I don't want to teach a programming language to my students. What is far worse is to try typing math in most word processors. It's agony and very slow! So, advantage to the paper.

But wait, what about stylus input? I actually give a lot of my handwritten notes that way. The iPad accepts a stylus, there are even better styli on some laptops, and I retouch a lot of photographs with a Wacom tablet (and it also makes an awesome tool for inputting handwriting). I actually listed these in order of increasing comfort and preference. But, let's look at the other thing my students are doing: they're looking at the original problem in their textbook. Since the notebook and the textbook sit side by side, they have no trouble switching back and forth. On the computer, it would involve using the mouse or a control-tab. Admittedly, the homework problems could be on the same interface as the work, but the screen resolution means that only a limited number of problems and work could be seen at a time. You see, my students are looking back at other problems for clues. They also have a visual that show them how much work they have to do before they're free. The computer does not facilitate this. Also, this method of stylus input means the computer can't correct their work. Other than weight, there is no advantage to computer here!

Finally, the other thing my students are doing is checking their work. Yes, I assign the "odd" problems because the answers are in the back of the book. The good students are using the answers to make sure they're doing the problems correctly. Most have a piece of paper or else a paperclip back here to facilitate easily flipping back and forth. Again, on the computer, this would require mouse clicks or control-tabbing.

So, what about my older (more computerized) students. Their homework is online through Moodle. It is self-correcting, so they don't have to flip to see the answers. However, they are not paperless! These students are writing their work out in notebooks. They have notes in front of them. They have their textbook as a reference when needed. They also have either a reference sheet (periodic table, conversions, ion names, etc) if they're in Chemistry, or else a formula sheet if they're in Physics. They're not paperless either. Admittedly, the textbook, periodic table, and reference sheet are all online, and I've had my Physics students keep formula sheets updated (typed) also online. The trouble with using these online resources, again, is the switching back and forth between documents.

A Few Other Paper Advantages

Paper isn't just awesome for homework. It's also awesome for note taking and test taking. Some of my students like to put notes in the margins of my handouts. I make the margins wide in part for this purpose. They will highlight or underline parts of the handouts. One girl even had a color-coding scheme for marking up my handouts. When I have them doing labs, there are handouts open, notebooks open, and sometimes random scraps of paper floating around (used as a temporary holder of information). In group work, the same thing happens. I also do a lot of diagramming using marker boards.

Computers can do all of this, but computers aren't conducive to the thinking and drafting part of the creative process. The screen does not have the size or the resolution to keep multiple sources of information open. The computer is awesome, however, for the later stages of the creative process.

Let me close with a few personal observations on paper and computers. I write science fiction as a hobby. As I write, I need a few things. One is a reference list of characters and places. I also need maps of places and buildings. Occasionally I need pictures to help me get things right. I also need to refer elsewhere in the book to recall what happened. Lately, I've created sort of a map (not an outline) of the intertwining parts of the book, so I need this too. I tried to write on my iPad. At first, I loved it. My writing could follow me everywhere. However, once I got to about 20 pages, I started to get frustrated by my need for all the references. I could create all of them on the iPad, but getting to them involved too much switching around. I'm now back to notebooks. The iPad lets me write when I travel, but I would prefer to use it to jot ideas down. Of course, if I ever publish, I'll need to type and the computer will be awesome for putting together (and editing) the final book. Even now, it's great for research!

My other observation is in photography. One of my other jobs is as a photographer. Mostly I cover high school events for the paper. Occasionally I do other jobs, though not for profit. It was in this latter capacity I got a great reminder of the power of paper. I took some pictures for the Snowball and gave the people in them the web-address where they could download the pictures or else order prints. I got a few complaints that the prints they made from the downloaded pictures were "blurry." So I investigated by ordering prints at the two local businesses that make prints. When I got home I spread them across my dining room table to do comparisons. (By the way, they were blurry because these people were downloading the small sizes instead of the large sizes.) It was great to be able to arrange and rearrange so many pictures at once. On the computer I can't do that. The more pictures I put on the screen, the less detail I can see. As a result, I go back and forth between pictures or have, at most, two on the screen at a time. That's not as good as paper.

On the other hand, digital photography is cheaper, easier to edit, and easier to share. If my parents come to visit, I don't pull out the huge album of everything. Instead, I show them landscape pictures. I show other people sports pictures. I can even show only pictures of a single person or subject. That's a few keystrokes on the computer. It is hours with albums.

I'm no luddite. I love technology and will never give up my computer. However, as we seek to implement more and more technology into the schools (and workplaces) let's not forget that paper is a great tool for many things.

Also posted at squirrelscience.com/blog

During church today, we sang a hymn I had never heard before, and it got me to thinking about education (I also had some religious thoughts about it, but this is an education blog). The hymn was Brighten the Corner Where You Are. The central message of this hymn is that we need to shine God's love no matter where we are. The pulpit and missionary work are not the only places in which we can make a difference for the Kingdom of God. In fact, the author wrote it after giving up her missionary plans so she could care for her sick father.

This has so many applications to education that I hardly know where to stop. Begin with a simple question you could ask any teacher: "Why did you become a teacher?" Few of them will list pension plans or tenure or working 9 months of the year. Most will talk about a favorite teacher, the desire to help, a passion for a certain subject, or something along those lines. Then look at how they function both in the classroom and with the adults in their school and their community. Are they reflecting that love and passion? Are they brightening their corner of the world or are they making everything a little darker?

Brighten Your Classroom

Most teachers have had that horrible experience in which a classroom is out of control. They then have to clamp down and discipline. Over the years, they learn to keep control by being scary and intimidating. Before too long, they have sucked all of the joy out of their classroom. The students go in, they behave, they may even learn, but they feel no passion. This teacher does not inspire students. Will you put in your best if you are not inspired?

I am good at English. I was even told that I should be an English teacher. What was missing was a passion for English. Math and science do not come easily to me, but I actually have a passion for those subjects, so I was willing to put in the work and time they required. If I don't share passion with students, how can I expect them to become passionate or even interested in my subject?

Discipline is important, but I prefer the term management. My philosophy is "busy hands are happy hands." Through the years, I've cut my lecture more and more because, oddly enough, that was when I had discipline trouble. As I've changed my teaching style, I've had far less discipline trouble. I get to be more cheerful, joke around, and the students feel less need to cause trouble!

So, are you brightening your classroom? Or are you sucking the joy out of learning and blaming the students in the bargain?

Colleagues

Some colleagues are skilled at sucking all of the joy out of the room. If I'm having a great day, I know just who to visit in my school to make sure I go home hating education and hating my day. Are you the type of colleague who is filled with continual complaints? Do you complain about your students, your classroom, your administrator, your colleagues? Are you filled with criticism of the job everyone else is doing?

What you do is to bring down everyone you talk to. As the old expression goes, "Attitudes are contagious." By sharing a negative attitude (or allowing others to share theirs with you), you reduce the effectiveness and passion of everyone around you. Your complaints may even be justified. But, I would ask what is being accomplished with complaining? You are flailing around helplessly like an ineffectual eunuch, and poisoning everyone else in the bargain. On the other hand, identifying problems as a first step to solving them is a different matter entirely. Maybe you need a new school. Maybe you need to talk to your principal about the useless teacher down the hall. Whatever it is, don't just complain. Do something! Otherwise, keep it to yourself. All you are doing is making yourself and the people around you more negative.

In Public

Some teachers aren't happy to share their negativity with their colleagues. They take it out into public. They share how awful the superintendent is, or how the new teacher has no discipline, or how much harder they work than everyone else. They might even complain about students. Worse yet, they might even use names!

Imagine the member of the public who has to listen to this and who sends a child to this school. When this child complains about school, the parent may believe the child has some justification. The parent may even share the complaints with the child. Their faith in a teacher or administrator may also be undermined. Worse, they may think to themselves, "If the teacher says that about one student, I can only imagine what he says about my child to other people!"

A few years ago, I had to visit a different church due to bad weather (my church as about 15 miles away from the nearest paved road). When I introduced myself at this church, I was interrogated about the school. One of the members of the congregation made the remark that, "It's nice to meet a teacher who actually likes teaching." Why? Because I kept my complaints to myself and shared the good things.

Conclusion

I'm not advocating some kind of Pollyanna attitude. I am advocating watching what you share. The negatives should be shared as part of solving problems. Instead, share the passion, the love, and the joy. Isn't that a far better world?

And, remember people are always judging you. Perhaps that person who could rescue you from the job you hate will be so turned off by your negative attitude that they will pass you buy.

Also posted at squirrelscience.com

The 385 students who attend the Waconda School District of rural Kansas are out-performing students at some of the best schools around the world.

This is a short post because the secret(s) to their success are so simple. There are no amazing innovations in the teaching, no fabulous new curriculum, no 1:1 laptop programs, and not even performance pay or a charter school! This school does not have the innovations that liberals push, but it also does not have the innovations that many conservatives push.

So let's look at a few things that the school does:

1. Small class sizes in grades K-3. The research out there on class size shows that these are the grade levels where small class sizes have much impact.
2. Parents are involved. This school has parents who buy into its mission and who show their students that school matters by attending conferences and staying involved in the school.
3. Teachers follow students' skills, not grades in courses. Rather than a useless letter grade, this school follows specific skills. This allows more targeted intervention and is something powerful that any teacher can do. In the education lingo, this is an "assessment matrix."

There is nothing innovative here. Even the third item is something many teachers do informally. Writing it down simply gives teachers a tool and a visual record. A teacher may know, for example, that a particular student is weak in solving problems by division. When it is in black and white, the teacher may see that many students are weak in this skill (a sign that reteaching is necessary), or maybe that only one or two students lack this skill, a hint that individual or small group tutoring is necessary.

The individual teacher cannot control class size. However, when a district needs to cut spending or target additional spending, this shows one area that would be effective. An additional primary teacher would be more effective than an additional science teacher, when the choice must be made.

Parental involvement is more difficult. To increase this, the school needs to work slowly and expect small, gradual victories. The midwest is fortunate enough to have high parental involvement. However, our Reservations do not have high parental involvement. One technique they use to invite parents to the schools is to provide food at events like conferences. Another is to make sure the school is welcoming. Teachers need to contact parents. This will make parents more likely to return the favor.

Given parental involvement, teachers who monitor exactly what skills their students have, and small primary classes, there is no reason any school cannot improve. A particular teaching style or curriculum will not save a school. Best of all, these three improvements are cheap (except for the additional primary teachers).

To find out where your own school district ranks nationally, internationally, and statewide, visit the Global Reportcard website.

Cross posted at squirrelscience.com

I read today that the state of Illinois is giving up the writing portion on its standardized tests. Now it would be easy to jump on the bandwagon and condemn the state for lowering its standards, but I want to take a different tack and suggest that this is a good thing.

I'm not an English teacher, but I do a fair amount of writing, and my students write. This blog is an example of pretty bad writing. I usually have a few talking points written down. Then I put them into paragraphs and follow up with a quick edit. This is poor writing, but note the amount of preparation and editing, even with such informal writing. With my more formal writing, I have an outline, many edits, lots of research, and a lot of time.

I'm no longer a student. When I was a student, sometimes I was asked to write something to be turned in right away, maybe by the end of the period. In my professional life, I've never had to write like this. I may be wrong, but I can't imagine any profession where this kind of writing is essential. The only places I ever write like this are letters to family, E-mails to friends, and on internet bulletin boards. Most writing involves planning, writing, rewriting, editing, and research. The writing on standardized tests isn't like this, and there is no way it could be.

It is expensive to grade the writing on a standardized test, and it doesn't actually measure anything useful except a student's ability to produce a rough draft. I say good-riddance to the writing portion. Now teachers can focus on doing real writing in their classrooms instead of preparing students for the standardized test.

Crossposted at Squirrelscience

I caught a lesson on education from my sports photography. I photograph my students at games. Then I'll typically erase hundreds of pictures after a game to keep 25 or fewer. My rules are to keep one of each of my students and then the best after that. With the pictures I do keep, I spend time rotating, cropping, and retouching. From those I send the 3-5 best to the local paper for publication.

The lesson here is that by cutting down, I can get the best. In education, this is something we need to do. A common lament among teachers is lack of time. What they need to do is cut the extra and distracting so that they can focus on doing well what is left.

Standards

Let's begin with the obvious: a textbook is not a curriculum. They are overstuffed with facts and information so that they can be marketed to all 50 states and satisfy the desires and interests of all the different special interest groups. The teacher should not design a course around the textbook. Instead, it should be designed around the state standards. Since most of those standards are of low quality and usually too many to teach, the teacher should additionally focus on the most important standards there.

Common Core standards may lead to improvement in the quality of the textbooks, but I doubt it. Textbook companies are asked to include things like career information, minorities, sexual minorities, and other trendy topics outside the core of the subject. In addition, the textbook may not interpret the standard in a useful way. The teacher must stay focused on the standards.

This focus helps the teacher when administrators show up with a "good idea". I was once asked to teach a career curriculum as part of my 8th grade science. The superintendent had gotten a small grant to offer this thing. It was awful, but that was not the problem. The problem was that it had nothing to do with what I was expected to teach, and I made this point. The superintendent should have refused it point blank. That grant was not sufficient reason to forget the core mission of the school.

Administrators should ensure that their teachers are focused on the standards. Moreover, they shouldn't sabotage this by bringing in extras that distract from the standards. National standards may improve the quality of the materials available to teachers, but good materials do not replace the teacher's job.

Schoolwide Focus

In my last example, I cited the ways administrators sometimes toss extras into classrooms that are outside the mission of the school. State legislatures and departments of education do the same thing. It seems that every time someone sees a problem, they automatically think schools should fix it. They seem to think a new course will be the perfect solution. This is where health classes, sex-ed, economics, drivers-ed, various PE courses, values clarification, career courses, and other strange courses come from.

I would agree that some of these belong in schools. But, the overall point is that we should consider what is the school's job and what is not. The more we place in the school, the less it can focus on the essentials. The government should stop interfering in schools and allow them to focus on their core mission. A local school may see a need for any course, but a problem in one school does not translate to a problem in another that needs to be solved statewide. Schools focus on too many non-academic issues.

My own school board spent a startling amount of time talking about buying a bus for extra-curricular activities. The board also spent many hours discussing our sports co-op with a neighboring district. Recently we spent too long quibbling over a few days on the calendar. The board has spent almost no time discussing math scores, AYP, or anything academic. They need to focus on the essentials.

Schools also need to ask teachers to focus on the essentials. Last year I was told to coach and my teaching suffered horribly because I didn't have time to focus on my teaching. In this country we expect teachers to teach all day and run extracurriculars afterwards. We see it as getting our money's worth out of them. Then we turn around and ask why they aren't as good as teachers in Singapore or Finland. That's because teachers there teach less in the day and are then expected to spend the balance of their time developing lessons and collaborating. They have time to focus on the job because the extra has been cropped out of their job.

It is said that when Michelangelo was asked about how he created his statue of David, he responded that David was there all along. He simply removed the excess that was around him. I think we have good schools, but there is so much excess in them that they can't do their job well. Our schools could be like David (hopefully with clothing) if we focus them.

Posted at http://www.squirrelscience.com/blog
The secret to improving our schools is so simple and so obvious that I'm almost afraid to open this entry with it: improve teaching.

Were you expecting something else? Maybe computers? Eradicate poverty? More money? Better testing? Close public schools? Disband unions? Require union membership? Homeschooling? Small class sizes? Large class sizes?

The truth is scary but powerful: what goes on within the classroom will have the greatest impact on teaching. Much of what is suggested in the literature are ways to get students to conform to the needs of the adults in schools when the reality is that adults need to conform to the needs of students.

Let's begin by acknowledging that it is difficult for the individual teacher to control what goes on in the rest of the school. I have some thoughts on that, but unless the school buys into the mission of reform, that avenue is closed and the impact of an individual teacher is far less...but still important. Some humility is also in order. I've met many good teachers. I've met one, maybe two truly great teachers. We all have  a lot of work to do, and I include myself in this: the more I learn, the more I realize how far I have to go.

I will close with a few general thoughts and a promise to flesh these thoughts out in my next few blog entries.

• A textbook is not a curriculum. Good instruction will use a lot of resources that are all part of a larger plan.
• Have a plan for instruction. Make sure it is aligned from grade to grade with fewer topics taught at each level, but those topics taught for mastery.
• Teach well. Would you want to be a student in your classroom?
• Challenge students, but know what a challenge actually is.
• Students should think in your classroom, not just memorize.
• Have a plan for those students who either arrive unprepared or who just don't "get it."
• Remember that part of teaching is coaching. Good coaches don't just tell their players how to play the game, they show them the skills, have them practice the skills, give them feedback, and help them master the skills.
• Do not hand-hold or coddle the student.
• Recognize that you are not perfect!

I might go on and on, but I think the general idea is that the teacher and school should control what can be controlled and stop worrying about what can't be controlled. We can't control the horrible divorce situation in the student's family, but we can control what the student faces in school. It may well be that the school is the only stability in a student's life!

It is interesting to note that most of those successful adults who rose above terrible circumstances in childhood can trace their success back to the influence of an adult. What a shame if God chose a teacher to be that great influence in a child's life and that teacher did not rise to the challenge.

Posted at Squirrelscience

I know I promised to talk about education reform (I even presented the topic of my next few blog entries at work today). However, I found a <a href="http://www.kfyr.com/cc-common/mainheadlines2.html?feed=143825&amp;article=8061572">news article</a> today that I just couldn't resist. Like most states, North Dakota is looking at legislation to prevent bullying in schools. Noble? Absolutely!

Of course, there is already legislation on the books against murder.  It doesn't seem to have stopped murder.  Even threats of dire punishment don't prevent murder or any other crime. Laws don't fix problems, but they certainly do a good job making politicians and other feel like they're doing something.

If we are serious about bullying, we need to look more locally. Here are a few easy ideas to start:

•     Teachers need to be visible and in the hallway between classes. (I've stopped some bullying that way.)
•     Teachers need to actually stop bullying when they see it.
•     Everybody needs to agree on what bullying is.
•     Parents need to take an interest in their children: check Facebook accounts, check e-mail and texting if necessary, and, most important, talk to their children so they know when there is a problem.
•     Parents need to act when they find out their children are being bullied. I've been shocked to find out how many parents won't call other parents when there is a problem.
•     Don't let it go. Some schools or parents will excuse bullying as kids being kids. Parents should stand up to schools that won't deal with bullying. Schools should stand up to parents who try to excuse bullying.
•     Recognize what is worth attention and what isn't. Ideally, the student should deal with the problems. We should help students learn to do this. We should always be ready to step in, of course.

Bullying isn't just children being themselves. It's not good natured teasing. It goes beyond the give and take of the real world. Bullying is a problem and it can be a serious one. Well-intentioned legislation doesn't solve the problem. It actually just dances around the problem as a form of CYA (Cover Your...Antelope). The documentation is there in the case of a lawsuit, but not the solution.

Crossposted at Squirrelscience

You might have noticed a big pause between my previous entry and this one. It wasn't a lapse in creativity or lack of time. It was more basic: what is good about tablets like the iPad in education?

I'll confess that I want one. The $500 price tag for the cheapest model and my desire to replace my 7-year-old computer make it easy to talk myself out of it. I want the iPad for consumption: showing my photography to others, reading, listening to music and podcasts....pretty much what I do with my $300 netbook now, just in a more convenient and far sexier package, and with far less capability overall. So, I'm pretty sure an iPad is not in my near future.

But, is it a good device for schools? No. I've been trying very hard to think of a way in which the iPad is superior to a netbook other the form. I can't think of one. An iPad is designed for media consumption, not creation. Ideally, we want our students creating, not consuming. What they need to consume can come from a laptop. Certainly one can type and even handwrite on the iPad. However, the handwriting isn't as good as a Wacom tablet. The typing occurs on a keyboard on the screen that takes up a huge amount of screen real estate.

One can buy an external keyboard for the iPad and this may point to the future of portable computing. It would be nice to detach the screen from my netbook for reading, watching videos, looking at pictures and the like. Perhaps it can even allow more precise pen input.  As it stands, the iPad is a great device, but it is merely an additional device, not a replacement for anything.

If a school is interested in a 1:1 program, my suggestion would be to use either laptops or netbooks. Again, we want students to create and think, not consume. Here we go back to some more fundamental questions about education. Chief among them is, "What is education for?" If your answer is, "To prepare for a job," your interpretation of what school should do is quite different from the school envisioned by the person who says school should, "Prepare students to function as citizens in a democratic republic."

So, I want to close this topic of technology with this thought: Do not buy technology to be a more expensive replacement for something we already do. Technology should bring something new (and valuable) to education.

I dislike smartboards because they're glorified (and expensive) chalkboards. I love probeware because it makes graphical analysis of lab data possible and practical. Any school which is considering laptops, iPads, or anything else needs to make sure that these tools will bring something new to education. Otherwise they are cheating the taxpayers and students by spending tax dollars inefficiently.

My next few posts will look at some of what I've been learning, trying, and reading about in terms of higher quality teaching. My hope is to tie technology into each of these posts and make the case for 1:1 computing.

Cross-Posted at Squirrelscience

Education tends to latch onto fads and saviors rather than do the hard work of slow, incremental improvement. So are tablets another fad? Some say yes. I would add that much of what I'm going to write here could also apply to 1:1 laptop programs. In this post I'll attempt to outline why tablets aren't helpful, but I will also note that some arguments against them aren't realistic. In my next post I will look at why they would be helpful. In the interest of full disclosure: I have seriously considered an iPad or a Kindle for my own personal use. (I don't own either one as of this writing.)

Poor Arguments Against

There are plenty of good reasons why a school should not invest in tablets. It's a shame to see writers resort to weak arguments against them. I want to outline a few of these arguments here.

One common argument I have read is that placing a tablet in the student's hands is to guarantee distraction. The problem is that this assumes 2 things: first that education consists of students listening to the teacher talk, second that the teacher is incapable of saying, "Tablets down. I need your attention up here." Actually, two more poor assumptions are that the teacher is not wandering the room to monitor students and that students were all paying attention prior to the advent of the tablet. A quiet, well-behaved classroom doesn't translate to student attention. Another common argument is that the tablet doesn't do anything that could be done before. That's not true either. Multimedia simulations can be linked to static text and homework can be made self-correcting so that the student does the problems right (I do that and my school doesn't have tablets or 1:1 laptops). Tablets are wonderful research tools. I know the school probably has a library -- my school has a beautiful new library -- but its resources are necessarily limited and frankly make research slow and inefficient. In my thesis work, I did most of my research over the internet because the information isn't even available in my rural location and driving to a good library was out of the question.

Nevertheless, there are some good arguments against tablets.

Problems with Tablets

I think my biggest problem with tablets is the same one I have with every new technology: they are hailed as the savior of education that will revolutionize school as we know it. The reality is that the education industry doesn't like change. If I continue to teach the same way, the tablet won't help and may actually create an additional distraction (see what I said about that earlier). If a school will invest in tablets, it needs to ensure that teachers are taught to use them. Schools fail in this part of every new fad. Devices or programs are thrown at the staff and everyone is surprised when nothing changes. If we're going to do that with tablets, why bother?

Another really good strike against tablets is that while they promise savings in textbooks, the reality is that there are very few high school books available electronically. Those which are available electronically usually require purchase of a paper copy for each electronic copy. A few of the electronic versions are in Flash form (so, sorry to all of you schools that adopted the iPad). At the college level, this is a different story and it may change at the high school level.

I could like tablets as a notebook tool, but few are up to it, at least in the subjects I teach. I take most of my own notes with a Wacom tablet hooked to a computer (which is not the system I'm describing in this blog). Wacom is designed for graphic artists and photographers who require a precision surface. I am a photographer, and discovered the notetaking power by accident. Most tablets don't have the precision surface necessary for notetaking. I think it will come. I mentioned a few tablets that have it already, but the popular ones don't have it. Also, the notes need to be easily organized and found. My experience with students is that most have no concept of organizing electronic files and have difficulty organizing even their own paper notebooks. And, of course, the obvious question: do we need to pay for an expensive electronic notebook?

One serious concern I don't read much about is durability. We're asking high school students to take care of expensive electronic equipment with a huge glass screen! Students can be quite clumsy and some are very hard on things they don't own. I hand out calculators to my Physics students. This is a group that is supposedly the "better" students. Nevertheless, calculators get lost, misplaced, dropped, cases disappear, and some get unbelievably filthy. I have a huge problem with trusting students with an even more expensive piece of electronics.

What kind of user agreement will we have with students? Do they pay for damage? What if they don't cause the damage? How quickly can we repair their tablet? It's not like a book which is quickly replaced. What do we do about the student who chronically "forgets" his tablet?

At the same time, there are problems of obselescense. These tablets will get out of date. What will schools do with them then? Can the students take them? Sell them? Will the company buy them back for some kind of trade-in?

Many parents don't allow computers in their children's rooms due to legitimate concerns about inappropriate websites. Suddenly the school has provided one with a handy built-in excuse. There is wireless internet in each room of my house even though I really only use it in two rooms. It's not like I could block my child's bedroom. In addition, what should the school do if the student uses the school's tablet to access porn at home?

A big concern should be longevity. I've read about schools that start 1:1 programs with laptops from a grant. They have no long-term plan for continuing the program except for a vague hope that the money will continue to be there. What if it isn't? What if the school has a sudden enrollment spike? What if there is a sudden economic downturn and the school can't fund the tablets?

I will close with what is really the biggest concern to me. I think it's silly to rail against technology. One of my colleagues started teaching math with a slide rule. She no longer does so. However, my big concern is that technology come into school with a plan and schools do this poorly. Schools need to plan who will use the tablets, how to pay for them, what they will be used for, what to do if any number of bad things happen to or with the tablet, and they need to plan professional development so that classroom practice actually changes to use the tablet effectively. Otherwise, schools shouldn't spend the money.

Conclusion

Some readers may have expected a harsh critique of the tablet. However, the tablet is neutral. It could help or harm education or even be ineffectual. Its uses are what will make it good or bad. The potential is there to do a lot for education. However, since the practice of education is highly resistant to change (despite the tendency to jump on every fad), tablets probably won't do anything except cost money: unless the school has a plan to train teachers to use them.

What I would suggest to teachers everywhere is to create a need. Begin changing practice in ways I will outline in my next entry. Improve your classroom practice in such a way that the tablet has an obvious place.

Cross-posted at http://www.squirrelscience.com/blog/?p=128

Tablets such as the iPad are likely to be gamechangers in education. In this post I want to spend a little time talking about tablets that are out there. I plan one or two more posts to cover why schools should invest in electronics for students and also why schools should NOT invest in electronics.

A Selection of Tablets

Apple did not invent the tablet, but Apple did put the tablet on the map when it introduced the iPad. The iPad has a touch-sensitive screen and is bundled with plenty of applications including a web browser and book-reading software. It's a lot of fun to play with! As a teacher, one drawback I noted was that it has limited ability to accept handwritten input. Apparently one can buy a stylus and apps that work like notebook paper, but the experience leaves a lot to be desired. Also, organizing saved files isn't as easy with the iPad as with a computer. Apple worked too hard to make the device user friendly. Only now is there something similar to a folder.

My school has been evaluating the Entourage Edge. I played with this one for a day. The product consists of two screens: an e-reader (like a Kindle) and a touch screen (like an iPad). The e-reader side accepts writing from the included stylus. It's slightly laggy, but nothing obnoxious. The interface reminded me of Xournal, a program I use in school to give notes on the projector with my Wacom tablet. In addition, one can write (or type) notes on .pdf files or on books loaded on the machine. I love the e-reader side and would buy a device that had just that part. The other side is similar to the iPad but is based on an older form of Android, a system used by some cellphones. It had the features I would want, but the interface wasn't intuitive at all. This device has a lot of potential, but I would wait for the second generation before I would purchase it.

I'm quite excited about the Kno tablet. This device is based around the Ubuntu operating system, which I have used for several years. It is designed specifically for students. Files and books are organized by semester and course. This does limit its appeal to the adult market. I like the enormous screen (or dual screens). There is plenty of memory, and it provides the annotation and notebook features I would want my students to have. They can write on the books, add "stickynotes" to the books, keep a notebook that is tied to the textbook, and it allows books to link to the web. At the moment, I couldn't justify the cost of the dual-screen model. The single-screen model is also quite expensive, but easier to justify. However, it will be March before the tablet can be purchased without being on a waiting list.

This list would be incomplete without mentioning e-readers such as the Nook, the Kindle, and the Sony E-reader. These are all products with a black-and-white e-ink screen (although the Nook is available in a format similar to the iPad). The screens are wonderfully easy to read on all three of these devices. One advantage to the Sony is that the screen is touch sensitive and there is a stylus so that one can write on the pages. A notebook app makes it easy to take notes. The Kindle requires the use of a keyboard and does not allow .pdf annotation. These are primarily reading devices and will not take the place of a regular notebook.

Another product worth consideration is the netbook. I own one and LOVE it. It's an inexpensive, very small computer. It can do most of what students would be asked to do (high-level graphics or video projects might not work so well). I also hook an inexpensive Wacom tablet to mine and I have an instant notebook. I can use most of the software that is available for a regular computer. I've heard that netbooks running versions of Windows tend to be slower, but mine runs just fine with Linux. Since a netbook is cheaper than most tablets, this is a good direction for schools. The drawback is the lack of written input since most schools won't spring for Wacom tablets for each student. Another is the people expect them to be laptops and they are not.

Other tablet-type devices are out there and I expect more to appear in the coming year. One important question a school should consider is the longevity of the device or company. Startups such as the Entourage Edge or the Kno tablet have not yet proven themselves in the market. If the company goes belly-up, a school will be left with some obsolete, very expensive electronics.

I will do one or two more entries on this topic, one about why schools should embrace tablets, and one on why schools should not.

Students learn best when they can interact with what they are learning. Passively listening to a lecture while sometimes necessary does not allow that interaction. Some time back, I wrote a piece on Smartboards: $3000 electronic chalkboards which are marketed as allowing collaboration. Naturally, I came out strongly opposed. There is so much more I could do with that money that would have far more benefits.

During my research I was reminded of a turn of the century innovation: a slate. A common feature of one-room schoolhouses was individual chalkboards. I want to update this model with a more collaborative approach which I have borrowed from the Action-Reaction Blog.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="350" caption="Two of my 8th graders using a white board"][/caption] I decided to try out this idea in my classes. My courses run the gamut from eighth graders in Algebra 1, sophomores in Biology, juniors and seniors in Chemistry, and Seniors in Physics. I've learned a few lessons.

The original blog proposed using shower board and cutting it up into pieces. I did exactly this. The author estimated that the individual boards would cost $2 a piece. In my rural area, it worked out to about $5 each. That's still a nice price, so the question is does it work?

What I've learned is:

• Sometimes students need to be explicitly told how to collaborate.
• Younger students need reminder to get to work (they tend to get distracted)
• I need to make sure my project is well defined and leaves room for collaboration.
• The ability to check with neighboring groups is a powerful thing and reduces my talking time.
• This is the first time teaching math I've ever seen students argue with each other...about MATH!
• This works so much nicer than trying to remember to get butcher paper and sufficient markers (especially since students can correct the white boards).

I'm learning and so are my students. I discovered that junior high students want to "decorate" their board before doing any math...and some try too hard to do that and don't do the math. This is where the adult (me) has to step in immediately and get them back on task. I've also learned that a time limit is a huge help.

Older students are more likely to "decorate" when done. To get them to use their time efficiently, I've had them compare their work with other early finishers.

I also learned how important it is to define the collaborative work. "Summarize what you know about organic molecules" can lead to almost nothing on the boards. If I define it more specifically, I get a good summative project. (Actually, when I did this, I did a fast review at the end and the students asked me for time to copy what they had drawn on the boards into their notebooks. I call that a success!)

When students are working collaboratively, it's also helpful to have them work in different colors. That holds each member of the group accountable to contribute. For example, if Wally is using green and there is no green on the board, that's a good indication of the effort he put into the project. Clearly defined roles in the group also help.

The whiteboards are not a cure-all and can mask individual shortcomings. Nevertheless, for about $50, I got 12 white boards that have increased student engagement and activity in my room. I believe this translates to increased student achievement. Later in the year, I hope to have enough data to make a more quantifiable judgement. Even so, I would argue that this is much more cost effective than a Smartboard.

Cross-posted at squirrelscience.com.

My first week of school is over! Celebrating it with coffee and my news reading, I stumbled across an article by Bill O'Reilly about Finland. Newsweek magazine has ranked little Finland as the most livable nation on Earth. The United States ranks 11th. I'm not interested in debating the ranking. Some of the measures are valid (crime rates), some are suspect (socialized medicine). I want to focus on one aspect of that ranking: education. Finland has one of the top education systems in the world and I want to look at a few reasons why.

I've been reading a lot about education in Singapore and Japan. In fact, I have a blog post on the topic still in rough draft form. (Coming soon, I hope.) There isn't a lot out there about education in Finland. I hope this will change, but my resources are pretty meager, especially as I'm writing this quickly.

Like the US, Finnish education is provided for free and attendance is compulsory between the ages of 7-16. I'm unclear from my reading what the status of private education is, but homeschooling is permitted, though rare -- in contrast with nearby Sweden which outlaws the practice.

What Happens in School?

According to a BBC News report, most Finnish classrooms contain 2 teachers. This allows extra attention to be paid to students who are struggling and yet keep all students together in one classroom. This is in contrast to the system of splitting students up based on ability. Of course, this same article notes that more needs to be done for the top students.

In Finland, teachers have a great deal of autonomy. Though there are national standards, the teacher is free to teach them in an individual fashion: teachers are considered to be professionals capable of making appropriate decisions...and responsible for those decisions. It helps that all teachers have a master's degree and serve a long internship before becoming teachers.

A few other notable features of Finnish education, from the Wall Street Journal, include:

• School starts at age 7. Prior to that, students are children who play!
• Finnish students do little more than 1/2 an hour of homework a night.
• Finnish students have one of the shortest school days of any industrialized nation.
• Finnish students have a lot more autonomy than their American counterparts: for example, first graders walk to school alone.
• Finnish schools do not have proms, sports teams, or the like.
• Finnish students split into the academic/vocational tracks about ninth grade.
• Finland doesn't view blue collar work as somehow lower status. Plumbing, carpentry, and other such jobs are a valid career for intelligent students.
• Like American education, a decision to pursue vocational or academic schooling does not shut students out of the other forever. Many Finnish students take both kinds of classes.

Lessons for American Education

Naturally, the success of Finnish students has attracted attention. Dallas educators visited to see what lessons they could carry back. Interestingly, Finland has tried a number of the experiments with its education system that we have here. One lesson the Finns have learned is:

Change takes time.

The Finns have been experimenting for some time. They committed to a reform and stuck with it. This is similar to the Japanese and Singapore. Change and improvement are constant and incremental. In America we seem to follow fads and commit to nothing in the long term.

The Finns fund schools equally. My own state could learn a lesson from this... and we're not an extreme case. It is unconscionable that one school in the same district should have a leaking roof, inadequate textbooks, cracked plaster, and the worst teachers while the one in the wealthy neighborhood has air-conditioning, a new building, and the best teachers.

The Finns experimented with a strict testing regimen in 1968, much like our No Child Left Behind. They dropped it because it didn't get the desired results. Teachers and schools are still accountable, but don't face such dire consequences from a single test.

Of course, the testing regimen appeared for the same reasons it is growing in the US. Schools were not succeeding. Poor job prospects meant little value was placed on education and rural schools (in particular) were of poor quality as a result. Schools were not funded equitably and as a result, many in the 1960's predicted only 1/4 of students would remain in public schools by the 1970s.

Conclusion

We are fortunate to live in an era in which we can learn from other countries. Not everything in Finland will work in the US. One major reason is that our nation is more diverse. But, rather than make the same mistakes, let's take what is good. Good teachers steal good ideas from other good teachers all the time. So should nations.

And here are a few ideas to steal from Finland:

• Equalize school funding, at least within states (especially with state money)
• Less testing
• Spend more time teaching teachers how to teach.
• Treat teachers like professionals (freedom), but expect results.
• Let children be children.
• Make school a nice place to be, not something to dread.
• Give students more freedom and responsibility.
• Lessons should be high quality.
• Improvement should be incremental, not by fad.
• Improvement should be continuous.

The US has a lot more advantage right now in improving its schools. We can do it better and faster than Finland because we're not a largely rural, logging-based economy. Similarly, unlike Japan, we aren't recovering from a devastating loss in a major war as we fix our schools.

America is ready to see its schools improve and recognizes the problems. This is a prime moment if we truly want to revolutionize education in this country.

Posted at Squirrelscience The grades students receive in school are often unfair. They're unfair because they don't actually do what they purport to do. (Kids think grades are unfair too, but for entirely different reasons!)

First, let's agree that the goal of grading is to measure what the student actually knows and can do. I would assume that the student who has an A in physics knows and can do physics better than the student with the D. Unfortunately, grades don't always communicate this. I'm going to describe here a few practices that many teachers use that warp the meaning of any grade.

Grade Scales

At my school, if you receive a 93 in a class, you have an A-. If you get a 92 in a class, you have a B+. Is the student with the A- really better than the student with the B+? Or was the A- student lucky one day on one question?

And who says a 93 should be an A? I've worked at schools where a 90 is an A and I've worked at schools where a 94 is an A. So is an A from my school worth more or less than at those other schools? This is compounded when you realize that the work it takes to get an A from me might not be the same as the work required to get an A from another teacher.

Effort

Did you ever hear the phrase "an A for effort"? In many classrooms this is a reality. "He tries so hard." "She's such a nice girl." These kids get their grades bumped up based on the teacher's perception. Does this reflect the goal of grading as I defined it above?

Extra Credit

I think every teacher has heard this question at the end of a grading period: "Is there any extra credit I can do to get my grade up?" My response is always, "No." But there are many teachers who do this. Do extra points granted for a student's sudden panicked effort at the end really measure what that student knows and can do?

One former colleague would give bonus points to her seniors for helping out with supervision of her elementary students. It had nothing to do with her class, but several students admitted that getting extra credit was the key to success in her class.

I sometimes wonder about students who have over a 100% in a course. If a student has a 130% does that really say much about the student? I remember the frustration of the teacher when the student decided to skip a major project: his grade would drop to 103%. She agonized over what to do about his attitude. However, by making his grade so meaningless, she created the situation!

Zeros!

And now we get to an issue I'm still arguing with myself. Suppose a student can test just fine in your class without doing the homework. Should the grade be lowered because he doesn't do the homework? My practice has been to do exactly that. But, does that tell me what the student knows? If he's not doing homework, does that really enter into "what the student can know and do" or does it belong elsewhere? I get a letter and a percentage to reflect what my students have learned.

What about another situation: the student does great on homework but awful on the test. For some students, doing the homework is the only thing that saves them. Is this right? According to the test, they "don't know and can't do" very much. But, if I'm going to knock down grades for missing homework, shouldn't homework also bring grades up?

I haven't cracked this nut. One thing I have learned is that a zero is an easy way out for some students. I take late work (for a reduced score), but I've had students ask me, "Can't I just take the zero." I want them to do the work, but at the same time, their grade isn't measuring what they "know and can do."

Zero for Cheating

A couple years ago, 9 of my Chemistry students cheated on a test. I gave them all zeros on that test: it was school policy. Some even failed the course as a result. I believe I did the right thing, but again, did those grades reflect what those students knew and could do? Might it have been more accurate to have them take a different test?

I wanted to take a stand for moral behavior. But, my definition for a grade doesn't contain morality.

Assessment and Teaching

When I started teaching, I would fill my chalkboard three or four times every day with notes...each period. That was a lot of writing! It was also a lot of material with a lot of detail. When I wrote my tests, I often tested on the big themes of the chapter. (I've improved a lot in all ways as a teacher, but I think test-writing was one of my strengths, even then.)

The disconnect came with my students. As a college-educated adult, I knew what was important. As kids, they really had no way of knowing...especially since they had other teachers who tested on "trivia" just to catch them. How does guessing what the teacher will put on the test really assess what the student "knows and can do"? Shouldn't students be assessed on what they are taught? This is the idea behind standards.

Interestingly, this is also one reason American students score so much behind other countries. America has 50 different states with 50 different sets of state standards. They're all over the map. Many nations have one national set of standards. America has a further disconnect between teachers and standards. Since textbooks are written to match many states' standards, they're huge. Many teachers teach the book and not their own state standards. If a particular topic isn't in the state standards, why teach it? Furthermore, what topic that is in the state standards will be missed?

Assessment must match what is taught. Teach (and assess) fewer topics better and students will learn them.

Conclusion

Grading is an "icky" topic. It is a blunt instrument that is supposed to tell use what the student knows and can do. We tend to use grades for many other purposes. I've offered very few conclusions about grades except one: teachers should assess what they teach. My goal in this post was to encourage teachers to look at their own practice and reflect on whether some beloved grading practices should be eliminated...or else justify why they are kept.

Cross-posted on squirrelscience.com/blog

How could you use $3000 to make the learning in your classroom better? Some schools (including my own) have decided this would be by the purchase of an Interactive White Board (IWB) for every classroom. Between the projector and IWB, this comes to at least $3000. My question is not whether an IWB would be useful. I question whether this is the most effective use of money in the classroom.

Despite the word "interactive," the IWB is not interactive. The teacher interacts with it. One or two students may interact with it at a time. But it doesn't promote large-scale interaction among all the students. The goal should be to have as many students as possible engaged in the lesson.

For students to learn, they must be doing. That doesn't necessarily mean taking notes, though it can be. It doesn't mean worksheets, though it can. They key is active engagement. Learning is what students do, not what is done to them. The effective teacher creates a series of activities that engage the student.

Effective Learning

It has been beaten into teachers for years now that lecture is an awful way to teach. I agree. Lecture is necessary, but should be used in small, targeted doses. Ultimately, it engages the teacher, not the student.

We should emphasize student learning. Effective learning requires an organized lesson. Every activity must be designed to lead to the goal of students mastering what is being taught. They need to wrestle with the concept, try it out, fail at it, try again, and eventually come to an understanding. Then they need to practice it. The teacher must wrap all this up in a tidy package that makes connections: a good introduction, linked (and worthwhile) activities, and a good summary.

For learning to occur, the student can't be distracted. Many distractions are their own. Any readers who were ever kids know what I mean! Others come from outside: announcements on the speaker, kids yanked from class for various reasons, the teacher wasting time, or even a poorly constructed lesson with no focus and activities which appear unconnected to the student.

Good learning is teacher directed, but not teacher-centered. The goal is for the student to learn, not for the teacher to teach. That means that an effective teacher plans a lesson that involves students wrestling with the ideas being presented. He may present some general principles and then have students wrestle and work together on a problem related with these principles. A bit later, several student groups may present their solutions and the class can discuss what works (and doesn't) and why. The teacher guides this, but doesn't step in like the "word of God". Remember, the focus is student learning, not the teacher.

I was pretty generic here since I was trying to be inclusive of many subjects. Activities might be labs, building things, writing, working math problems, or drawing. The key is that they are largely student centered. As I'll be posting in a future blog, top teachers in the US don't do much lecture. Similarly, science and math education in countries like Singapore, Japan, and Finland don't involve a lot of lecture either.

What Does the IWB Do?

The book The Teaching Gap describes differences between American and Japanese education that were based on video studies of randomly selected mathematics lessons. The study took place just before IWBs first came out. Many American teachers used an overhead projector because it focused the students' attention. Japanese teachers usually covered boards on two sides of the room with writing (a lot of it done by students). The Japanese saw the board as a record of the class events and a reference. Americans saw it as a way to focus student attention.

This matched the difference in teaching styles. American teachers tended to present problems and then model how to solve them. Student involvement was limited to things like, "And what do we call the thingy on the bottom of the fraction...Johnny?" Japanese teachers presented a few general concepts and had students work out for themselves how to solve problems. Then students presented their methods to the class and their classmates worked out what was best.

I won't deny some utility to the IWB. But my real question is whether this is the best way to spend $3000 to increase student learning. I'm not the only one asking this question. The Washington Post had an article questioning their return on investment. Surprisingly, even the technology loving THE Jounal had an article raising a lot of questions about this fad. One blogger proposed a $2 IWB (small whiteboards for individual student use). This last one is particularly worth reading because it summarizes everything I've said here in two photographs.

So the question is not whether the IWB is useful. The question is whether this is the best way to spend $3000 to increase learning in the classroom. My answer is no.

Cross posted at Squirrelscience.com

A teacher can sometimes walk a fine line between indoctrination and mind-opening. Say a student comes into my classroom who is firmly convinced that the Earth is flat. Am I really indoctrinating him if I convince him otherwise? Now substitute the flat Earth with some hot button issue and the answer isn't as easy.

This brings me to an article in the UK's Daily Mail about the face on Mars. The interesting bit isn't the article, it's the comments. Several posters are firmly convinced that there is a NASA conspiracy to cover up the face on Mars...even though NASA released the original controversial picture itself! Take just one example:

"If it was a real face they'd never let us know. There fact that they go to such lengths to disprove the idea that it's a man made structure makes me think there might be a cover up - Will, London, 30/7/2010 16:33

Will is never going to let facts get in his way! In some ways he shows a characteristic that is important in science: skepticism. Unfortunately, he takes it too far. He does however illustrate another major point. It's not easy to change someone's mind.
So the major difference between my showing a student that the Earth is round and a teacher who indoctrinated is that I would use evidence not my authority. I would hope to have the student discover that his model doesn't fit the clear evidence. Failing that, I might resort to, "We're just doing the scientific explanation in this class. All you have to do is show you understand it, not that you believe it." I actually used this tactic with a girl who didn't believe in evolution.

It's a good teacher technique: Don't argue with the students. You never win.

I'll close with one caution: it is tempting to proselytize in the classroom. Don't!

***

On a personal note, I haven't been posting regularly. I spent my summer redoing my Physics curriculum and that meant way too much time in front of the computer. Recreational time with the computer was not appealing at all.