STEM Products vs. Process

Straight from the top, I can tell you that I love it when my kids think like scientists.  And while scientists don't always share the same language as engineers, they use many of the same practices.   They generate an idea, they try to test for the idea, and they try to adapt the idea.   While engineering goes further than science does in its application, ICLE would call engineering a Quadrant D application of a scientific concept.

The difference here is critical.   Scientists are trying to generalize an idea by looking for models and patterns, and engineers are trying to develop the general idea into a specific application or direction.  This language became separated as we spoke of inquiry in the original science standards, and led to separate technology standards for the 'tech prep' arena of a decade or two ago.   Elementary science started developing kit science (FOSS, VAST) while high schools began looking at models, Iowa career and tech education developed separate standards, the first career academies flourished, and we started duplicating efforts all over the place in Iowa Schools.

While I believe in spiraling curriculum, sometimes we have been so quick to jump on a program bandwagon that we lose sight of the overarching ideas.   Spiraling tech ed, science, and agriculture should be intentional.  Instead, after personally teaching in seven different districts (yikes!) I have often seen underutilized, if not wasted, resources.   Back in the early nineties, one district spent $30000 on a curriculum for Principles of Technology that served 12 kids per year while the high school science budget for a high school of 300 was $200/year.   Another nineties district in which I taught poured money into its AP curriculum while the business teacher had difficulty getting replacement ribbons for typewriters.   By the end of the decade, I had moved into teaching in a school that had CORD curricula and a CISCO Academy, but no plan on how to build capacity in case a teacher left.  The cycle appears to repeat every ten to fifteen years with the latest and greatest program.

It's not that I am personally against any of these initiatives; I'm not.   I've taught CORD curriculum, I've been an instructor in a local Kirkwood academy, and served for many years as a technology director. If we had unlimited resources, I would love to have all sorts of great curriculum options without financial restraint. Unfortunately, we are bound by the limitations of our checkbooks, and we often jump on-board to new ideas without looking for a cost-benefit ratio.  Not all STEM initiatives are equal, but just as true, not all classes cost the same to teach.  Were all of these STEM initiatives well-meaning?  Absolutely!  Well-planned and executed, including stakeholders from CTE, science, and technology integration?  Probably not.

That leads to one simple conclusion:  It's not about the program. It's about the process.    Districts need to define the skills they want their kids to be able to have to be successful in the local economy, in the state of Iowa, and indeed, in the global economy.  And then they need to invest in their teachers to develop those skill sets as practitioners. 

Based on that criteria, we might look at what's already working for almost nothing.  Local districts might consider an investment of $1000 towards a Lego League using the Lego NXT robotic controller, especially considering the payoff of last year's Ames' Girl Scout troop prosthetic hand invention.   Open-source environments like SCRATCH programming or Kodu  teach coding and problem-solving in game-centered environments without exorbitant yearly fees.  These efforts are also STEM-driven, but they require the teacher to develop the rigor and the relevance.   This difference focuses on people, rather than technology, because regardless of the rigor of a curriculum, it is only as good as the pedagogical practices of the instructor.

Perhaps the best piece of reform on the spectra of STEM efforts in the last five years is the development of the science writing heuristic.  Rather than spending money on a canned set of widgets, teachers are given professional development to learn about practices of science and engineering, applied to all the processes that go on in a normal classroom.   It's holistic, and kids develop habits of mind that are beneficial everywhere, including engineering.   These skills include reflection, backing claims with evidence, and negotiation and collaboration.  Students are writing to learn, and gathering data in ways that meet their individual insights and illustrate their understandings.  The rigor and relevance are demonstrated by students using the method to show their understanding, and by the reflective educator who is able to unpack misconceptions in the areas of conceptual science and engineering.

As the nextGen Science Framework hints, we are closer now to teaching kids about BOTH science and engineering, and the Framework replaces vague definitions of 'inquiry' with 'practices of scientists and engineers.'   In this soon-to-be-released set of standards, those practices appear to be an integral discussion.   Wise practitioners and curriculum leaders would do well to discuss these standards with all stakeholders in the building, so we can spiral effectively towards helping students learn those skills of problem-solving, creativity, and analysis in ALL our classrooms.

Online Learning: Which Way to Go?

Well, it's been a big week.   Apple debuted it's new i-texts, and the Anita District is one of the schools in the state exploring online learning for its next year of offerings.  Several others are contemplating the idea.

And yet...I hesitate about these types of corporate blended learning.   In all honesty, I don't see that this new form of education is much different than the 'old' form of education we've had for years, and which has met the needs of top-level, highly-motivated** kids for a fee.   (**emphasis mine)



Traditional Online Options 

Quite honestly, if all your student does is read online, do simulations online, and take a traditional test online, I'm not certain that the criteria of rigor and relevance is being met in their education; more likely, you are letting the book or the canned curriculum dictate what is best for your students.  This seems to me to be what is happening with the big online programs being pursued by Iowa School Districts.  It's an easy fix, especially since about 80% of the general fund goes to teaching salaries.  What if you could replace a teacher with a digital curriculum that meets 24/7?  Should your district do it?  I'd suggest doing some homework before saying yes to one of these schools, especially when you look beyond their intro videos to the meat of the content. Shoehorning kids into a class only for the purpose of checking the curriculum off a list of to-be-completed requirements is not the best reason to choose one of these classes.

Version 2.0 of these classes, replacing the correspondence courses of old, often has a flash applet or two that 'talks at your kid' and a chat feature at a specified (usually evening) time.  If you are fortunate enough to have a fast internet connection, your kids may benefit from these sessions, but the rest of this coursework is content, not relationship.   I can get content from a myriad of sources, but creating understandings, forging trust and confidence in a child--that is a much tougher task, and the real reason we have teachers..  What will you do for the struggling learner?  The one who has difficulty reading or articulating the content?  The one whose parents are going through a tough time? What about those haptic learners who need models to hang their hats on?  What about the kids who need RTI intervention?  And if....a million other questions your district needs to answer.  Our biggest nod to reform in the online environments will be requiring the BOEE to go through and make sure teachers teaching them have an Iowa License.

Does this mean we will have Iowa teachers leading these classes in a manner that meets the needs and interests and Iowa kids?  Probably not.  I can get a license in most states already because of my current teaching experience, but that doesn't mean I will understand  kids who are so far away.  Imagine if I were to teach the students in a Maine class about a water ecosystem, focusing on my experience (the freshwater Mississippi) instead of theirs (a saltwater estuary).   The misconceptions that would arise would be immense.   Additionally, classes being taught this way don't always have teachers available on the weekend...at least in the experiences my family has had.

At this point, it's fair to ask why I have an opinion on these type of experiences.  Simply put, my own kids have taken several online classes (due to extended illness and anxiety). And as a teacher of 20+ years, I have seen many students work with everything from the Kentucky Migrant Worker Project to APOnline options to correspondence courses to A+ credit recovery.  The courses have ranged from acceptable to awful, and some of them were proctored by a person you could email for questions.  Very few of them had a quick turnaround time for students with questions; some required as long as 3 days.

Here are three local, home-grown options that are worth a closer look.


#ILO, or Iowa Learning Online

Again, two of my older children and some of my students have had experience with the Iowa Learning Online curriculum.   The instructors who are involved in this project have been recognized nationally as Milken educators, and have given back to the local community, regional AEAs and state initiatives to build consensus.   Why do I think it's superior to the online curricula others are looking at?  Here are a sampling of the reasons.

• The work that they have created in courses such as biology and chemistry is project-based in nature.
• It's relevant and rigorous, based on the Iowa Core, and hits on topics ranging from the Manson Meteorite to the chemistry of hard and soft water.  
• Students are given partners and must complete their work, their presentations, and their collaborations using online tools and gradual release of responsibility, rather than passive set-and-get modules.
• Chats are again held to answer questions, but simulations are augmented with regional labs, ICN or Adobe Connect discussions, and meta-cognition that is focused on student questions, rather than simplistic end-of-the-chapter work.  
• In science, with which I am most familar, effective science and engineering practices (to use the language of the National Science Framework) are integrated as inquiry labs, done as homework, and processed through the efforts of experienced teachers.
• Teachers in ILO have extensive training in online facilitation. I've seen them adjust timelines, reschedule meetings for sick kids, self-pace kids.   This caring and flexibility is critical for online education.

In short, ILO has done quality online and distance-learning for more than 8 years with Iowa teachers using best-practices and local collaboration.  This is part of the 'online learning' portion of the governor's proposed blueprint 2.0 and a better learning environment because it's been proven through time.

#iacopi, or Iowa Communities of Practice

Iowa Communities of Practice, or #iacopi, has taken a decidedly local approach.  Here, it's not about removing teachers from the kids; it is, however, about creating learning environments by allowing teams of teachers to collaborate.  Teachers meet and work to develop a quality curriculum that allows differentiation and collaborations between classes in different schools.  This is very valuable because

• The work that they have created in courses includes the areas of English, social studies, math, and science.
• The teachers use each other and the Iowa Core content standards as a platform to suggest ideas of covering a topic.
• It's relevant and rigorous, and allows students to create, synthesize and collaborate with others in the room and those who are in similar classes across the state.
• Students are doing minds-on work.  Because the instruction can be simultaneously online and in-class, multiple modes of learning are happening simultaneously.   Activity, technology integration, and processing are happening in groups.
• Assessment can be compared from school-to-school, giving new possibilities for the end-of-course options.
• While the content concepts are the same, different schools use different focal points for their projects, and share among peers.
• Teachers can employ a gradual release of responsibility as differentiation and collaboration increase.
• Teachers are given training in online facilitation. 

Iowa Communities of Practice is truly revolutionary in the sense that it is developing a collaborative culture in Iowa.   It's helping to stitch 140 individuals in buildings across the state into a "system of schools," rather than a silo approach.  It's reSOURCE Iowa content is evolving, and communication wikis, twitter and regional meetings change the ideas of rigor and professional development for participants..  One of the outside observers at the last meeting remarked,  "The true strength of what you are doing is in the teacher collaboration.  There's not much like this out there."  

Oelwein Chemistry Project...right in the middle

This year I have been involved in the Oelwein project, which puts this concept of local blended learning right in the middle of ILO and #iacopi.  Let me take a second to recap.

In May, I received a tweet from an online colleague commenting that Oelwein had not been able to find a part-time chemistry teacher.  #ILO was not an option, because the classes were full, and #ILO was not designed to handle an entire district of kids.  Rather, it was focused at helping schools offer curriculum for a small number of students in each district (for example, if there are 2 or 3 kids in a school who need physics) Those who have tried to locate a teacher in a shortage area know that this difficulty arises more commonly than we would like to think.  

I already teach full-time during the day, but I was ready for an experiment.  After a series of conversations with the principal,  superintendent, and AEA consultant, and the Oelwein School Board, I presented a vision that would combine elements of both types of blended learning.  My thought:  the curriculum would be online, but I would be available on text, chat, phone, and the kids would meet weekly for a modeling/lab session, with a followup on missing homework.   I would be employed by the district as a part-time teacher in a different capacity than a normal 8-4 classroom. I've been compiling my successes and challenges from this experiment, but that's another post.  What I will tell you is that this model is:

• flexible for kids, as they have a choice of meeting times and contacting me.  Their school day schedule has a built-in 9th hour study hall they can use for online access at school, and I have met with kids to meet their needs using any number of communication techniques.
• uses online learning as a tool, and is aligned to the Iowa Core, the Oelwein Districts, and also adapts the ILO chemistry outline. 
• It's project-based, with modeling and reflection built into the course.   
• It's flexible for me as an instructor, and has allowed me to collaborate with a master teacher.  I find myself day-dreaming about the possible applications here.  I spend a chunk of time in Oelwein each week (including several Sunday night McDonald's sessions),  but more importantly, I'm able to connect with the students wherever they are at in terms of content. There are tons of possibilities, but perhaps the biggest change of all is that my perception of teaching is no longer time-based and industrial.   It's instead, competency-based, based on what the students still need to be successful.

I hope you have a million questions about online learning, but before you jump to a total K12 solution, get them answered! And I hope the Legislature looks at the benefits of local vs. corporate solutions.  Try following #iacopi on twitter, or sending a few of your district teachers to the next #iacopi meeting on June 19 (contact @nmovall on twitter or email), or visit with some students who have taken ILO classes already or contact me (@marciarpowell on twitter or email)

Isn't this model what we envisioned when we first debuted the ICN?  The idea that we could have a teacher of German in one locale, reaching out to students across a local region?  And another teacher who could be responsible for another subject area, building up possibilities for students in remote locations?  The future is here.  But it's our decision as local districts.  Will we build on Iowa relationships, strengths and teaching or outsource our kids to the cheapest bidder?