Educating the Dragon

If you have ever thought that a class blog was a good idea but were unsure of how to discuss it with management or perhaps you’ve never thought of blogging as a valuable teaching tool. Here are my five reasons to blog.

1. A teacher blog can be used in a reflective manner; enabling you to grow and mature in your teaching, whether in the area of ICT teaching or secondary French.
2. A teacher blog can be a place of community – where regular readers can comment and share their own perspective.
3. A class blog can be a portal for parents to access. Providing a more satisfying answer than ‘dunno’ to the; “So Johnny, what did you do today?” question.
4. A class blog can be a great equalizer for student voice. It is a place where all comments hold equal weight and the shy/quiet kid at the back the same opportunity to share and discuss.
5. A class blog can enable students to share their work, thoughts and insights with a larger audience than any refrigerator / class display can compete with.

On the radio this morning was a report out about how ‘unqualified’ many of our school principals are.

Since 2005 the ‘First time Principal’s course’ has been running. Not being one I only have staffroom discussion to go by, but many of the areas under consideration there are designed to enable many Principal’s to make the transition between ‘classroom teacher’ to ‘School Manager’. Though there are no formal qualifications required for a Principal the ‘career route many take through ‘syndicate leader, senior management, DP/AP surely offers many the opportunity to develop their people management skills and ‘school-wide’ perspective. I know the UK offers qualifications for those aspiring principals by way of the NPQH. Perhaps that is the line we in New Zealand need to go down. But to here of the closure of the Principal’s Development Programme Centre at such a time as this does not reflect well on the emphasis and direction the government places on School Management.

Will we really want to undergo a course qualifying us for school leadership without the guarantee of securing a Principalship prior to spending what will be a large amount of our savings?

I have heard of, and quite like, the model where a Principal – with a teaching background- is responsible for the school, as they are currently but then instead of employing that DP or second AP they employ a Vice Principal (Finance) or some other fancy title that means they take responsibility for the ‘business side’ of the school management. I know some secondary school do this already.

Could Primaries do something similar?

I’m supervising the art class this morning and then again this afternoon.

It’s the last session of the term, those that have not finished are very nearly, it has been nine weeks in the creating and they are all nearly done.

In both the morning and the afternoon sessions there a couple of boys on the “Watch out for..” list as relievers often get.

The morning session boys had finished and one came to me saying “Can we listen to my ipod, please Mister.” I thought about it for a little while, scrolled through the menu like I “on the In-crowd” and said; “Sure just so long as your quiet and sensible about it.”

The session in the afternoon, some of the boys had finished and others had not.

The difference between the two: Ipods sat for a little over a hour, drawing and colouring, barely talking to each each other let alone disturbing others.

Non-Ipods threw crayons to another table, left the room when my back was turned and continued a conversation in a loud and somewhat ridiculous manner.

So I’m leaning towards Ipods having a constructive impact on classroom management.

How about you?

Discussion into the potential of classroom response systems to teach higher order thinking skills.

By Simon M Evans

Due 15^th August 2007

Contents

Introduction ………………………………. 2

Methodology………………………………. 3

Higher Order Thinking…………………… 3

What is a classroom response system? ……5

Why use a classroom response system? …. 6

Conclusion …………………………………8

References…………………………………. 9

Introduction

In January 2006, Peterhead School became part of the ‘Champion Schools Programme’ fostered by Sitech Systems. As part of this initiative the author was given an assortment of technology; an interactive whiteboard, a sound system, and the classroom response system called PRS. Professional development sessions focused the author’s attention on the use of PRS to address the Key Competency, Thinking Skills. This paper will critically discuss the potential of a classroom response system (CRS) to develop children’s thinking skills, and in particular higher order thinking as defined by Young (1997, p. 39).

“Few people define in any detail exactly what thinking skills are in the context of ICT and how they differ from higher order thinking per se” (Rowan-Paul, 2004, p. 30).

Since 2004, ‘Thinking Skills’ has taken centre stage with Managing Self, Participating and Contributing, Relating to Others, and using Language, Symbols and Texts as key competencies (Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 11), though what it looks like at the classroom level has not currently been defined. Also, Bloom’s Taxonomy has been revised, updated and re-presented as a tool for teaching throughout New Zealand schools (McGrath & Noble, 2005, p. 21).

Anecdotal material on the subject of higher order thinking and ICT is thin and formal research sadly lacking. “…there is very little systematic New Zealand research on the teaching of higher order thinking through ICT. Surprisingly, there is even a significant gap in the international literature.” (Rowan-Paul, 2004, p. 30).

There are two core issues to deal with here: Firstly, the teaching of higher order thinking within the New Zealand framework and secondly, the value of employing ICT in the teaching of this Key Competency.

Methodology

A literature search was carried out using Proquest, Eric, and Google Scholar. Additional readings were obtained from Victoria University library in support of key course articles. The author also drew on his experience with the technology in the classroom environment.

Higher order thinking

The pressure is on our youth, to be able to compete in a global society. It is thought that the ability for higher order thinking; critical thinking, synthesis, analysis and problem solving, is essential (Muffoletto, 2001). With ‘Thinking Skills’ identified as a Key Competency (Ministry of Education, 2006 p. 11) the pressure is also on educators to identify what ‘higher order thinking’ actually means and respond accordingly with curriculum objectives that can be base-lined and progress assessed. Unfortunately, as Young (1997) says, higher order thinking is more complex; being a blending of cognitive strategies, metacognition, and non-specific (domain-specific) knowledge (p. 39).

Whether it is Bloom’s Taxonomy or Multiple Intelligences, both have come under significant criticism: even Gardner (1995), author of Multiple Intelligences bristles at his work being used in this way (p. 16) but both these are still used extensively throughout New Zealand schools. Bloom’s Taxonomy, while being identified by Bereiter & Scardamalia (1998) as problematic and shallow in its use of the word ‘knowledge’ (p. 680) it appears to have been the least criticised. Add to that its revised edition, where ‘remember’ and ‘understand’ replace the controversial ‘knowledge’ and ‘comprehension’ categories (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) It would seem to be the current framework of choice. However, “the most important single message of modern research is that it is false to think that there is a sequence from lower level activities that do not require much independent thinking or judgment to higher level ones that do”

(L. Resnick cited http://www.ceap.wcu.edu/Houghton/Learner/think/thinkhigherorder.html retrieved 30 July 2007).

Higher order thinking, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. Wegerif (2002) observes that ideas of higher order thinking are typically white, middle-class, male, ideas which in the past have not taken into account the intuitive, holistic feminine and non-western ways of thinking (p. 13). There are many definitions of thinking skills and several models of higher thinking in the literature as defined by Young (1997). Problem solving, as defined by Belfer (2001), is an aspect of higher order thinking; being able to identify the issues surrounding a problem (p. 1), looking at all sides in an objective manner and working through to a solution requires more than the mere knowing of factual information. Whether assessing the validity of something, generating something different, collating information or applying logical reasoning and decision making, higher order thinking is employed; going beyond the factual and into the realm of the higher levels of Bloom’s; analyzing, evaluating and manipulating information. When Bloom’s was revised, ‘create’ was placed as the final level as shown in McGrath& Noble (2005, p. 21) . Free thought, manipulating ideas and understanding, and working with knowledge to create something new are the pinnacle of higher order thinking. However in 1997 Feuerstein, Gardner and De Bono joined others in Singapore for the seventh International Conference on Thinking. By their own admission they are “… only on the edge of understanding the inner magic of the thinking brain.” (MacBeath, 1997, p. 22) That being the case, the teacher’s main task as defined by De Corte (1990) is to create an environment to allow higher order thinking to take place (p. 70).

Over the last decade particularly there has been a move toward constructivism, where students take more control of their learning and the teacher becomes more of a facilitator to learning rather than treating education as a knowledge-dispensing exercise, culminating in Assessment to Learn (Absolum, 2006) and the drive toward inquiry learning.

It was identified that teachers exhibited confusion over higher order thinking and where it fitted into essential skills and essential learning areas in the National Curriculum Framework as discussed by Rowan-Paul (2004, p. 31). The question therefore is ‘has this confusion been eliminated through the key competency –thinking skills?’ The draft New Zealand Curriculum became available in 2006 and as part of the drive toward that holy grail which is the ‘life-long learner’ it (Ministry of Education, 2006) defines thinking as “using creative, critical metacognitive, and reflective processes to make sense of and question information, experience, and ideas.” (p. 11)

What is a classroom response system?

Classtalk was the first, truly successful classroom response system (Abrahamson cited in Roschelle, 2003, p. 262) but there have been several different commercial products produced since then, not least of which is the Interwrite ‘Cricket’ (Nagal, 2007) and its predecessor the Personal Response System (PRS). This particular model uses infrared, just like a TV remote, to record students’ responses to multiple choice questions. Another version is the Radio Frequency (RF) Clicker allowing students to key-in specific words, numbers and phrases, which, by its very design would allow more freedom for students in their responses and educators in the style of questions they can pose.

The potential of this type of technology to offer immediate feedback to the teacher, enabling them to redirect teaching or swiftly move on from a well grasped topic, offers huge potential for affecting pace and ‘coverage’, engaging with the specific learning needs of the class.

In 1985 the fledgling company known as Better Education Inc. developed a concept whereby the teacher could give the same personal attention and interaction to a whole class as is possible when working with a small group of students. They wanted the teacher to be able interact with every student and have them actively engaged with the lesson. They wanted the teacher to be able to not only identify misconceptions and gaps in knowledge but be able to identify and react to those immediately, remedying problems in understanding as they occur. Their ‘vision was a new type of networked computer tool that makes all these things easier to do in normal class sizes’ ( http://www.bedu.com/ ).

But the question remains, what potential does this have for engaging students in higher order thinking? What they referred to as the ‘Classroom Communication System’ we now call Classroom Response System (CRS). The CRS is a system whereby individual student responses to questioning can be keyed in via a hand held, wireless device, and responses recorded, and displayed as a histogram to be commented and reflected upon ( Dufresne, Gerace, Leonard, Mestre, & Wenk, ,1996, p. 7).

As De Vaney (1998) states, it is imperative that we focus on the learning and how technology helps rather than teaching technology (p. 568). Little or no ‘teaching’ of the CRS is required for students to engage with it. All the hardware is simple to use and the onus in upon the teacher to engage with the software in order for students and teachers to make the most of this technology. Here is a technology that leaves a minimal ‘footprint’ upon time in the classroom.

Why use a classroom response system?

“Collins, Brown, and Newman … contend that few educational resources are devoted to higher order problem solving activities, and few activities require students to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies and processes.” (Herrington, 1999, p. 401). However, through pair and class discussions around results presented in the histogram format students are offered the opportunity of sharing and refining their thinking. As the teacher manipulates questions and scenarios so students engage in various levels of higher order thinking.

It is important to note that there still remains a central place for the teacher in the encouragement of higher order thinking. As has been discussed by Young (1997), the use of higher order thinking skills overarches the whole curriculum, is subject or ‘domain’ specific (p. 39) and often on a deeper level than first defined by Bloom.

“It is …naïve to think that higher order thinking is going to occur simply by adopting ICT in combination with some of the popular thinking skills frameworks and instructional frameworks.” Rowan-Paul (2004, p. 33). Behind the lack of teacher knowledge about higher order thinking skills there lies a need for greater support for teachers to effectively translate ICT and higher order thinking into teaching and learning programmes. The CRS, with its simplicity of use, allows the focus to remain on the subject knowledge being addressed with little time spent on ‘sorting out technology’. Although it is possible to incorporate active learning into a classroom without such technology, as many primary teachers do, the use of CRS adds depth to the experience in two significant ways: firstly, as a classroom management tool, students are drawn naturally to the focal point of the lesson by the variety of questions presented and their desire to observe ‘how they did’ by consulting the histogram. Secondly, it provides focused learning conversation as students are encouraged to discuss questions before answering, feedback their own thinking to the class or reviewing with a neighbour why they made certain choices during the activity.

The technology aspect allows the classroom environment and conversation to be more learning specific over a longer period of time; with the use of the questioning format varying from individual responses to group collaboration, to whole class feedback and discussion of results. The conversation on all these levels, as well on an incidental level, remains grounded in the learning topic. However in order for this to be of maximum value there still a sound pedagogical framework that is constructivist is still required, mediated by a teacher who is equipped with clearly defined learning outcomes. Roschelle (2003) defines it thus: the classroom becomes more student-centred, collaborative, and knowledge-centred, with a leaning towards formative rather than summarative assessment (p. 263).

Conclusion

Brown (2000) notes that constructivism almost suggests that direct teaching is a dirty word (p. 5). CRS has the potential to redefine what ‘direct-teaching’ looks like. Taking a constructivist view, encouraging students in cooperative learning and developing independent reasoning are life-long learning skills central to our global community in the 21^st century.

With the employment of a more interactive teaching model the students are enabled to direct their own learning through the responses they give and the ensuing questioning and discussion. Everyone is focused on the learning; checking their understanding, applying knowledge, analysing their findings, evaluating character traits within a story or creating their own.

CRS offers many possibilities for the primary and secondary classroom. “The technology provides anonymity, speed of response collection, and the ability to produce a shared visualisation that enhances mutual pattern recognition.” (Roschelle, 2003, p.263). Provided the educator is willing to put in the time and effort many learning opportunities can be enhanced and made more interesting to students, actively engaging them in their own learning.

References:

Absolum, M. (2006). Clarity in the Classroom . Hodder & Stoughton .

Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . New York: Longman.

Belfer, K. (2001). De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats Technique: A Metaphorical Model of Communication in Computer Mediated Classrooms. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2001 (pp. 113-116). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Beyond Bloom’s Taxonomy: Rethinking knowledge for the knowledge age. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, D. Hopkins. (Eds.), International handbook of educational change, part two (pp. 675-92). Dordrecht: Kluwar Academic Publishers.

Brown, M.E. (2000). Learning in the 21^st Century: Being Critical, Going Deeper and Thinking Smarter! Computers in NZ Schools 12 (3), 3-7.

Brown, M. (2003) Beyond the digital horizon. Computers in New Zealand Schools , 11 (3), 34-40.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick. (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA.

De Corte, E (1990) Learning with new information technologies in schools: Perspectives from the psychology of learning and instruction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 6 (69-87).

De Vaney, A. (1998). Will educators ever unmask that determiner, technology? Educational Policy, 12 (5), 568-85.

Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., Mestre, J.P., & Wenk, L. (1996) Classtalk : A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education , 7 (3-47). Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http://www.bedu.com/Publications/UMASS.pdf

Gardner, H. (1995). Multiple Intelligences as a catalyst. English Journal, 84 (8). Retrieved August 7, 2007, from Proquest database.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999) Using Situated Learning and Multimedia to Investigate Higher-Order Thinking. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8 (4), 401-422.

MacBeath, J. (1997,June 20). Unlock the secrets of the thinking brain. Times Educational Supplement , p. 22.

McGrath, H., & Noble, T. (2005). Eight ways at once: multiple intelligences and revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Australia: Pearson Longman.

Ministry of Education. (2006) The New Zealand curriculum draft for consultation . New Zealand: Learning Media

Muffoletto, T. (2001). Education and technology: Critical and reflective practices . USA: Hampton Press Inc.

Nagal, D. (2007). Interwrite debuts Workspace, Cricket. The Journal May, 2007. retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://thejournal.com/articles/20669 .

Roschelle, J.(2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19 , 260-272.

Rowan-Paul, J. (2004). ICT and higher order thinking skills: What do teachers think? Computers in New Zealand Schools, 16 (2), 30-34.

Wegerif, R. (2002). Literature review in thinking skills, technology and learning . (report 2, Nestafuturelab series). Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http://www.nestafuturelab.org/research/lit_reviews.htm

Young, A.C. (1997) Higher order learning and thinking; what is it and how is it taught? Educational Technology , 37 (4), 38-41.

Conferences are great for catching up with old friends and colleagues. I have had many conversations today with many people but there is one that stuck for me. Someone was saying about the focus the staff have this year for professional development:

“For this year is on Inquiry Learning

The focus this year for Literacy is Efeective Literacy Practise.

The focus this year for Maths is consolidating the NUMP programme.

Also we are working on SMS Etap across the school

And those of you with IWB’s have a series of day in the holidays to assist you in embedding this technology into your classroom practise.”

So what is the focus for this year?

Someone should mention to senior management that focus is the singular even though it ends with an ’s’.

How are staff supposed to fully focus on so many areas at once?

Is it just this school or do others have similiar long lists of focus (sic) ?