A summer visit to landmark restaurant, Durgin Park, in Boston, revealed this ditty on the menu, not attributed to the poet who wrote it:

JUST A BOY * * * * * * *

Got to understand the lad –
He’s not eager to be bad;
If the right he always knew,
He would be as old as you.
Were he now exceeding wise,
He’d be just about your size;
When he does things that annoy,
Don’t forget – he’s just a boy.

Could he know and understand,
He would need no guiding hand;
But he’s young and hasn’t learned
How life’s corners must be turned.
Doesn’t know from day to day
There is more to life than play.
More to face than selfish joy.
Don’t forget – he’s just a boy.

Being just a boy he’ll do
Much you will not want him to;
He’ll be careless of his ways,
Have his disobedient days.
Willful, wild and headstrong, too;
He’ll need guidance kind and true;
Things of value he’ll destroy,
But reflect – he’s just a boy.

Just a boy who needs a friend,
Patient, kindly, to the end;
Needs a father who will show
Him the things he wants to know,
Take him with you when you walk,
Listen when he wants to talk,
His companionship enjoy,
Don’t forget – he’s just a boy.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

I am not a professional stock market analyst, nor have I ever been a successful investor. The opinions you are about to read are based on my personal observations and experiences, but there is nothing in my professional or personal background to indicate that you should take my economic views seriously.

Furthermore, I hope that my economic forecast is completely off target. If I am right, we are in for even tougher roads ahead as we struggle to reform educational environments for children. If I am wrong, it will simply mean that any precautions we take to guard against economic dislocations will leave us in a better position to take advantage of a good economy.

Eighteen months ago I began suggesting economic similarities between the 1920s and 1990s. I warned of a possible market crash and subsequent depression similar to 1929 and the 30s. I suggested the Nasdaq (then above 5,000) could retreat as low as 500 – 1,000, and the Dow could revisit South of 2,000 sooner than it would approach 20,000.

I continue to see similarities between the twenties and nineties, and fear the possibility of an even bigger market tumble that could presage a much steeper economic slide. Even if the market, and economy, rally over the next year or two, I feel a serious recession (or depression) are inevitable, sometime in the next decade.

What could this mean for the field of education? We’ll need to focus on our priorities, lobby for what we need against a backdrop of increased competition for decreasing resources.

On the other hand, there will be positives resulting from a poor economy. Values are much harder to instil in children (and adults) when the economy is good. Students take education, at all levels, much more seriously when economic times are bad. Customer service improves as people appreciate having a job and management is able to demand more courteous service from employees.

When the economy is good (as in the twenties and late nineties) it is possible for some people to earn money with less effort, and to delude themselves into thinking it is their ability, rather than the good times, that is bringing them good fortune (for reference, see the technology industry).

Two anecdotes will illustrate this last point:

1. An article in Newsweek recently cited the difficulty people are having finding another job after being laid off in the tech industry. According to the article, techies, when first laid off, assumed they could get another job within a few days. Now they realize they have to wear a tie to the interview.

2. Many years ago, a writer in Barron’s financial newspaper labelled a recession as a time when “Money is restored to its rightful owners.”

Regardless of the economic outlook, it is time to focus on what is important in the field of education. This includes sensitivity to the needs of students; a school environment that is clean, safe, and attractive; and modelling, at all levels (Board of Education, administration, teaching, parents, community), those behaviors that we want to see in our children.

I intend to use the next few newsletters to focus on what I feel is really important in education:

1. Familiarizing students with multiple intelligences – their own and those of others, and showing them how to utilize this awareness to their educational advantage.

2. The real significance of standards and how to focus on them.

3. A plan for utilizing AIS plans as they were intended.

4. Professional development in the Classroom

5. Teaching strategies for flying the standards based plane.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Here is a repeat of an article I ran almost a year ago. It discusses strategies for helping students understand their own multiple intelligence strengths. Because Carol Amberg uses these strategies at the start of the year, I thought this was appropriate to share, as Labor Day approaches.

Carol sent me the following e-mail, almost one year ago:

“Who says learner-centered strategies don't work in senior high schools?” After only 3 days of school, my seniors have written in journals, have an awareness of the 8 intelligences, have worked with partners, read each other's work, used graphic organizers, and written two pieces which will be candidates for their eventual portfolios.”

I immediately sent Carol an e-mail, asking how she addresses multiple intelligences in her classroom. Here was her reply:

“On the first day of class, I introduce communication theory and ask the students to brainstorm diverse ways we send messages (body language, sign language, writing, talking, dance, scent, songs, etc.). I have a "wheel graphic" of the multiple intelligences, labelled in ‘shorthand’: Word Smart, Math Smart, Body Smart, People Smart, Self Smart, Music Smart, Picture Smart, Nature Smart posted on the bulletin board. I introduce multiple intelligences using that and we talk about how people with each kind of "smarts" send and receive messages.

“Then I ask the students to come up with jobs in which each intelligence would be an asset (i.e. architects = spatial intelligence, athletes = bodily-kinesthetic, etc.) We carry that over into our discussions of characters we meet in poems we analyze together, each of the first three days, and authors we discuss (i.e.Thoreau must have had nature intelligence to live at and write about Walden Pond.)

“This is carried over into our first novel, “Siddhartha” where we conclude that someone who practices meditation develops intra personal intelligence, someone who becomes an ascetic scorns bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, etc. In other words, I try to weave it into everything we do to reinforce the learning. The same thing goes for how we receive messages through our senses, so poets and writers appeal to them through imagery.

“I find that starting with theory and then recognizing concrete examples as we go helps them apply the theory as well as remember the examples. The process culminates in the students designing projects near the end of the semester where they choose one self-identified preferred/strong intelligence and one weaker one and use both in demonstrating their understanding of a communication concept.”

Thank you, Carol, for the permission to share your innovative work with multiple intelligences.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

When you teach a lesson or conduct a workshop can you identify the few skills, facts, and/or concept(s) that you expect, as a minimum, everyone will learn? (I’m not speaking of all the skills, facts, and or concepts which a student (or workshop participant) may address while being engaged in your lesson. I mean just one, two, three, or a very few, skills, facts, and or concept(s) that you expect every person to grasp.

Think about it.

If, in fact, you do identify a limited number of skills, facts, and/or concept(s) to focus your students on, do you have a method of assessing how well your students succeed with each one? Would you agree that most of the learning outcomes we seek in a lesson or unit are in one of three categories:

1. skills we want others to master and be able to apply

2. content knowledge we hope others will memorize and be able to recall

3. concepts we feel people should be able to understand and transfer to a variety of situations

Now, set this thought aside for a moment. We will revisit it shortly. My experiences with many dedicated, competent teachers lead me to an inescapable conclusion about what is needed if standards are to become relevant to classroom practice. As teachers, we need to be able to identify, more specifically than we usually do, that which we expect our students to learn from a lesson, or unit, and what we will accept as evidence that it has been learned and/or understood.

Most GOOD teachers know, in the gut, that students are learning valuable information and understandings from a particular lesson. Because of this, most GOOD teachers do not feel the need to articulate, to themselves or anyone else, the specific (emphasis on “specific” ) learning objectives of a particular lesson or unit. They settle for more general statements of expectations such as “good writing skills,” or “the ability to understand the scientific method,” or “being able to multiply fractions.”

Ask a teacher who has taught a lengthy unit, what students have learned, and you will initially be greeted with a couple of minutes of silence. (I’ve asked this question of outstanding teachers many times – “What did students learn in this unit?”) Then will flow a lengthy list of learning outcomes addressed by students during the course of the unit. For instance, following a science project, a teacher may correctly identify two formulas, the scientific method, reading, writing for expression, mathematical equations, and five different content knowledge items (facts which can be memorized) that students probably addressed in the process of completing the science project.

This is what I refer to as “the laundry list”. I do not mean this disparagingly. By “laundry list,” I mean those standards (learning outcomes) that students will address (with varying degrees of success depending on the students’ abilities and/or interests) as a by-product of engaging in the unit. But this is different from the select few learning outcomes that a teacher would say are the outcomes he/she expects from every student, at a minimum, and for which the teacher assesses student learning.

(Another digression: It is not assessing student learning on whether a student knows two formulas, the scientific method, mathematical equations, etc. to simply ask a few questions about each and then say that because the student received a 92, the student has learned the focus of the lesson. Many students can get a 92 on a typical test that includes a question about the scientific method without really understanding the scientific method. If “scientific method” is one of the concepts being focused on in the lesson, there must be an assessment that really lets the teacher know if the student understands this concept.)

In Delaware, I noticed four years ago, they used the term “secondary standards” to apply to those learning outcomes that would be addressed by students as a by-product of a good lesson or unit. The term “primary standards” was used to identify those learning outcomes that a teacher would expect every student to master.

What’s the difference?

For every “primary standard,” that is the focus of a lesson, or unit, there should be an assessment. “Secondary standards” (what I call the “laundry list”) are important because they are valuable by-products of a good lesson, or unit, but they are not assessed. Some students address certain “secondary standards” with a strong degree of success, while other students may barely address the same “secondary standards,” but may address others.

When I share what I am about to suggest is an “aligned” unit, with experienced, competent teachers, they almost always validate this concept because they can see how an aligned unit, focusing on a select few “primary standards” can help them move themselves, and their students, to a higher level.

An aligned unit is one where:

1. the teacher has identified a few skills, content knowledge (facts for memorization), and or concepts that are the focus of the unit. There do not have to be items in each of these three categories, but there can be. For example, a unit can focus solely on the skill of organizing a portfolio and the concept of how the victor treats the vanquished. Or, a unit can focus on helping students learn the skill of reading for comprehension, and the content knowledge of being able to recite the first six letters of the alphabet. There may be no concept that is the learning outcome of a particular unit. Or, there may be no content knowledge, or no skills. The point is that what the teacher identifies as “primary standards” (or “indicators” of primary standards) is what is assessed. What is not identified as a “primary standard” may still be learned by a student, but it is not assessed. It is the by-product of a good lesson.

2. The teacher assesses student performance with the “primary standards” during the culminating event of the unit. This means the teacher must create a culminating event that offers the student the opportunity to address the primary standards of the unit.

3. An opening “exploratory” activity enables the teacher to access students’ prior knowledge and interests, to introduce the skills, knowledge, and/or concept(s) that will be the focus of the unit, to motivate students to take an interest in the unit, and to activate students’ current perceptions of the learning outcomes so the teacher can help the student become aware of, and confront, information that may conflict with the students’ current perceptions.

4. Every activity in a unit, except for the exploratory (opening), and the culminating event (closing) should hone one or more of the skills, content knowledge pieces, or concept(s) that are the focus of the unit.

What I have just written is logical which is why most teachers, if they understand it, usually agree. However, you will find very few units that meet the criteria expressed in 1-4, above. These are the criteria for an aligned unit.

Isn’t this, also, the formula used by a football coach or a musical performance director? Think about it:

1. The “primary standards” are the levels of quality the coach or director expects will be necessary for a successful performance the day of the game or musical.

2. The culminating event (the game or musical performance with an audience) provides an opportunity for participants to be assessed with regard to their ability to master the level of quality demanded by their coach or director.

3. Each football practice, or musical rehearsal, is analogous to one of the activities in a unit leading up to the culminating event – it focuses on one or more of the skills, content knowledge, or concept(s) that the coach or director wants the participants to master. Also, the focus is not in equal measure on each primary standard. If the football team will face a top notch passing team, the coach may focus on pass defense at most of the practices, and may address, only briefly, offensive blocking if he/she views that as a strength. Similarly, the musical director may rehearse a difficult scene many times and may gloss over a scene that the actors perform well.

In short, I am suggesting that a good unit has these ingredients:

(1)The teacher can identify just a few learning outcomes (skills, concept(s), and or items for memorization). 2)The teacher has an assessment for each of these. (3) Student proficiency with the primary standards is demonstrated during a culminating event.

Following an exploratory activity which reveals students’ prior knowledge and interests, motivates students to engage in the unit, elicits current perceptions, and begins to address the primary standards, every activity creates opportunities for students to learn (or refine) their understanding of the primary standards in preparation for the culminating event.

The culminating event assessment, in teacher lingo, is the “summative” assessment. The exploratory activity is not assessed, formally, except as the teacher is noting students’ prior knowledge and interests for future reference. Activities leading up to the culminating event are given “formative” assessments (often through teacher observation) so the teacher can coach the student as the student strives to master the learning outcomes needed to be successful during the culminating event.

I have observed veteran, extremely competent, teachers wrestle with these ideas for up to a year in order to master them. But their reactions, once they do grasp these concepts, indicate they see the value.

The significance is that only when we distinguish between “primary” and secondary” standards, and only when we fully align our units (as defined above) will we be able to assure the public that “standards” are being used to focus students on “the basics.”

Only when teachers identify, and assess, indicators of student mastery with primary standards, will teachers be confident that they can use project based learning as a means toward teaching what students need to learn for standardized assessments.

My experiences with GOOD teachers indicates that these concepts are not easily mastered. However, when mastered, these concepts are worthwhile and answer the question “Why the Standards?”

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Since the Civil War, have we ever experienced violence of this magnitude on our own soil?

Each of us will react on a personal level to this tragedy. There is no measuring the devastating personal impact on anyone who has lost loved ones, and the substantial impact on all of us as our notions of personal security are shaken.

Yet, as educators, we must react on two levels. Not only do we react personally, as individuals, but also we must remember we are role models. The eyes of our students are focused on us as they rarely are, and they will magnify what they see in our reactions to this crisis.

In venting our rage, are we careful not to stereotype everyone who is in the same racial, ethnic, or religious category with those we think are the culprits? Do we speak of good people and people who do bad, rather than condemn entire classes of people?

Do we display sensitivity to those who have suffered more than we, or do we focus on the inconveniences to our own daily schedules?

Do we allow and encourage our students to vent, to discuss, to reflect, and do we guide their thought processes while respecting their right to their own thoughts?

Do we try to channel emotions toward thoughts of justice and prevention rather than hate?

Do we focus on what we can do, as individuals, and as a nation?

The attack, which occurred yesterday, defies description. Even “horrific” understates the nature of the event. Whether this tragedy diminishes the future of our students, of our children, or becomes a building block for what they become depends in large measure on the reactions of those of us to whom they look up.

A major event, whether positive or horrific, greatly magnifies people’s reactions because attention is focused as at no other time. The attention of the children of this nation (including ‘adult” students) is focused on each of us and how we react.

While we cannot avoid having our personal reactions to this tragedy, we must conduct ourselves with the knowledge we are in a fishbowl. We have an opportunity to communicate with our children and students as never before.

Should we teach values in the school? It doesn’t matter what side of this issue we are on. As we react to this tragedy, we will be modeling our values. This is a responsibility we accepted when we became parents, when we became educators.

We cannot undo the events of the past 24 hours. We can model the kinds of behavior, the kinds of values, we hope to instill in future generations.

Many people are donating blood because this is one way we can be helpful at a time when we are frustrated by how little we can do to ameliorate the crisis. Modeling the behaviors and values we wish to pass on to future generations, like donating blood, is another way for each of us to do our part.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Newsletter Edition #28

WOW!!!

I’ve just checked out our brand new Pete Seeger web site. See what you think. Can you see how it can be used as an educational vehicle for student learning?

Six high school students, supported by two teachers, spent a week at our summer conference and the Seeger site is what emerged. They worked from three hours of a taped interview conducted with Pete Seeger two years ago by two Gouverneur High School students Jacob and Joseph Bockus.

There is a section on each decade between the 30s and 60s as well as a section on “Clearwater,” another on his “personal life,” and a closing section on the songs he wrote including “If I Had A Hammer,” and “Where Have All the Flowers Gone.” In the section on his personal life, he states plainly that his biggest mistake was “leaving my wife, Toshi, to raise our three kids, while I traveled around.”

In the section on the 50s, check out Seeger’s actual testimony before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. It is riveting. He chose to speak, favoring his 1st amendment rights, rather than relying on the 5th amendment to protect him against self incrimination. This section is particularly timely in light of the World Trade Center tragedy because, as you reflect on his testimony, you can see the line that must be drawn between the country’s need for information to protect its citizens and the rights of individuals to protect their privacy.

Over the coming months this line will be approached and tested as we react to last week’s tragedy. Seeger speaks eloquently of where he feels the line must be drawn. Not everyone will agree. Yet, he cannot easily be dismissed as an unrealistic idealist. In the section on the 40s, you may find fascinating a letter of support for the war effort which he wrote to President Roosevelt, along with a song he penned that urges the United States on.

“Now Mr. President, we haven’t always agreed in the past, I know,
But that ain’t at all important, now,
What is important is what we got to do,
We got to lick Mr. Hitler, and until we do,
Other things can wait,
In other words, first we got a skunk to skin.
War means overtime and higher prices,
But we’re all willing to make sacrifices,
Hell, I’d even stop fighting with my mother-in-law,
‘Cause we need her too, to win the war...”

Whether its politics, war and peace, music, environmental protection, protest marches, or McCarthyism, there is ample material in this web site to fashion a lesson for students; the authenticity of Seeger and his music can motivate student interest.

I won’t credit the creators of this site because their names and pictures are in the final section. You can see for yourself who they are and their quality work.

The Seeger site can be accessed as part of the Institute for Learner Centered Education web site (www.learnercentereded.org) To access just click on “What's New” and follow the link, or, use this direct link:at:

http://www.learnercentereded.org/Seeger/seeger.html

Oh, and did you know that Pete Seeger helped write the peace protest anthem “We Shall Overcome?”

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Is there a teacher who has not had the frequent experience of posing a question and being greeted by deafening silence from a class full of students? Or, is there a teacher who hasn’t asked, “Does anyone have any questions?” and been greeted with indifferent stares as everyone waits for the teacher to allow the obligatory three seconds before moving on.

I am going to suggest several strategies for moving beyond the deafening silence in order to generate dialogue from students in a classroom or from teachers during staff development. Why is this important?

Pat Flynn has stated:

“The standards are not about know and be able to do but are all about understand and be able to accomplish and create. Traditional pedagogy can get students to know and be able to do, but it can't engage their minds to enable them to come to understandings that allow them to accomplish involved tasks and create their own performance products.”

Generating meaningful student dialogue is essential if we want students to “understand” what we are teaching, and if we want to assess what they are understanding.

When students conducted an activity during my St. Lawrence University class last week, I could empathize when one of them tried to elicit student interaction and then moved on with a frustrated observation about not getting as much reaction as she had hoped. Actually, I was surprised, and delighted, that she had squeezed out comments from three students which is a higher success rate than many teachers enjoy.

Nothing is more difficult than stimulating meaningful dialogue from more than the usual handful of students. Recently I observed my colleague Larry Byrd as he made a guest appearance in my class to discuss issues of diversity. The discussion was planned and moderated by three students. The dialogue was lively, but it didn’t just happen. With the luxury of being an observer, I noted that between them, Larry and the three moderators tried a variety of strategies to engage as many students as possible in the dialogue. In fact, some of the strategies were initiated by me:

1. I assigned three students to introduce Larry to the class which meant they had to call him, in advance, and learn something about him. This, I did, to give the students ownership of his interview and knowledge of him in the hopes this would make them more likely to engage in the conversation.

2. I also asked these students to moderate Larry’s visit – this gave them ownership and motivation for learning about him and listening to his responses.

3. A week in advance of Larry’s visit, I asked the moderating group to solicit questions for Larry from each group of three students in the class – ownership for the class members and the possibility they would be more responsive to a request from their peers.

4. The three students conducting the interview asked the entire class to create a semi circle with their chairs. This was their idea and it worked as a strategy to create an environment more likely to generate dialogue.

5. After the students introduced Larry to the class, Larry employed his own strategies designed to encourage meaningful dialogue. He pointed to two students and asked them to bring their chairs into the center of the room and place them opposite each other. Then he asked two other students to place empty chairs next to the two that were in the center. (It would have been easier for Larry to have placed the four chairs in the center himself, but involving students in the rearranging was his strategy to create ownership.) Then Larry distributed a piece of paper with the same question on it to every student. He asked the two students in the chairs in the center to begin a dialogue about the question on the paper and he said to the rest of the class “Anytime you want to add a comment, or disagree with something you hear, stand up, walk to one of the two empty chairs, make your observation, and then return to your chair in the outer part of the semi circle.”

6. Throughout the period, Larry posed questions to the students that required higher level thinking (questions requiring analysis or perceptions, not questions with right and wrong answers). Larry made it clear he would not accept silence for a response. He had his quips lined up: “You folks are so good at hiding your emotions, I’ll bet you make good poker players.” Or, “Who’s going to break the silence and rescue me?” The point is, he made it clear that silence was not an option.

7. If volunteers didn’t come forth to answer his question, he would ask an individual to respond. He would not embarrass anyone, and he would do everything possible to relieve their anxiety and to help them understand his question, but he made it clear he was on a mission to get a response and he would not accept silence as an option. When one student was slow to respond, Larry, in a validating way, said, “Please think about it and I’ll come back to you.” Over the course of the next ten minutes, Larry returned to her three times, but without applying pressure and making it clear he understood the difficulty of the task he had assigned her and would be patient as she thought of a response.

Hopefully, some of these strategies may be helpful to you. I would welcome hearing from you if you are willing to share a strategy you use to generate meaningful student dialogue so that I can share it with others. In fact, if you share a strategy and don’t want your name attached to it, please indicate this desire – otherwise I’ll credit you as I recycle your good idea to others.

Here’s one more strategy: I’ve had the privilege, many times, of observing Larry employ this strategy, but it was a student who picked up on it. As a student group asked every class member to take ten seconds to share one lesson they had learned from Larry’s visit (and the idea of having every student share one lesson learned is another strategy for generating meaningful dialogue), one student recalled, “I thought it was really helpful to all of us when Larry would say to someone “Let me hear you repeat what you think you heard me just say.”

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

A retired teacher (and an outstanding one), currently a consultant, Jan Peters commented that “When budgets get tight, staff development is one of the first things to go. Those of us at the meeting with Jan nodded in concurrence. Jim Waterson, who coordinates the administrator preparation program for St. Lawrence University cites research which indicates it takes six years for an education reform initiative to be implemented to the point where a valid assessment can be conducted of its impact on student achievement. This is due to the time necessary, for a reform initiative to be implemented, teachers, parents, and others to be trained, base line data to be collected, and all involved (including students) to have sufficient opportunity to implement the initiative.

How often do we have the luxury of six years to implement a reform initiative and stick with it? Isn’t it more often the case that what we start one year, we abandon a year or two later?

I am suggesting that staff development, to be effective and to support an education reform initiative, has to be on-going and part of a long range plan (a good PDP).

We are currently in danger of losing one of the most valuable providers of staff development, the teacher centers. Teacher center directors are applying for other jobs because of the uncertainty of their positions. Staff development offered through teacher centers is being halted.

Do we recognize this for the crisis in education it represents? Where is one politician with the guts to tell his/her colleagues that we are eroding the fabric of our educational structure by not funding one of the cornerstones of the movement toward higher standards?

Many legislators will agree with us (in word) on the value of the teacher centers, but they hide behind the cloak of “The leadership makes this decision,” or “It’s in the hands of a committee.” It is not enough for legislators to say they recognize the importance of teacher centers. They must take individual responsibility for doing everything possible to secure teacher center funding and provide long term assurances of its continuation. We throw out the baby with the bathwater if we do not find a way to maintain our teacher centers. People in the field of education know this – yet, the politicians who control the purse strings will hold everyone else accountable if they are not satisfied with the progress of our public schools. Will they take responsibility for the consequences if a major resource for educators, teacher centers, is abandoned due to lack of funding?

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

One participant compared our 2001 summer conference to a pregnancy. Here are the exact words:

“The conference was very constructive. It was like the birth of a child:

1. You are having a baby.

2. You go through labor

3. You have the baby. YES!”

The 2001 summer conference, as judged by participants’ confidential assessment forms, was a huge success. Of 150 people who completed the assessment, forms after committing a week of their summer, 147 said it was worth the time they invested, one indicated it was not worth the time, and two were undecided.

These comments, along with detailed responses from 150 people, are on our web site at www.learnercentereded.org Check it out. While comments ranged from “Great” to “I walk away from this conference with the feeling of accomplishment and appreciation,” I, personally, was most gratified by responses to the question “What changes will you make in your own day-to-day work, as a result of what occurred at the conference?” Here are some of the responses:

“We clarified and defined standards that each of us will be teaching; this directly affects our teaching (day-to-day).” I will maintain contacts and a willingness to ask for support when faced with hard tasks.”

"More patience and holding back.”

“More student involvement, more learner centered class.”

“I plan to use more group projects.”

“Different approach, much more organized.”

“Use more graphic organizers for myself.”

"We will make better utilization of parent volunteers.”

“Journal writing for closure in classes.”

“I will pre-plan with team teacher to incorporate multi-sensory activities by utilizing a rubric.”

“I will incorporate the standards more readily in my lessons, use more constructivist strategies in my classroom.”

“I will implement the ‘critical friends” process in my school.”

“I will focus more on cooperative learning and group activities when I form lesson plans.”

Reading these comments, and many more on the web site under “2001 Conference Feedback,” makes the effort at holding the conference worthwhile. We had an impact! Children will be the beneficiaries of our combined efforts.

If you’ve never participated in our interactive conference, how about signing up NOW for 2002? Seventeen teams have committed. We will limit participation to 40 teams and would like to close registration by January. If you submit a tentative reservation NOW, you do not need to send a deposit and you will have a place reserved until February 1, at which time you can cancel or commit.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

This is the first of three articles on teaching strategies. The next two will focus on “Conceptual Redundancy” (ie. strategies for teaching concepts) and “Creating Teachable Moments.”

I am indebted to Professor Helen Foss of Delaware for the term “Conceptual Redundancy,” and to Lisbon teachers Becky Buckingham and Beth Konkoski (now teaching in Maryland) for the term “Working the Room.” I will focus on “Working the Room” in issue 34, while addressing group work in the context of “Creating Teachable Moments.”

CURRICULUM IMBEDDED ASSESSMENT

When Pat Flynn used the term “Curriculum Imbedded Assessment,” ten years ago, I trembled to think there was another esoteric term for me to master, but I revelled in the thought that maybe I could impress people if I could understand it. Two days ago I took Marli for her driver’s test. I waited on a park bench as Marli, and the State examiner, drove around the corner. When they returned, eight minutes later, the examiner emerged from the passenger side, smiled, and told me she had passed. On the ride home, Marli indicated the examiner had told her she failed to signal for a turn, but that it wouldn’t prevent her from getting her license. On the slip of paper she was given to use as a license until the permanent one could be mailed, it indicated two mistakes she had made.

As I read the instructor’s explanation of the mistakes, I said to myself “Aha, that’s curriculum imbedded instruction.” I recalled Pat’s explanation of the difference between traditional instruction and authentic, performance based instruction: “With traditional methods of instruction, we teach, we stop teaching and learning, and give a test, and then we resume teaching. With authentic, performance assessment, the learning continues as we are assessed. Plays, ballgames or science projects are examples. Don’t we learn as much, if not more, from what occurs the day of the ballgame, performance or science project exhibition, as while we are preparing? When students engage in a classroom performance – an interview, a role play, or a project design – if the teacher is assessing their work as they are performing, the learning continues as the assessment is taking place.

Marli learned to drive by studying the handbook for the short answer quiz, and by practice driving with her parents as she prepared for the authentic task of the driver’s test. Her learning continued as she drove for eight minutes with the examiner. The examiner recognized that his job was not simply to determine whether she would receive her license, but also to further her learning during the process of assessing her. That’s why, instead of simply indicating whether she passed or failed, he pointed out mistakes that were not sufficient to deny her a license, but could help her become a better driver.

IMPORTANT POINT: assessment does not necessarily have to be high stakes (ie. for a grade, to determine promotion, or to determine graduation). Assessment can be for the purpose of the teacher evaluating what learning has occurred so that the teacher can determine how to proceed. Also, assessment can be by teacher observation, it doesn’t always mean a written test. Teachers are professionals. They have been trained and certified to be able to use their professional judgment. Would we want to take professional judgment away from doctors as one of their tools for diagnosing and prescribing remedies for their clients? We need to recognize the value of teacher observation as a legitimate tool for assessment for the purpose of instructional improvement.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

CONCEPTUAL REDUNDANCY

I am indebted to Delaware professor Helen Foss for the term “Conceptual Redundancy” which I first encountered viewing a tape she produced under a grant to provide classroom examples of teaching to a concept. When we compartmentalize what we teach, we fly in the face of research that indicates we learn concepts through repetition and through application in a variety of situations. In fact, the litmus test of whether someone grasps a concept is whether he/she can apply it in a totally different set of circumstances. If I learn the concept of how the victor treats the vanquished while studying the Civil War, the test of my grasp of the concept is whether I can apply that knowledge to World War 1, the Persian Gulf War, or an altercation between two students.

Too often, we compartmentalize what we teach. We address a concept for a few days, or weeks, move on to study something else, and then we don’t revisit the concept until it’s time for end of the year review. Instead, if we really want students to grasp a concept, we need to revisit that concept daily or, at least, weekly over a period of time. Think of some important concepts:

1. What is a depression?

2. How does the victor treat the vanquished following a conflict?

3. How do liquids turn to solids or solids to liquids?

4. What makes writing creative?

5. Why do we need to learn math?

If we really want students to grasp any of the above, we need to begin by focusing on the concept during a unit. This does not mean addressing the concept during one activity of a seven activity unit – it means revisiting the concept during every activity of the unit, even if only to ask for a brief response from several students to the question “How does what we just studied relate to the concept we have been addressing in this unit?”

Once we have taught a unit and are convinced our students have an understanding of the concept we want them to learn, we need to find ways to revisit that concept throughout the year as we engage students in other lessons and unit studies.

To achieve conceptual redundancy, I try to weave my learning objectives for my St. Lawrence university students, many of whom hope to become teachers, through as many classes as possible. Some of the concepts I want them to understand include rubrics, reflective activities, group work, and lesson design. How do I do weave the concept of “rubric assessment” into lessons where the focus is one of the other concepts?

During the first class I engage students in a group activity to familiarize them with rubrics (a concept less than ten percent of them have encountered). As I shift the focus toward “reflection,” I ask them to design their own rubric for journal entries, and then we negotiate it. Each of their bi-weekly journal entries is written to address the criteria in this rubric. Also, I distribute a rubric I use for my own journal entries as a method of continuing the immersion in this concept. When students design lessons and make presentations in front of the entire class, they are required to begin by sharing a rubric for how they would like their presentation to be evaluated. When I engage the class in peer assessment, I distribute a rubric to guide them.

Another concept that is important for my students to grasp is the concept of “reflection.” Therefore, even when we are not focused on journal writing, I ask for reflective pieces on their field experiences, on the performance of a guest in class, or on a presentation by another group of students. During any particular class, the focus may be on one concept, but the other key concepts are integrated into the lesson whenever possible – much like Carol Amberg (newsletter 24) focuses on multiple intelligences in her first class, but revisits the concept many times during the year.

It is very difficult for us to understand and to retain what we are taught, when the learning objective is the focus of one or two concentrated lessons and then is addressed no more until the final exam. Think about how we learn to use the computer – do we attend a few workshops, not use a computer for several months, and then expect to be able to apply what we have learned?

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2001, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.