THE INSTITUTE for Learning Centered Education NEWSLETTER
TOPIC: Stuart Little, Discipline, and The Mouse that Roared
What
do Stuart Little, Discipline, and the Mouse that Roared have in
common?
When I saw the Gouverneur student display at the St. Lawrence
Centre Mall my reaction was the one we all have at times when we feel that “They
expressed just what I’ve always felt.”
Often, when I’ve been asked to
help a school improve its discipline policy, I’ve suggested that before changing
the discipline policy, the teaching staff should adapt more interactive
(authentic task) strategies which would reduce the discipline problem. Then they
should design a policy to deal with the reduced number of situations that would
be cause for discipline.
I am indebted to high school teacher Carol
Amberg of Gouverneur for sharing what I saw inscribed above her students’
exhibit at the Mall. It read as follows:
"Do you think you can maintain
discipline?" asked the Superintendent of Stuart
Little.
"Of course I
can," replied Stuart. "I'll make the work interesting and
the
discipline will take care of itself. Don't worry about
me."
I
don’t think I’m a hopeless idealist. I have no delusion that all discipline
problems can be cured through inter-active learning. But I do think they can be
reduced. As recently as yesterday, a young teacher who has worked in a classroom
with Carol Amberg’s colleague, Jan Peters, commented on how many fewer
discipline problems she observed in Jan’s performance based classroom than in
most “predominantly lecture” classrooms.
What’s the reference to the
Mouse that Roared? Well, actually there’s no relevance. That was a red herring.
But it seemed to go well with the rest of the heading.
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.
THE INSTITUTE for Learning Centered Education NEWSLETTER
TOPIC: Uncle!!! I surrender.
I
began my career as a reporter and then weekly newspaper editor (before most of
you were born - or at least will admit to being born), and I can¹t recall ever
missing a deadline (often at the expense of any sleep at night - I was younger
then).
However, I am going to postpone the next two issues of this
newsletter because the success of our conference has (happily) created a
workload that will require my full attention through next weekend.
I do
want to share some information about the conference which you may find of
interest. First, I should indicate that the workload is falling mostly on my
wife Susan (resource room teacher during the school year) who is supervising the
registration/organization process. Susan is responding to the deluge of e-mails
and phone calls, changed reservations, etc. while I try to keep her in food and
high spirits, and keep some semblance of order in the rest of the house as the 9
and 14 year old (Raina and Marli) are an enormous help. In other words, I¹m
facilitating the process in my own household, relying on quality people to get
the job done.
I will be seeing and working with many of you during the
next seven days. Even if you are not registered, if you are on this mailing
list, you are welcome to stop by and experience our happening - for a few
minutes or as long as you like. Just let me know when to expect you so we can
roll out the red carpet.
Our team from India is now safely ensconced in
New Jersey and we look forward to their arrival Saturday afternoon, in time to
join us for Saturday evening¹s welcoming dinner. Here is some additional
information:
Two-hundred and five participants are registered on 44 teams
of three to eleven people from various school districts in the North Country,
Syracuse, and throughout New York State as well as two teams from
India.
Seventy-five facilitators and resource people from across New
York, the United States, Canada, and India will provide expertise in areas
ranging from standards and authentic assessment to curriculum integration,
school-to-work, mentoring, cooperative learning, and parent/community
involvement.
Conference participants, facilitators, and resource people
will include nine parents, eight superintendents and assistant superintendents,
six additional central administrators, nine building principals, 149 teachers,
six members of the State Education Department, university professors, staff
developers, consultants, community members, and 26 students.
Eleven
students, grades 5 - 12, will publish a daily conference newsletter. Six
students will produce a daily telecast. Three students will demonstrate how they
can prepare for standardized assessments through the performance task of
researching the correlations between music of a decade and the culture of the
times. Six students will continue writing songs about the standards, a task they
began at the St. Lawrence Centre Mall Exhibit, May 19 and 20.
The State
Education Department will be represented by people who provide information and
learn what the people in the trenches need for top-down support of bottom-up
reform.
Rubrics will be designed, journals maintained, and portfolios
built by everyone.
A technology lab will be available to all participants
and facilitators in order to accomplish the total integration of technology in
service of sound pedagogy.
A Learning Centered Environment will be
modeled throughout the weeklong conference. This is a conference unlike
any that has ever been held.
We all WALK the
TALK.
We are a community of learners - each of us is a
teacher: each a learner!
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.
THE INSTITUTE for Learning Centered Education NEWSLETTER
TOPIC: Constructivist Conference Feedback
It
is Saturday morning (early) and less than 14 hours ago we concluded the 8th
(five day) summer constructivist conference. This issue of the newsletter is my
way of thanking those facilitators, resource people, and participants who helped
make this conference an occasion that will surely ripple through the field of
education and improve the environment for student learning.
I want to
share the results of my initial review of 166 evaluation forms submitted by
participants at our conference. Before I share these results, I have a few
reflections.
The longest car ride in my life was the six-hour drive from
Western New York to Potsdam, in 1993, immediately following a workshop I
conducted which was horrendous. I botched this one as much as anyone can botch a
workshop. Then I had to hop in my car, alone, and return home with nothing to do
but reflect on the comments and body language, which were my indications of
total failure. On the evaluation form I distributed, more than two/thirds of the
respondents indicated that the one-day workshop had not been worth the time they
had invested. Comments ranged from “What a complete waste of a teacher’s
valuable time,” to “How could the district spend money on this guy?”
The
evaluation form I used at that workshop was almost identical to the one we used,
yesterday, at the 2000 summer constructivist conference at St. Lawrence
University.
The point of this reflection is to indicate that if people
aren’t happy with training, this evaluation instrument affords them the
opportunity to express their feelings and they will do so.
In this
context - having every reason to believe we are getting legitimate feedback -
here are the results of participants’ written evaluations of the summer
conference:
1. 166 of 205 registered participants returned their
evaluation forms.
2. The first question on the evaluation form asks
participants to circle whether the week, as a whole, was “worthwhile” or “not
worthwhile.”
Of the 166 participants who responded, 161 circled
“worthwhile.” Five placed a check halfway between the words “worthwhile” and
“not worthwhile.” Not one person circled “not worthwhile.”
To me this is
incredible.
If anyone had been dissatisfied, they would have said so. In
fact, my experience is, that the more unhappy someone is after investing this
amount of time, the more likely they are to express their frustrations on the
evaluation form, which does not request a signature.
3. Here are just a
few responses to the question “What, if any, changes will you make in your own
day-to-day work, as a result of what occurred this week?”
“I will provide
students with orientation to address frustration or confusion.”
“I will
use journals as a self assessment tool.”
“More rubrics, parent
participation, more direction when teaching computers to children (all the
time). I will stress being kind to each other, not only AFTER something has
happened.”
“I will look more at what it is I want children to be able to
do which will
clarify how it is that I’ll help them get there.”
“I
will have a greater awareness of how the curriculum can be used to express the
standards in helping kids learn.”
“I will use collaboration in my class
and integrate it into the curriculum.”
“I will be more optimistic about
my ability to match up plans with New York State standards.”
“I will use
more technology.”
“I will step back, listen & watch more - I will
allow, not only my students, but my staff to learn through
discovery.”
“Hopefully, I will have more open communications with my
colleagues and I will try to gradually alter my content to match the standards -
I can’t do it in a day.”
I want to close this initial review of
participant evaluations with an observation from a classroom teacher. Here is
what was recorded in a journal maintained at the conference. The team’s
facilitator informed me of this entry and obtained permission from the author to
share it with you:
“I am swimming in a constructivist pool. I had no idea
that this dip would affect me so much. Being immersed this week has given me
tools and skills for Today, Tomorrow, & the Future! YAHOO!”
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.
THE INSTITUTE for Learning Centered Education NEWSLETTER
TOPIC: TRUSTING TEACHERS, CHALLENGING BELIEFS
Teachers are professionals. Professional development
doesn’t need to tell teachers how to teach. It needs to challenge them to be
true to their beliefs and understandings, and it needs to expose them to new
strategies, and then trust them to make use of the information.
As a
workshop presenter and university instructor, I constantly remind myself of my
belief in the learning cone which indicates we retain less than ten percent of a
lecture and more than 95 percent of what we teach others. Since this is my
belief, it suggests that when I want someone to learn something, I should devise
a strategy that will have them teaching to another that which I want them to
learn.
When I share the learning cone with teachers who attend the many
workshops I conduct, most agree that we learn most from what we teach others.
Therefore, my task as a staff developer is to challenge teachers to align their
practices with that belief. Here is a set of questions that we (facilitators)
pose for the teachers in our Targeted Grant as they design yearlong strategic
plans for creating learner-centered classrooms. Since some of these questions
refer to the “Descriptors of a Learner Centered Classroom,” I am publishing
those descriptors at the end of this article.
QUESTIONS for
PLANS to ADDRESS
(These are questions for a teacher to address in
designing a year-long plan for creating a learner centered
classroom.)
____Does the plan address all of the 8 descriptors of a
Learner Centered Classroom to at least some degree?
____Does the plan
address at least two of the descriptors of a learner centered classroom, in
depth?
____Does the plan address parent involvement, with
specificity?
____Does the plan address the needs of students with
disabilities, with specificity?
____Does the plan address how students
will take responsibility for their own learning?
____Is there at least
one activity involving students in your class using technology to teach students
in another school or district?
____Is there a plan for utilizing
journals for your own reflection and for your own professional growth
plan?
____Does the plan address how you will integrate technology in
support of instruction?
____Does the plan address, specifically, how
you will utilize resources you will request of the district?
____Does
the plan address, specifically, how you will utilize visitations to expose
yourself to different teaching strategies and/or programs?
____Does
the plan address what you will do for culminating events for your units? Will it
be local?
DESCRIPTORS of
a LEARNER CENTERED CLASS
1. The classroom will be appealing in that it is
comfortable, colorful, and stimulating. It will allow for flexible grouping and
demonstrate an immersion environment, rich in resources, with standards and
student exemplars, which meet those standards, in display.
2. Learner
behaviors will demonstrate a high level of on-task engagement including
effective use of resources and peer teaching. Learners’ knowledge of standards
for quality work is evident by the amount and caliber of student initiated
work.
3. The teacher(s) acts as both facilitator and member of the
community of learners. The teacher’s lesson/unit plans provide options and
accommodate the variety of learning styles and intelligences. The teacher
provides training and guided practice on classroom procedures such as
cooperative learning, peer review, rubric design, journal writing.
4.
Learning is integrated in that it is interdisciplinary and students can see
applications for their learning beyond the classroom. Career Development and
Occupational Studies learning standards are incorporated. A variety of learning
modalities are integrated such as reading, writing, speaking, listening,
investigating, problem solving, and hands-on kinesthetic learning.
5. A
high quality of work is expected from all and elicited through use of rubrics
with clear connections to standards and designed with student input. Parents are
aware of rubrics and occasionally become assessors along with peers, teachers,
and the students, themselves.
6. Multiple opportunities are provided for
learners to reflect on their processes and products. This includes linking to
prior knowledge, journals, and formative rubrics for revision
purposes.
7. A sense of community is fostered in an environment of
collaboration and teamwork, through cooperative learning and partnerships within
and beyond the classroom. Communication with administrators is on going and
includes invitations to visit the classroom.
8. Technology allows
students to independently research, invent, create, tabulate, and collaborate
inside of their school environment and with others outside of their environment.
Technology allows educators to efficiently record individual student results,
manage time more efficiently, access research, and collaborate with
colleague
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.
THE INSTITUTE for Learning Centered Education NEWSLETTER
TOPIC: SPECIFICITY and SUPPORT
Our
journey toward standards-based learning is slowed because we don’t demand
sufficient specificity and we don’t provide adequate
support.
SPECIFICITY:
State surveys in the 1980s showed
that more than 60 percent of the school districts already had shared
decision-making. A statewide survey today will show that most districts have a
good PDS a good AIS, etc.
Yet, if we viewed, in 1988, what some districts
were labeling “shared decision making,” and if we viewed, today, what most
districts want to convince us is a PDS or AIS, we would shake our heads and say
“: That’s not what I mean by shared decision making, PDS, or AIS.”
Why
does this happen? Because too often a survey simply asks a district to indicate
if it has a certain program, without demanding “evidence.”
As a parent, I
would not simply ask my child “Are you doing well in school,” and accept a
“yes,” as a final answer. I would ask about test scores, items discussed that
day, teacher perceptions, and a host of other questions that would provide
evidence of student success.
Recently I visited a district with an
outstanding five-year plan and a vision statement on the plan’s cover, which
calls for “Learner Centered Schools with strong academics.” This district has an
excellent superintendent who, as instructional leader, is working hard to
instill a focus on learner centered strategies in the staff. As I asked 25
teachers and administrators to share their definitions of “learner centered,” it
became apparent to the superintendent that, for ten years, the assumption that
everyone shared his definition of “learner centered,” had been
incorrect.
This is why we developed our “Descriptors of a Learner
Centered Classroom.” Terminology varies from individual to individual in all
situations. With education reform in its infancy, the likelihood that good
people will use the same terms, but with different meanings, is even greater.
Hence the need for “specificity” when discussing anything from shared decision
making to AIS, PDS, or learner centered teaching strategies.
This is why
we began our “Targeted Grant” approach toward creating learner centered
classrooms by asking the participants to define what their classrooms would be
like, the following June, if they were completely learner centered.
In
summary, there is a need for “specificity” in all of our work involving
education reform. If we don’t ask the right questions, it won’t matter what
answers we receive.
Next week, I’ll discuss the issue of providing
adequate “support” for reform initiatives.
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.
THE INSTITUTE for Learning Centered Education NEWSLETTER
Edition # 36 September 1 , 2000
TOPIC: SPECIFICITY and SUPPORT
Our
journey toward standards-based learning is slowed because we don¹t demand
sufficient specificity and we don’t provide adequate support. In the previous
issue, I addressed “Specificity.” Now let’s take a look at
support.
SUPPORT:
Recently, I was asked to put on a workshop for
someone supervising a multi-million dollar grant. Shortly prior to this
experience, I was in conversation with someone running a major organization who
was trying to initiate education reform. In each case, two things became readily
apparent:
1. Each person (and his/her organization) was well attuned to
what is needed in our schools and each is making meaningful contributions to
education reform.
2. Each is operating from the Johnny Appleseed notion
that if they spread enough seeds, something will grow. Their notion of staff
development is to bring in “name” presenters, let them do their thing, and then
wait for the results.
When I asked one of these people who he/she had, in
his own organization, to follow-through on the work I would do, the evasive
response indicated that no turn-keys existed. The hope was that I would come in,
do some magic, and apple trees (or learner centered classrooms) would soon
emerge.
It can’t and won’t happen this way. No matter how good the
out-of-area presenter, there must be local people, trained in the presenter’s
approach, to support the practitioners between visits of the out-of-town
presenters.
I loved and admired teacher center director Jane Ruff and I
recall a story she told in 1995. She had been invited, along with other teacher
center directors and BOCES staff developers, to a two-day session sponsored by
the state. The purpose was to spread shared decision making strategies.
According to Jane, “I listened for a full day and kept my mouth shut, as the
presenters told us how to generate shared decision making processes. Finally, I
could hold my tongue no longer and I said Oh, why are you reinventing the wheel?
Many of us have found effective ways to encourage schools to implement shared
decision-making. Why don’t you utilize strategies that have worked rather than
arming us with a set of strategies we tried five years ago?’”
According
to Jane, her comments notwithstanding, the two-day workshop continued as it had
begun, with others telling the participants how to spread shared
decision-making. What they should have done, Jane told me, “was to give us a day
of orientation explaining what they wanted to accomplish and then a day of
facilitation in which they should have asked us to devise the plan for spreading
shared decision making across the State.”
What is the message I wish to
convey by sharing this anecdote about Jane?
If we want effective PDS and AIS
and CDEPs, we can spend less time, at the state level, designing the strategies
for spreading these concepts. Instead, bring in competent people, help them to
understand the task, and then let them design the strategies for bringing every
school district up to snuff. Let’s take PDS as an example. Here’s a simple
formula for making sure that every district has a good PDS within a few
years:
1. Bring together talented staff developers (from BOCES, teacher
centers, and private providers).
2. Create an agenda of questions and
facilitate the participants into generating the answers. Here are some of the
questions to ask:
A. What else do you need to know about the state’s
goals for PDS in order to write a 5 year plan for helping every district to
design a PDS?
B. What would be a good rubric for a PDS?
C. What
would a five year plan look like for assuring that every district has a sound
PDS that meets the criteria on our rubric for a PDS?
D. What will be the
role of teacher centers, BOCES, and private consultants and organizations in the
implementation of this five year plan?
E. What would be the benchmarks
(ie. what would be the evidence we are on track with this five year plan after
the first year? after the second year? after the third year)?
F. How will
we know (ie. “evidence”) that we have achieved our benchmarks after the first
year? after the second year? after the third year?)
The key to the
success of this approach will lie in the degree of “specificity” required in the
plan and in the yearly assessments of whether the benchmarks are being
achieved?
Most plans are too general. A plan for ensuring that every
district has a good CDEP, AIS, or PDP within five years is dependent on calling
the right people together and asking them the right questions, and following up,
spontaneously, with questions, until they have designed a multi-year plan with a
sufficient degree of “specificity,” and with enough “support” built in so that
districts are capable of achieving the goals of the plan. BOCES, teacher
centers, and private providers are the logical “turnkeys” to provide the support
on a day-to-day basis that local districts and practitioners will require.
Let the implementers design the implementation plans. It is the best way to
ensure effective implementation.
Isn’t this the foundation concept for
shared decision making - if the implementers design the implementation plan
(and have ownership) the job will get done.
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.
_____________________________________________________________
THE INSTITUTE for Learning Centered Education NEWSLETTER
Edition # 37 September 4 , 2000
TOPIC: CONNECTING TEACHING PRACTICES TO OUR BELIEFS
If
we would only connect our practices to our beliefs.
If you are a teacher,
ask yourself whether you agree with the gist of the Learning Cone which
indicates we learn most that which we teach others, learn well that in which we
are actively engaged, and learn least that which we simply hear and/or
see.
If you agree that we learn best that which we teach others, ask
yourself how often, in the previous year, you have generated activities which
had students teaching others that which you wanted them to know?
If you
are a staff developer, ask yourself how often you model strategies which require
teachers to teach others that which you want them to know? And if you do this,
do you process out what you are doing and how you are doing it, and how it can
be transferred to the classroom as a teaching strategy?
Last Fall, Dick
Jones, then with the State Education Department, disseminated research which
indicated that for a teacher to incorporate a new strategy as part of his/her
repertoire requires “twenty to thirty trials under classroom
conditions.”
Are you paying attention staff developers? Are you paying
attention administrators - those of you responsible for drafting Professional
Development Plans (PDPs)?
Standards-based teaching requires that teachers
learn and implement new strategies. Is your professional development designed to
create opportunities for teachers to try out new strategies “twenty to thirty
times under classroom conditions?”
Think about this. How many times has
any of us seen professional development focused on affording teachers the
opportunity to try out new strategies (such as teaching to standards, or
cooperative learning) “twenty to thirty times under classroom
conditions?”
Providing such professional development opportunities is not
easy because there aren’t many models available and few of us have
experienced it. But if we are serious about being research based, and if we are
serious about bringing about education reform, then providing “twenty to thirty”
opportunities for teachers (and preservice teachers) to try out new strategies
should be the North Star that guides our professional development
planning.
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.
______________________________________________________
THE INSTITUTE for Learning Centered Education NEWSLETTER
Edition # 38 September 8 , 2000
TOPIC:
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.