Hitting the Air Waves

I had the great fortune to participate in Lab Out Loud, NSTA's podcast for teachers and by teachers.  It was such a hoot talking with Dale and Brian having listened to them for the last couple of years on my commute to work. You can listen to the interview here are at the Lab Out Loud site.

Bee an Engineer Part 2: Develop a simple model that mimics the function of an animal in dispersing seeds or pollinating plants.

It is hard to believe sometimes that I get paid for this job.  This past Friday, I was allowed to jump in and play with the kids at one of our local elementary schools. The second grade students were getting ready to build their first hand pollinator as the culminating event to "Bee an Engineer".    It was such a blast to see the creative sparks flying.  The lesson is as near a perfect match, as I have ever seen, to a "standard" or in this case a performance expectation (See below).

 

That is all I will say.   Watch the video and enjoy.

To Boldly Go...

Please excuse the blatant Star Trek reference, but I could not help myself.   I had the opportunity to conduct observations of my STARLAB teachers this week.  STARLAB is our portable planetarium system.  We upgraded our system to the full digital version last year and in reality created our school system's first fully digital classroom.  There is very little that this system cannot do that a conventional "brick and motor" planetarium cannot do.  The one major difference is that ours does not come with the overly comfortable chairs.  We have carpet squares instead.  Not that the kids mind.  From preK-5, I have never observed students in the STARLAB where OOoooo's and Ahhhh's were not common.  It is simply one of the best examples of an immersive environment.  

As I sat and watched the lesson take place, my mind drifted to the NGSS.  What role with the STARLAB have in an NGSS based curriculum?  Traditional planetarium programs are mostly presenter/teacher centered.  The audience typically is a passive participant. Let's start by looking at the grade one "Space Systems" performance expectations.

Students who demonstrate understanding can:

1-ESS1-1.

Use observations of the sun, moon, and stars to describe patterns that can be predicted. [Clarification Statement: Examples of patterns could include that the sun and moon appear to rise in one part of the sky, move across the sky, and set; and stars other than our sun are visible at night but not during the day.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment of star patterns is limited to stars being seen at night and not during the day.]

1-ESS1-2.

Make observations at different times of year to relate the amount of daylight to the time of year. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on relative comparisons of the amount of daylight in the winter to the amount in the spring or fall.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment is limited to relative amounts of daylight, not quantifying the hours or time of daylight.]

How would these expectations be realized in a regular classroom?  On a literal interpretation, the implication is that these two performance expectations would take most of a school year to master.  Some of these patterns occur within one 24 hour cycle and some require an entire year to observe.  Enter the STARLAB.  One of the great benefits of the STARLAB is the ability to control time.  An entire year of patterns can be compressed into minutes or seconds.  Students can watch where the sun rises and sets throughout the year for our latitude (39 degrees North) or the cycle of the moon phases.  This becomes a real exercise in observation for students.  They would be able to watch the motion and make predictions about what the movement means and what implications it has for day length.   This is also a great math connection.  With the digital planetarium, a clock can be virtually mounted to the sky.   I feel very fortunate that our school district has these systems because I'm not sure how we would meet these performance expectations without them. 

We currently have two of these systems.  During the course of a school year, they are able to visit 1/3 of our schools (roughly 34+/-).  That means the STARLAB will visit a school every three years.  So now the conundrum.  If STARLAB is the best way to teach these performance expectations, then how do we insure every student has a chance to participate.  The second set of Space System performance expectations occurs at grade 5:

Students who demonstrate understanding can:

5-PS2-1.	Support an argument that the gravitational force exerted by Earth on objects is directed down. [Clarification Statement: “Down” is a local description of the direction that points toward the center of the spherical Earth.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not include mathematical representation of gravitational force.]
5-ESS1-1.	Support an argument that differences in the apparent brightness of the sun compared to other stars is due to their relative distances from the Earth. [Assessment Boundary: Assessment is limited to relative distances, not sizes, of stars. Assessment does not include other factors that affect apparent brightness (such as stellar masses, age, stage).]
5-ESS1-2.	Represent data in graphical displays to reveal patterns of daily changes in length and direction of shadows, day and night, and the seasonal appearance of some stars in the night sky. [Clarification Statement: Examples of patterns could include the position and motion of Earth with respect to the sun and selected stars that are visible only in particular months.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not include causes of seasons.]

Given the book ends of grade 1 and 5, our plan is teach have these units when the STARLAB is scheduled to come to a school.  Everyone in grades K-2 will teach the grade one unit.  Everyone in 3-5 will teach the grade 5 unit.  Obviously, there will need to be some significant modifications of language to meet the expectations for each grade level, but I am confident it can be done.  

My last dilemma is what Starfleet designation is most appropriate for STARLAB.  I am planning to paint the call letters on the side.  What do you think?  NCC-?????

    

Rough Estimates of Unit Lengths

Based on my last post, I figured out that I could estimate the length of each unit based on some assumptions:

• Unit opens with one day for preview/preassessment
• The second lesson requires students to develop a prototype/solution and reflect on preassessment data
• Each performance assessment needs at least three lessons in order for students to demonstrate mastery
• One lesson to understand the practice by having students apply it to prior knowledge
• One lesson to understand the DCI (content)
• One lesson to combine them together
• A lesson where students revise their prototype/solution as a culminating event

Using this logic, just for the purposes of estimating unit lengths, I can quickly deduce the range of teaching time based on a 30-60 minute per day structure.  

Grade-Unit	PEs	Lessons	Days
K-Forces	2	9	9-18
K-Relationship	4	15	15-30
K-Weather	4	15	15-30
TOTAL	10	39	39-78
1-Light	4	15	15-30
1-Function	3	12	12-24
1-Space	2	9	9-18
TOTAL	9	36	36-72
2-Structure	4	15	15-30
2-Interdependent	3	12	12-24
2-Earth	4	15	15-30
TOTAL	11	42	42-84
3-Forces	4	15	15-30
3-Ecosystems	4	15	15-30
3-Traits	4	15	15-30
3-Weather	3	12	12-24
TOTAL	15	57	57-114
4-Energy	5	18	18-36
4-Waves	2	9	9-18
4-Structure	3	12	12-24
4-Earth	4	15	15-30
TOTAL	14	54	54-108
5-Matter	4	15	15-30
5-Ecosystems	3	12	12-24
5-Earth	3	12	12-24
5-Space	3	12	12-24
TOTAL	13	51	51-102

Using Assessments To Improve Solutions

I just had two great days of professional development on assessment.  Yes, I said assessment.  Our instructor was Jan Chappuis.  The entire focus was how to use assessment in a formative way rather than just assigning a grade.  As a matter of fact, grading was discussed very little.  Jan's view is that formative assessments should not be graded but used by teachers and, more importantly, students to determine where they are in terms of mastery.  It means establishing clear learning targets and providing time for students to reflect on assessment results.  A really good explanation of these ideas can be found in an article from the November 2005 issue of "School Leadership" (link).

So what does this mean for my curriculum.  The diagram below illustrates a rudimentary outline of a unit (click to enlarge).  

  
The first lesson introduces the unit problem.  This previews unit concepts prior to the students taking a pre-assessment.  The idea is to give students a diagnostic way to see what they need to learn in order to create a solution to the problem.  The lesson concludes with students imagining solutions for the next day.

Theoretically, the teacher will receive the pre-assessment information from the assessment system in order to create student work teams.  During the second lesson, these teams share their ideas, create a plan based on these ideas.  The team then builds an its initial solution.    This may take several forms depending on the performance expectations.  As described in the previous post (2017: Innovation Block) that may take the form of an engineering design solution such as a car.

The one thing I really like about building the prototype up front is its immediate capacity for differentiation.  Students that are really good at designing a solution have a much harder road ahead of them in order to improve on their original designs.  The lowest performing students can then have tremendous growth.

 Once the teams develop their first solution, they will get to evaluate it in light of their pre-assessment information.  This reflection on the pre-assessment is really important as it sets up Lessons 3 to (X).  The "X" is an unknown variable depending on the number of lessons in the unit.  Each lesson should be designed to answer the question "How will this help me improve my solution?"  At the end, teams revise their solutions and test a second time.  This constitutes their summative assessment.

A word about the engineering design process.  I'm sure many of you have seen the many variations of the engineering design process which usually take the form of cycle.  I agree that this process can be cyclic, but in the real world a solution is eventually marketed.  I have created a hybrid of several versions (below).

You will note the spur that says "Final Design". Yes, solutions can always be improved, but if that was the case, no technology would ever be sold.  What changed my mind about this was a video I watched several years ago about IDEO and the process they used while redesigning a shopping cart.  They tested several designs but in the end made one final version.  

A Decision on Device

Earlier this week our system made a decision about the device it would use for our 1-to-1 initiative.  Drum roll please. We are going with the HP Elitebook 810 D shown below.  The swivel screen allows for a dual roll as both laptop and tablet.  It does come with a pen for more precise writing on the screen, but does not come with a place to store the pen.  Two of the elementary schools I work with recently purchased 3D printers.  I challenged them to design a pen holder that can attach to the computer.  I give them a month to come up with a design.

Besides that little problem, I am optimistic about this little machine.  The Gorilla glass screen and aluminum case with a "spill proof" keyboard reduce my fear of deceleration trauma befalling the computer.   

Now, while you think this was the hard part, I would say deciding on a device is actually the easy part.  The hard part starts in June when we really need to consider how we can leverage this device to change how we do business.  See my previous post on the Innovation Block.  

My next post will focus on the structure of the curriculum we will use to create a personalized learning experience for students.  I have a few variables to workout before it is ready for prime time, but it is close. 

2017: Innovation Block (Formerly Known As Science)

About a month ago I made the mistake of reading Sugata Mitra's book (see previous post) and Dr. Tony Wagner"s book on Innovation at the same time.  A person cannot read that many radical ideas at once without being changed.  This mental shift occurs at the same time I am forming my image of what elementary science would look like by the 2017-2018 school year.  To help bring that image to life, I decided to write a narrative account of it.

2017:  Innovation Block

(Formerly Known as Science)

Paige and her project group barely had time to finish eating lunch.  They could not stop talking about how they would  solve the problem with their electromagnetic release system.  Earlier in the week, Ms. Johnson introduced the Automotive Engineering unit like the other units by giving students the problem statement.  This included the project constraints and Gantt chart (project timeline).  Students were allowed to pick the initial work team knowing that they would be reorganized after the first build.  

The class took the first lesson to design the car and take the pre-test.  These never felt like tests to Paige.  The questions were worded to align with the goals of the project.  The questions helped Paige to focus on what was needed to improve the car design.  Yesterday, Paige and her team built a car based on their designs.   Half way down the ramp, the back wheel fell off Paige’s car.  The car swerved awkwardly as it came off the ramp; the back axle dragged on the ground.  It was a rough start, but better than some of the designs students made.   During the weather unit, the hurricane barrier Paige’s team made did not stand up to a Category I storm the first time.  By the end, it survived to a Category IV. 

That’s what Paige really liked about her innovation block.  There was always time to improve on her original design.  She learned that this was even how real engineers worked last year when she was able to Skype with a Materials Engineer from BD Diagnostics.   After their first build, Paige used her laptop to submit a video recording of what went wrong with the car and some ideas on what needed to change.  She was really looking forward to seeing how far and fast the car would go. 

During next class, Ms. Johnson organized the groups based on how students did on the pre-tests.  Paige was always a little nervous when this happened.  Each time groups were formed; there were always one or two people with whom she had not worked before.     It always seemed to work for her because everyone in the group had about the same level of knowledge as she did.  She had some background knowledge on science from what she saw on TV and what she learned in Kindergarten through Second grade.  She remembered some of the ideas she was taught in Kindergarten about how heavier objects rolled farther than light objects.  This project felt like an elaboration on those ideas.

Today, Paige’s team was trying to work out how the electromagnetic release system worked.  This was an important part of the project.  If the car did not release correctly, the time would not be very accurate.  They were doing a lot of math in this project.  They had to calculate the speed of the car even though they were going to use a photogate.  Estevan asked “Why do we have to do the calculations if the photogate will do it for us?”  Ms. Johnson responded by asking “How do you know it is accurate?”  It was sometimes hard for Paige to know when she was doing science or math during the innovation block.

One of the constraints the teams had to work under was that they had to understand how the electromagnetic release system worked on their car.  Paige’s team decided one big paperclip would be enough to hold the car in place, but they found out the magnetic would not hold the car at the top of the ramp. They needed to come up with a better solution.   To start the lesson, the team recorded their initial claim about how the electromagnet worked in their interactive notebooks.  Paige thought best using pictures and drew a diagram showing a magnet plugged into the wall.  She was not sure how the electromagnet worked.

The team turned on their laptops and logged into BCPS One.  They found the content for the magnetic forces and read the introduction.  There were several options for this lesson.  There was a great BrainPop video that talked about magnets.  Paige liked these but decided to start with the Discovery Learning simulation.  She needed to manipulate the strength of the magnet.  Ms. Johnson stopped by and asked the group how much they accomplished on today’s lesson. She used her laptop to record everyone’s progress and moved to the next group.   After viewing the video, the team decided that they needed to do the hands-on portion of the lesson. 

Paige always liked the “Experiment” objects in BCPS One. The Office of Science produced short videos that introduced the lab and provided a list of materials.  When they were ready, Ms. Johnson would give them the materials they needed.  In this case it was just a battery, wire, nail and some paper clips.  The team built an electromagnet by wrapping the wire around the nail and touching the wire to the battery terminals.  She was amazed when the paperclips were attracted to the nail.  She recorded her findings in her interactive notebook.   She liked looking back through her notebook to see how much she has grown from the start of the year. 

Ms. Johnson told them it was time to complete their work for the day.  Paige’s group completed their experiment and responded to the wrap up question in their interactive notebook.  Paige snapped picture of her introductory question and wrap up question for her e-portfolio.  Ms. Johnson would look over her responses and give her feedback. Paige was anxious to tackle her wheel problem tomorrow.  It was not going to fall off next time!  

But What Does "All" Mean

I tend to approach curriculum writing like any project by laying out the constraints.  As I started pondering all the constraints before me,  I have to admit I was more than a little overwhelmed (See below).  When we use the word differentiation in education, it typically means ability considerations.  How do you meet the needs of a student with the dyslexia at the same time meeting the needs of a student capable of reading four grade levels above the norm in the same classroom?  That is a very real dilemma for most elementary classroom teachers. And before you say it, there is no such thing as homogeneous grouping.  The closest we get to homogeneous grouping is by age.  Other than that, every child is different-period.

Another view of differentiation stipulates looking how students learn.  This leads a discussion of learning styles.  So lets consider just these two examples.  Think of it like a grid (below).  When I plan a lesson, I would need to consider how to meet the needs of a student with dyslexia that learns best by moving.  Now imagine doing that with a class of thirty students.

Now just to make things interesting, lets think about making the curriculum culturally relevant.  That gives us X,Y, and Z coordinates to consider.  How do I meet the needs of a student reading four grade levels above her peers, that learns best visually, and is from a culture outside of the community norm. Start compounding this with thirty students and you get an idea of the task before me and classroom teachers. 

In previous curriculum projects, we spent much time and effort building differentiation suggestions into our curriculum.  However, we do not know if they are effective at meeting students needs or even used by teachers.

  

Recently, differentiation has been re-branded .  Enter the age of "Universal Design  for Learning".   The premise for this model of curriculum is that rather than waiting until the teacher has to make the differentiation (think of it like bolting on a modification), the curriculum is written in a way that is accessible to ALL students.  I agree with the idea, but have trouble seeing it in the real world.   

Perhaps the best example of this is found in the discussions surrounding personalized learning environments.   As a classroom teacher faced with an ever growing stack of IEPs (Individual Education Plans), I speculated that in the future everyone would have an IEP.  Personalized Learning seems to be moving in that direction...Sort of. 

The great difference between an IEP and Personalized Learning is control.  IEPs are developed and moderated by a group of people on behalf of the student.  They take tremendous amounts of time and resources to develop and monitor.  In the end, the student is escorted through their educational experience.  Any difficulties that lie before them are removed.   In many cases, these students then graduate from high school not sure how to learn on their own without that escort.  Personalized learning changes this premise.  One of the goals of personalized learning is to teach the students to think about how they learn and to select the "learning objects" best suited to how them.  This requires access to a computer and an Internet connection.  For glimpse at an extreme example of  this type of classroom I would look the work of Sugata Mitra.  

So the question for today,  how are you meeting the needs of all students?