Engaging classrooms "manage" themselves...

 I'm not too sure- do authentic, inspirational classrooms have to be 'managed?' When teachers use the term "classroom management," they generally mean managing behavior in the classroom. I've worked with the most challenging students imaginable from first grade through tenth grade and I have never understood this terminology.

The term management has many different connotations. From http://www.answers.com/, management is defined as:
n.

1.The act, manner, or practice of managing; handling, supervision, or control: management of a crisis; management of factory workers.
2.The person or persons who control or direct a business or other enterprise.
3.Skill in managing; executive ability.

There's a common theme in all three versions of the noun 'management' above. Each connotes an element of control... a word that also has an excessively broad spectrum of connotations. Of course teachers need to be in control, but what does that mean in a classroom context? To me, it's simple- teachers need to be in control of the learning process, and if they do this well, there will be no imminent need to manage student behavior at all because kids will feel so engaged in the process of learning that they won't have any idle time for their thoughts to wander.

Kids, no matter the age, need to feel engaged. They feel engaged in a classroom because the learning activities they are involved in capture their interest; they're fun and they don't feel like a chore to be endured. Teachers can create engaging classrooms in a multitude of ways, and I'm going to begin a new series of posts with this one dedicated to sharing those that have worked for me. They worked for me in classrooms that most teachers will never experience filled with kids who arrived there as the most disengaged students imaginable.

Before working as a middle school counsellor, and now as an elementary school vice-principal, I taught in First Nations communities and behavioral programs for fourteen years. My experiences weren't just career altering, they were life-changing. I wish to share some of my experience with you in the effort to initiate dialog surrounding engaging teaching. There should be no end to the professional conversation surrounding engagement in the learning process... the issue of engagement permeates everything teachers do. Engaging students is arguably our most important responsibility.

Rule of Engagement # 1: Talk to students.
This sounds so simple. Why then do so many teachers not understand this rule? My take is that we get so caught up in the scripted teaching we feel we're expected to deliver that we forget we're teaching young people; people with personalities... strengths, weaknesses, likes, dislikes, talents and challenges that may or may not jive with our scripted teaching usually designed inadequately to address the majority of faceless kids in class- the infamous cohort of kids who supposedly fit the mean. Here's a bit of news for us all- there is no average student in any class anywhere.

Every single child in every single classroom is unique, worth celebrating and needs us to talk to them sincerely and purposefully- not at them with our scripted teacher talk. When we do this we show kids we are serious about building a relationship with them as individuals; that we care and we want to help them be successful. We can't go wrong with this message.

Talk to kids about their strengths, their anxieties, their families, their lives away from school... and about the daily things that just happen. Forging on with the script knowing there are kids not really 'with' you, for whatever reason, is professionally irresponsible... we have to make sure every kid is engaged, and if not, we shouldn't be moving on without them, we should be talking to them about what's bothering them and hindering them from being present and mindful in class.

Talk to kids.

Assessment reform... are we going in circles?

I'm admittedly torn about the assessment thing... I'm left wondering whether opposition to perpetual reform of how teachers assess students is based more on a lack of understanding and poorly communicated strategy than fear or top-down direction to the contrary. Teachers need to find balance between high-quality current assessment practise, and action-oriented efforts to make future practise even better.

At the core of professional, responsible assessment is really strong and meaningful (real-time) communication (feedback) with students. Effective and solidly researched assessment practise (portfolio-based, two-way dialog between teacher and learner... group dialog has a place here as well- and perhaps even peer evaluation) is nothing new. Like many logical and pedagogically sound improvements to what teachers do, when we think we've discovered something new, some immediately and inevitably begin to resist out of ignorance. Seems to me the assessment issue is a black swan- we think we've discovered 'new' and better ways to assess students, and now we're busy aggressively trying to justify them and convince our colleagues that they need to follow our lead and implement the same assessment strategies because they are more effective than those that the "uninformed" utilize.

For decades, teachers have been doing assessment in relatively the same manner- summative, high stakes, 'bell-curved' tests have been the norm for a long time... and that's OK because these were what defined the limits of our understanding about how best to provide useful and positive feedback to students. Few would have predicted we would find better ways to evaluate students, (if the case were otherwise, it would have happened sooner...) but the reality is that today, we know more about how assessment works. Teachers don't have to justify pedagogically sound and responsible assessment, they just need to do it. Simply practising research-based, effective and meaningful assessment of students that surpasses previously-held understanding of what "works" is the best way to communicate best-practise with our colleagues...  morphic resonance will take care of the rest.

Teachers are professionally obliged to perpetually seek improved ways to do everything we do... including assessing students. Even more importantly, we are professionally responsible to share what we discover with others meaningfully, pragmatically and incrementally. The tipping point of assessment reform depends on how well we can display the effectiveness of new ways to evaluate students over time; and it will take time. It will also depend on our avoiding getting stuck in any "new" way of doing assessment. Like our limited perspective and conditioned acceptance regarding traditional forms of student assessment that have permeated our craft for decades, if we were to begin doing assessment differently, and then become resistant to critical analysis leading to even better ways, we'd right back where we started, wouldn't we?

I'm growing weary once again of the dichotomous perspective teachers appear to default toward on so many issues. There's the "old" way of doing something, and then there's the new (right) way according to the person making the claim. Instead of the old vs. new way of doing assessment, I think teachers should simply always be looking for the better way. To deny that this is a good, professional perspective would be ridiculous.

Change doesn't have to delineate right vs. wrong ways of doing things. When viewed as constant improvement, change never ends, and things never stop improving because getting it right simply becomes making it better... everyday. There are no meaningful static goals in the education assessment realm. To be truly striving for excellence, the bar must be continuously inched upward.

Pay attention to those who disagree with you...

flickr cc image via mwlguide

"The only things Mick and I disagree about is the band, the music and what we do." Kieth Richards

There are three types of people we all interact with on a daily basis: strangers, acquaintances and friends. We see them at work, at play and often just pass them by as we go about our business. There is a quantum nature to our interactions with others, and we never really know where they will take us as we navigate each day. There are some elements to the relationships we develop that need to be considered carefully if we are to avoid unproductive or perhaps even debilitating interactions with others. One rule of thumb I go by is to simply be aware that strangers dismiss, acquaintances agree and friends question. Please, let me explain...

Strangers are those whom we have no direct connection to. We may sit beside them on the transit, pass them by on the street or perhaps buy something from them, but we don't really communicate with them beyond the artificial surface-level "how are you doing" type of exchange. We interact, then we dismiss each other.

Acquaintances are those whom we have an ongoing connection to. They are our co-workers, friends-of-friends or those whom we see regularly because our daily goings on share a common element. We communicate more regularly with acquaintances, but it doesn't generally advance beyond small talk designed to pass the time without much thought of deeper meaning or more involved dialog. We interact, and just agree with each other... we don't want to think too much.

"Nine out of ten Americans believe that out of ten people, one person will always disagree with the other nine!"

Colin Mochrie

Friends are those whom we have a deeper connection to; they are the inner circle of our tribe. We may not communicate with them regularly, but we never lose our bond with each other. Something in our past has strengthened our relationship to the point where we consider each other as confidants; those willing to listen to us and support us. We interact in deeper more involved ways, and as a result there is occasional conflict involved... but this is good. This is what makes friends so much more valuable to us than acquaintances or strangers.

Friends are those who will call us out when we are on the wrong track. Friends are those who don't let us get away with anything- they hold us to a higher standard. The most important role of a friend is to disagree with us. Friends take the time to critically analyze us, and they can because they know us well. They take the time to scrutinize our actions, feelings and words because they care about us and they care what we do. Even if we become annoyed or upset with our friends as a result of their scrutiny, we must remember that they care and that makes them who they are- people who support us by grounding, balancing and questioning our actions feeling and words.

"The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know." Napoleon Bonaparte

Pay attention to those who disagree with you... these people are your friends and they see something in you that you may not see yourself- a person that can be better.

Too much social, not enough media...

OK, I've been thinking about the value of online collaboration lately. For the record, I really, really like #edchat. In fact I am fond of chiming in at a number of Twitter-based online collaborations... #ecosys, #ptchat, #gtchat and more. I appreciate the professional value of these online networks relative to sharing ideas and furthering the improvement of anything to do with teaching and learning... but, there is an issue.

I've been using Twitter to build my cyber-PLN (personal learning network) since late last November, and I'm beginning to notice that occasionally the conversation surrounding teaching and learning becomes imbalanced; too much social and not enough media in social media. Let me explain the context...

'Social' for the purpose of relaying my point of view here will mean, "of the group." 'Media' in kind, will mean, "a means of communication." It's my impression at times when involved in Twitter chats that some people participate more for the social element of it than the media element; primarily to be part of the group. Don't get me wrong; there's nothing inherently damaging about socializing, but when the social environment and the seemingly overwhelming need for some to preserve it, hinders open and honest dialog about the issues being addressed, this means the scales have tipped to create an imbalance between socializing and communicating professionally. I see an increasingly prevalent level of groupthink out there in Twitterland, and it's bothering me a bit. Like Professional Learning Communities (PLC's... we love our acronyms don't we...) my understanding is that the most prominent element of a PLN needs to be learning. If learning isn't happening as the major element of our professional social media interaction, then it's just socializing; again, not inherently bad, but also not productive with regard to becoming a better teacher and learner.

I don't go to professional chats to socialize per se... I go to learn- that's the essence of professional development; the reason I think we all participate via Twitter in the first place- to develop ourselves professionally. Its like those who call going out for a refreshment with coworkers on a Friday after work "team-building"- this is fun for most, and I would even submit that you may get to know your co-workers better as a result, but in the context of team-building, there is no benefit... the function of the team is not strengthened by this activity, hence it's not team-building. If I'm going to involve myself in professional conversation using Twitter (and the group chats that occur there) as my conduit, then I am professionally responsible to do this intellectually and with purpose beyond simply belonging to a group of like-minded people. I love the original version of "Twelve Angry Men"... Henry Fonda's character, Mr. Davis is the only juror in a capital murder case to cast a not-guilty vote for the accused, and he sticks to his guns despite the intense groupthink efforts of the rest of the jury to sway him... a remarkable film broaching human nature in such a visceral way- highly recommended. We all need to be reminded of the Mr. Davis' of the world, and when we're feeling the peer pressure of any group to conform at the expense of our core beliefs just so we can continue to belong in that group, we need to step back and remember our responsibility to be true to ourselves, even if that means disagreeing with the direction the group is pulling us in. We need to think independently first if we are to make a meaningful contribution to any group.

As professionals who use Twitter as a conduit for collaborative idea jamming, we must avoid groupthink. I don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with me... I prefer conversations where agreement is a distant possibility because its dissonance that stretches people's thoughts, not conformity. Through the process of hashing about our theses and antithesis toward that distant possibility called synthesis, we grow ideas; we formulate potential and truly evolve understanding. Many profess to appreciate having their ideas stretched until someone disagrees with them; then their true nature is revealed through defensive lashing out at the contradictory person. We have to get past this tendency to take things personally and strive for a default position that takes an objective point of view toward dissonance; one that posits conceptual growth... the evolution of ideas is impossible without contradiction. Blindly accepting the ideas of any group/cohort/ movement/etc... is a recipe for stagnating ideology... dead-end thinking.

Teachers, lets act objectively and responsibly toward the sharing of ideas and professional collaboration. We can't grow our status as leaders of thought otherwise... we have to be true intellectuals; people who invite contradiction as challenge leading to deeper and fuller understanding... aka knowledge.

Feel free to disagree with me;o)

You can teach an old dog new tricks...

Although I completely get that our children are growing up in a digital age that is vastly different and more advanced than any other widely accessible technology we have previously seen in society, I am growing weary of the whole "digital citizens/digital immigrants" continuum. Let me tell you why.

We recently bought new net-books for our children. My son is particularly interested in computers, and we are actively encouraging his interest. He is a very smart kid, but the traditional school environment isn't really working for him, so we're working on connecting him with different forms of digital interaction so as he grows perhaps he will migrate toward his aptitude for tech integrated learning. He's super excited about the new blog we're building together, the gaming he's getting involved in and different forms of social media software like Skype, Twitter etc.

This evening, one of the coolest things happened. I've been communicating with my grandfather for years now via Skype. Originally from Saskatchewan, he now lives in Ottawa. My grandfather is an electrician by trade, and worked for years with Saskatchewan Power Corporation, so he has some really strong mechanical understanding and worked with analog computers in his role as an operator with Sask. Power, but it wasn't until I sent him an old HP computer we had replaced about 9 years ago that he began tinkering with digital technology. That's also when we started communicating via Skype. When the kids were babies we used to hold them up in front of the web camera so my grandfather could see them and talk to them. They have grown up with this, and they love to visit with their grampa in this manner. Tonight was the first time my son spoke with his great grandfather on his brand new net-book, and he was thrilled... it was touching for his mom and I to see him get so excited about what he was doing. The happiness on his face as he spoke to his Grampa Woods using this tool that he has always known, but never manipulated personally was obvious.

So here's why I'm weary about the digital native/digital immigrant continuum. This evening I witnessed the joy of two people... a ninety-two year old man, and a seven year old boy... as they manipulated a tech tool to digitally connect with each other. My grandfather was born in 1918. Certainly that must place him in the digital immigrant cohort. Think about it... he has lived to see the evolution of the motor age, the age of flight and the video age. He told me once that when televisions became widely available and he got his first in the 1950's, he wondered if there would ever be a day when he would be able to talk with people on the telephone and see their face on some sort of TV-like screen. Well today he did just that, and on his computer screen were the happy faces of a couple of digital citizens- his great grandchildren.

How cool is that?